ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags mormonism

Reply
Old 7th November 2013, 10:07 AM   #81
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.
1. I wonder if you have any concept of how far from your claim that "it's about the children" you have strayed.

2. I wonder if you have any intention of providing evidence of your claim that, if "they" have "unnatural sex" "long enough" "serious medical problems" "may develop"?

3. I wonder if you have any idea of how inherently circular your argument is:

Q) what is "unnatural sex"?
A) Sex that causes serious medical problems, if practiced long enough.

Q) How long is "long enough"?
A) Long enough for serious medical problems to develop.

Q) To what "serioous medical problems" are you referring?
A) The effects of "practicing unnatural sex" "long enough"...

4. Not to mention: from long, arduous, enthusiastic, dedicated research, I can assure you that if it hurts, you're doing it wrong. If it is injuring you, you're doing it wrong.

5. "MAY" develop? Will your sect also be spending beaucoup untaxed dollars attempting to deny the rights of marriage to the pregnant (and those who may become pregnant, the overweight (and those who may become overweight, the elderly (and those who may become elderly); not to mention practicioners of a high-meat/high fat/low fiber diet, or CrossFit afficionados, or smokers, or winebiblers, or shydivers, or motorcuycle riders, or urban bicyclists...where does your misplaced concern for what may become a problem stop?

6. Like atheists, gay people (even limiting the discussion to gay men ) are not a homogeneous group. To quote the immortal Mary Callahan, "I can see fingers and a tongue from here...what else do I need?" Is is "unnatural sex" just because you disapprove of the gender mix of the participants?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?
Is "marriage", under the law, a right? Are unfounded limitations upon the right to marry unconstitutional? Is discrimination against persons of arbitrary categories legal?

There is no reason to deny the rights, privileges, and protections of civil marriage to couples of which you disapprove. You have yet to demonstrate your premise, that "gay marriage" is "bad for the children".

I really, really hope that you attempt to justify why you think worrying about the possibility of health problems that may happen is "all about the children".

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.
Which one of the articles you presented without reading do you feel has not been adequately addressed? Seriously: are you reading the responses to your posts with any more care than you are reading the articles you are posting?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 10:17 AM   #82
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hea...8/METHOD=print

Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/hea...ual-lifestyle/

A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-r...exuals/0006527

Being in denial and calling me names won't change the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.
Sounds like a lot of those problems could be cleared up in gays same as straights, by encouraging people to make a life-long commitment to one partner and by giving them societal support rather than condemning them, so as to decrease their stress and increase their self esteem.

You've made a pretty good argument for gay marriage with those links.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 10:27 AM   #83
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hea...8/METHOD=print
Can you show me anywhere in that link that shows the doctor recommending against being gay?
Or recommending against having anal sex?
Or suggesting a man french kissing/hugging/holding hands/loving a man is hazardous?

Doesn't the article advocate for a monagamous relationship with loving couples?
Doesn't permitting gay marriage result in a healthy lifetyle? Why are you not advocating for gay marriage if your concern is safety?


Also, if you are going to raise the specter of STDs/HIV and homosexuality, what do you have to say about this bit of info from the CDC?
Quote:
To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005). However, case reports of female-to-female transmission of HIV and the well-documented risk of female-to-male transmission [1] indicate that vaginal secretions and menstrual blood are potentially infectious and that mucous membrane (for example, oral, vaginal) exposure to these secretions has the potential to lead to HIV infection
Importantly, women are at greater risk of contracting HIV from heterosexual sex than from homosexual sex. Further, Giving birth is a health risk for Vaginal prolapse.

If you are going to use health risks as a argument against gay marriage, shouldn't you also argue against heterosexual marriage for women?



Once again, you are only using arguments to support your own prejudice. You are not looking at the data from a truly unbiased view. Start with the neutral position that there is no difference and THEN interpret the data.

For example, assume that being gay or straight is equal to being attracted blondes or brunettes. Once you take this position, you will see what is completely obvious to everyone here.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 11:58 AM   #84
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-...ljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...
And why is this a problem?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 12:34 PM   #85
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,112
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-...ljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...
Speaking of tips, I'd like to hear your and skyrider44's response to this article about how most sane people react with horror to the story of Nephi brutally murdering and decapitating Laban at God's request:

Mormon Missionary Tells Us Why We Should Cut Off the Whole Head

What do you think of the Mormon Missionary's response when asked why God ordered Laban decapitated instead of, say, incapacitated or his throat slit?

Quote:
Now, Sister Fletcher and I have a saying when we are trying to do the things the Lord asks us to do: “Am I slitting the throat, or cutting off the head?”
As for the World Net Daily article you quoted, I thought you avoided sources that were explicitly and vocally anti-Mormon. The WND softened their stance on Mormons a bit when Romney was the GOP Presidential nominee, but this article is more typical of their caustic attitude towards your faith: Christians the problem, not Mormons. Please, read the whole article, not just the title and first paragraph. There's a discussion of the WND on the Mormon LDS Freedom Forum titled World Net Daily is Anti-Mormon.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 12:43 PM   #86
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle?
What do medical experts say are the medical risks of pregnancy? What do medical experts say are the medical risks of pregnancy? What does any of this have to do with anything?
  1. Gays and lesbians are going to have children.
  2. Gays and lesbians families would be better of in committed relationships and enjoying the benefits of marriage.
Gay marriage won't change any dynamic. Gay marriage won't reduce the number of gay families or children raised by gays and lesbians.

Even if your premise had merit, and it's rather shaky, it changes absolutely nothing.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 01:58 PM   #87
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-...ljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...
Wait.

World News Daily?

I thought you were opposed to material from "anti-mormon" sites...

As to thereport you quoted, did you even read it? It sounds like the source for your littel fib about the "gaoled" minister. ENDA certainly would be the end of civilization as we know it...despite the WND's mirrepresentation, the 113th Legislature's proposed ENDA applies to private, civilian, non-religious employers of more than 15 people...who frankly, ought not to be able to institutionalize the practice of any kind of discriminatory bigotry WHD's accustations of the things LGTB "could not be prevented from doing", and your uncritical acceptance of that, only demonstrate that neither of you know any actual LGTB individuals (you, in fact, as I recall, deny they exist). Any person behavijng lewdly, or improperly, in any public lavatory, not matter the gender of the facility or the gender of the person, is subject to the law.

Once again, you are willing to distort the truth in favor of your sensationalist agenda. WIth the WND, no less.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 02:14 PM   #88
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hea...8/METHOD=print
Once again, do you think that we aren't going to read the sources ourselves?

Let's look at what the Mayo Clinic has to say, in greater detail than you have presented.

Quote:
Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections
This whole section applies to men who have sex with women as well. At no point does the Mayo Clinic suggest that this is "a special vulnerability for gay men". And lets look at one of those bullet points:
Quote:
Be monogamous. Another reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted infections is to stay in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who isn't infected.
Seems like same-sex marriage would be a great way to promote that, don't you think?

Quote:
Tackle depression

Gay men and men who have sex with men might be at higher risk of depression and anxiety. In addition, youth who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender might have a higher risk of depression and attempted suicide. Contributing factors could include social alienation, discrimination, rejection by loved ones, abuse and violence. The problem might be more severe for men who try to hide their sexual orientation and those who lack social support.
Why did you leave out something as significant as your source's own explanation as to why homosexuals face a greater risk of depression? It's clear that they aren't saying that being gay is itself a cause of depression, but rather the hate and bigotry that homosexuals are exposed to.

Quote:
Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/hea...ual-lifestyle/
Here you go with another anti-gay source.

Quote:
A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-r...exuals/0006527
You still don't seem to have realized that I'm actually going to read the sources that you cite. The first two paragraphs read, in full:
Quote:
Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.
Why did you omit the part in red? Again, we see suggested that the sorts of mental health problems that are more prevalent within the homosexual population are not of internal origin, but rather caused by the appalling way that they are treated other people. Your omission of Dr. Chakraborty's statement is blatantly dishonest. It is more evidence that you are not following the evidence where it may lead, but rather attempting to make evidence that leads where you want to go.

Quote:
Being in denial and calling me names won't change the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.
First, in denial of what? You haven't presented any actual science that hasn't been shown to be misrepresented by biased agencies.

Second, if you can show where I've called you names then please feel free to report said posts to the moderation team.

Third, there isn't one "homosexual lifestyle", any more than there is one heterosexual lifestyle. What does the behavior of sexually promiscuous individuals of either gender or sexual orientation have to do with the desire of other individuals to attain equal rights regarding their committed, monogamous relationships?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 04:14 PM   #89
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
You've made a pretty good argument for gay marriage with those links.
You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 05:22 PM   #90
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
What I would also like to know is where the idea comes from that marriage is an institution that was implemented to create a stable environment for children?

Most cultures for the longest time raised children communally. Marriage had nothing to do with that and everything to do with property....
Where did this idea come from?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 05:24 PM   #91
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.
False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/...nts-suggest...


Quote:
Yet, in your wanton attempt at finding any potentially credible source that supports your anti gay view. . . .
Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 05:59 PM   #92
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
1. I wonder if you have any concept of how far from your claim that "it's about the children" you have strayed.
I wonder if you have noticed that comments by my critics have taken the discussion down disparate paths, some of which you "own."

Quote:
2. I wonder if you have any intention of providing evidence of your claim that, if "they" have "unnatural sex" "long enough" "serious medical problems" "may develop"?
I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.

Quote:
3. I wonder if you have any idea of how inherently circular your argument is:

Q) what is "unnatural sex"?
A) Sex that causes serious medical problems, if practiced long enough.

Q) How long is "long enough"?
A) Long enough for serious medical problems to develop.

Q) To what "serioous medical problems" are you referring?
A) The effects of "practicing unnatural sex" "long enough"...
Avail yourself of Madsen Pirie's excellent book, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic.

Quote:
: 4. Not to mention: from long, arduous, enthusiastic, dedicated research, I can assure you that if it hurts, you're doing it wrong. If it is injuring you, you're doing it wrong.
I'll take your word about that.

Quote:
5. "MAY" develop? Will your sect also be spending beaucoup untaxed dollars attempting to deny the rights of marriage to the pregnant (and those who may become pregnant, the overweight (and those who may become overweight, the elderly (and those who may become elderly); not to mention practicioners of a high-meat/high fat/low fiber diet, or CrossFit afficionados, or smokers, or winebiblers, or shydivers, or motorcuycle riders, or urban bicyclists...where does your misplaced concern for what may become a problem stop?
Sorry, but you run off the rails here.

Quote:
6. Like atheists, gay people (even limiting the discussion to gay men ) are not a homogeneous group. To quote the immortal Mary Callahan, "I can see fingers and a tongue from here...what else do I need?" Is is "unnatural sex" just because you disapprove of the gender mix of the participants?
No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.

Quote:
Is "marriage", under the law, a right? Are unfounded limitations upon the right to marry unconstitutional? Is discrimination against persons of arbitrary categories legal?
Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

Quote:
There is no reason to deny the rights, privileges, and protections of civil marriage to couples of which you disapprove. You have yet to demonstrate your premise, that "gay marriage" is "bad for the children".
You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.

Quote:
I really, really hope that you attempt to justify why you think worrying about the possibility of health problems that may happen is "all about the children".
I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.

Quote:
Which one of the articles you presented without reading do you feel has not been adequately addressed? Seriously: are you reading the responses to your posts with any more care than you are reading the articles you are posting?
Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 06:27 PM   #93
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,295
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Please find in my post the terms "voting bloc" or "voting bloc of same-voting people."
A quantity of people who vote the same way because they share some value that influences their vote is a voting bloc. This is what a group of people who vote the same way for a common reason is. This is true even if they are right, if the reasons they use are the best, even if other people vote the same way for other reasons, and even if others who appear to share the same values find other more compelling reasons to vote otherwise. You do not have to use the term explicitly for it to apply reasonably as a synonym, and denying the term because you did not use it explicitly does not somehow, magically, make all argument irrelevant.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 06:50 PM   #94
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,295
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.

Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?

Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.
Apologies to the moderators for not bundling my replies. I posted my previous one before reading the rest of the thread.

My response to this is mainly to the first paragraph, but to avoid any suspicion that I am making a complete post less complete by snipping I will leave it complete.

The quoted statement comes from someone who claims not to be "anti-gay." The words "not anatomically fit," and "unnatural" are, it is true, not the same as the words "anti-gay." If anyone making the above statements believes they are not anti-gay in tone if not in content, then he is both tone deaf and content deaf. Words have connotations as well as denotations, and unless you suffer from some affliction that prevents you from using words in the conventional way, you must expect people to read them in the conventional way. The word "unnatural," when applied to homosexual behavior, is pejorative. It is not anything but pejorative. If you do not mean it to be pejorative, you should not use it.

And, I will hasten to point out, not for the first time, that approximately half of the population, both straight and gay, and approximately half of the persons for whom gay marriage is an issue are NOT MEN! In fact, they're not even close! An argument that omits approximately half of the population, and mentions unspecified practices that some men may practice on other men, though they might not, and that may eventually cause problems, though they may not, and that (guessing the practices in question) are not forbidden to heterosexuals (Reread Lady Chatterley if you doubt this) falls way way way short of a convincing argument about the subject at hand.

Of course, gay marriage, under the law, is not a right. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE WANT TO CHANGE THE DAMNED LAWS!
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 07:00 PM   #95
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.
...and you'll be providing those sources you you claim show this, yes? Will they be sources you have actually read, or will you be performing research-by-title some more?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 07:22 PM   #96
Cat Tale
Thinker
 
Cat Tale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/hea...ual-lifestyle/
I know that I should probably stay out of this, but... it would seem to me that if two people were committed to each other via marriage it would keep them healthier and less apt to contract an STD. The risk would seem to be the same as a "traditional married couple." Exposure to disease comes from fooling around, not being committed.

Is a child better off remaining in an orphanage and growing up being passed around from foster home to foster home? Or being adopted by a happy, healthy, financially sound, loving gay couple? I can imagine what those 7 (was it?) children on the Today show must have felt to be adopted into the same home, and have a stay at home parent.

I may differ from the Church on this matter, I don't know what the Church's actual stance is on adoption by gay couples, but if I differ, so be it.
Cat Tale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 07:39 PM   #97
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/...nts-suggest...
I have already shown the problem with the statistics in that paper. In particular, the fact they use simply t-tests with multiple comparisons as a first screen. This is a great way to create many false positives. It is why people in bioinformatics will often use corrections to avoid this type of error (for example, a bonferoni correction).
This is based upon the fact that I have actually read the regenerus paper. You still haven't read the original paper and only cite biased sources.



Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.
This is not supported by your evidence.
If you were not anti-gay, than you would advocate for gay marriage as it would clearly be a health benefit for the couples AND their children.
If you were not anti-gay, then you would not rely soley on biased/bigoted sources to find anti-gay propaganda and completely avoid reading the actual research sources.
If you were not anti-gay, you wouldn't selectively use arguments to argue against gay marriage that could equally (and even more appropriately) be applied to other groups (E.g., poor)

Perhaps you believe you aren't anti-gay. I would not be surprised by this. In the 50s, people who supported segregation often didn't believe they were racist. They simply thought that blacks were better off having their own "separate but equal" resources.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 07:48 PM   #98
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.
you have yet to actually read this literature and are therefore unqualified to make this claim.


Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'll take your word about that.
Are you uncomfortable knowing that you are speaking to someone who has participated in anal sex with a man? Does that image disgust you, or titillate you?


Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.
your argument would also mean that child birth is unnatural. I mean, given the countless complications that are a part of pregnancy and birth.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."
nope.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.
that study doesn't show that at all.
If you believe it does, please quote it directly.


Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.
Please, tell me more about this. What do you think homosexuals should do?



Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.[/quote]
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 07:49 PM   #99
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.
Please point us to these studies.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 08:07 PM   #100
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
A quantity of people who vote the same way because they share some value that influences their vote is a voting bloc. This is what a group of people who vote the same way for a common reason is. This is true even if they are right, if the reasons they use are the best, even if other people vote the same way for other reasons, and even if others who appear to share the same values find other more compelling reasons to vote otherwise. You do not have to use the term explicitly for it to apply reasonably as a synonym, and denying the term because you did not use it explicitly does not somehow, magically, make all argument irrelevant.
You make a valid point; however, in argumentation, a debater can call out his/her opponent for using emotionally loaded terms. Furthermore, I noted that you don't know that all the Mormons who voted supported Prop 8. Technically, to describe the Mormons who voted as a "bloc," 100% of them would have had to vote for Prop 8.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 08:24 PM   #101
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I wonder if you have noticed that comments by my critics have taken the discussion down disparate paths, some of which you "own."
1. It was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect. You could look it up.

2. Your "critics" cannot obscure the fact that it was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect.

3. Perhaps you could clarify, or explicate, what you think you meant by your statement that I "own" some of the "disparate paths" down which your "critics" have taken the discussion. That is, if your intent was communication...

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.
Have you read more than just the titles and cherry-picked sensationalist excerpts of this literature? Have you considered the sources of your information about this literature?

Have you considered the paternalistic nature of your offer to protect homosexuals form something that may happen? (While neglecting to offer similar "help" to other groups equally, or even more, at risk?)

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Avail yourself of Madsen Pirie's excellent book, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic.
Thank you for the fine, functioning link to the source you recommend.
Oh. As usual, it wasn't a link.

Pirie's book is, of course, about "winning arguments" rather than about presenting the truth of an issue. Which, now that you mention it, explains (among other things) your use of sources...

At any rate,I would rather continue to argue ethically than to stoop to such tricks as depending upon an inherently circular argument, then pretending that the inescapable circularity was not obvious.

Perhaps you even recognize the allusion to the classic example of a circular argument:

"If you pray hard enough,water will run uphill"
"How hard do you have to pray?"
"Hard enough that the water runs uphill..."

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'll take your word about that.
Perhaps you ought--your ignorance is leading you to depend upon the screeds of deceitful bigots. Did you read Foster Zygote's analyses of your sources, with the parts you left out restored?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Sorry, but you run off the rails here.
I'll break it down for you.

1. You said that the "moral issue" with marriage equality was "thegood of the children".

2. You sidetracked the issue with sources you claimed showed how inherently unhealthy the"gay lifestyle"might be.

3. I listed some other factors that are just as "unhealthy", just as "dangerous", and wondered why your sect is not opposed to them, instead of being so focused upon homosexuals.

4. Do try to keep up.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.
Then you would not object to a society where homosexuals had the opportunity to legally marry, encouraging monogamous, lifelong commitments, mitigating, even eliminating, the "complications"? And you intend to dedicate your sect to opposing remarriage after divorce,which increases the participants' exposures to more partners, putting them at risk for "complications"?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."
May I point out that YOU are the one using the term "gay marriage"? I am, and have been, and will continue to be, using the term "marriage equality", which you dismissed as a euphemism without even realizing that my agenda is broader than same-gender unions.

Not only that, 15 states, and the District of Columbia, disagree with you--and no longer deny the benefits and protections of civil marriage to couples of the same gender.

Nor has civilization-as-we-know-it been sundered thereby.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.
...and see the severalresponses to your "response"...

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.
Which is why I asked you about the pregnant, the overweight, the meat-eating, skydivers, motorcyclists, urban cyclists, and their ilk. Your "concern is suspiciously narrow.

I don't need to mock you to point that out.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.
Multiple posters have pointed out to you that sources you claim support your argument do not, in fact, do so. it is almost as if you are cherry-picking titles and biased reviews without actually reading the sources.

Perhaps the esteemed Mr. Pirie can help you with the concept of a "false premise"...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 08:40 PM   #102
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
[quote=skyrider44;9609819]False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/...nts-suggest...
You mean that study that was just another conservative anti-gay propaganda piece?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2850302.html

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...renting-study/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...ing-study.html
Quote:
The study, of fifteen thousand adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-nine, turned on this question:

S7. From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman
Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man
No
A yes—even a single “romantic relationship”—put the person in the category of child of gay or lesbian parent, and excluded them from the category of intact biological families, regardless of their actual living situations.
That's incredibly bad methodology, designed to manufacture a result that would benefit the anti-gay marriage social conservatives who funded the study.


Quote:
Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.
In that case, you should probably stop citing so many anti-gay sources.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 08:53 PM   #103
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Can you show me anywhere in that link that shows the doctor recommending against being gay?
Or recommending against having anal sex?
There are multiple sites, some authored by physicians, that warn of the risks and dangers associated with anal sex. Here are excerpts from just one of them from an article by Dr. David Delvin:

"Anal sex has always been a highly controversial subject, and the controversy that surrounds it looks set to continue into 2012 because evidence accumulates that this practice may sometimes lead to anal cancer" [emphasis added].

"Anal sex does carry considerable health risks, so please read our advice carefully."

To avoid simply parroting what Dr. Delvin says, I will paraphrase the balance of his comments.

Anal intercourse presents evidence that it has a higher transmission rate than virtually any other sexual activity.

Main health risks: 1) Human papilloma virus (HPV). 2) Human papilloma virus and warts. 3) HPV and cancer. Certain strains of HPV virus have cancer-producing potential. 4) Hepatitis A. This is a viral infection. It isn't life-threatening but can cause jaundice and stomach pain. 5) Hepatitis C. This causes progressive and sometimes terminal liver disease. 6) Escherichia coli (E. coli). This can result in severe illness, but is rarely fatal.

Muscle relaxant drugs (amyl nitrate, butyl nitrate, glyceryl trinitrate) are used by some people to make anal sex easier and more comfortable. "We do not recommend this." [Dr. Delvin explains the risks, including dizziness, low blood pressure, and loss of consciousness. "Amyl nitrate, when taken with Viagra, may cause a drastic drop in blood pressure with potentially fatal consequences."

Dr. Delvin notes that anal sex, if practiced with care, is possible for most couples, but he adds: "[Anal sex] does carry health risks and there are safer sexual practices that couples can enjoy."
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrel...ps/analsex.htm
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2013, 09:44 PM   #104
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.
But you self evidently are. You are attempting to defend the bigoted view that gay marriage is in some way abhorrent. For some reason which you are unable to articulate.

Personally, I am pretty much as straight as it gets, but for the life of me I cannot see what it is that scares you so much. Doesn't bother me at all. Dude over there is gay? Good luck to him. Chick over there is a lesbian? Good luck to her. And if either can form a long term relationship, more power to them. And should they desire to formalise that relationship, why should that be excluded by law?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 04:34 AM   #105
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,321
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman.

No, it isn't. It's defined that way by you. It's defined that way by many US states. But it's not defined that way in New York, New Jersey, Vermont, California, the District of Columbia, the United States of America (federal), Canada, and a growing number of places which will soon include Illinois


Quote:
There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

Thousands of homosexuals are married to each other all over the US - and more each day. How can you possibly defend such a statement?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:27 AM   #106
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.
Are those studies in countries and cultures that encourage homosexuals to marry?

If there's a "problem" with promiscuity among homosexuals, seems like the obvious way to attack it would be the same way the Mormon church attacks the problem among heterosexuals: by encouraging people to marry and make a lifelong commitment to be faithful during marriage.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:35 AM   #107
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,112
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
ls are married to each other all over the US - and more each day. How can you possibly defend such a statement?
It's important to separate theological statements from secular ones. What skyrider44 appears to be referring to is not the legal construct of marriage as recognized by a government, but the theological construct that evolved after the Romanization of Christianity by Charlemagne. From a religious, LDS perspective, gay marriage does not exist, because it is not, in his dogma, divinely recognized.

The core issue here is the effort by extremist religious to enforce theological meanings of terms and ideas in the secular sphere. Instead of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and Rendering unto God that which is God's, they're trying to take away that which is Caesar's and place it in God's control. This seems like a good idea to them, but it goes against the teaching of Christ. History shows that consolidating secular authority under religious control leads to violence, oppression, mayhem and "conversion by the sword." In many regards, Christ's response to the attempt to "trick" him with a taxation question is really good advice even today. People often forget that the separation of Church and State has a very solid Biblical foundation. It was dictated by Christ himself.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 08:07 AM   #108
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,295
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.
Holy expletive deleted, batman. Did any thinking occur before this one?

So in a society where (if you had your way) marriage would be forever impossible for homosexuals, and, if one presumes you adhere to the Mormon principles you say you do, all homosexual acts would be at least frowned upon and declared immoral and unnatural, if not suppressed and marginalized...surprise surprise! They don't act married! Who'd have suspected?

In the very first link you provided in post #78, in the part you saw fit to quote, in fact, one of the recommendations for avoiding the risks cited was "BE MONOGAMOUS." Now it might seem fairly evident to some, but in case it is not evident to everyone involved here, it is a lot easier to be monogamous if monogamy is permitted.

Of course it's possible to be non-legally monogamous and I've known a few homosexual couples who have indeed been so. They've done so even though their relationship was unenforceable, devoid of benefits, childless,( and, in some cases long ago, criminal).

Unfortunately, along with many promiscuous heterosexuals, I have also known a few homosexual persons who, faced with the dilemma of living at peace in a world in which they are scorned as unnatural and forbidden to have children (and in some cases not so very long ago at risk of losing custody of any children they did have), tried to live as heterosexuals, with the inevitable result that both they and their spouses were unhappy. There is, needless to say, but in case it has escaped anyone's attention I'll say it anyway, no way that this situation promotes the ideal of happy well adjusted heterosexual parents. One could, of course, argue that the solution is for secretly gay parents to live celibate lives and never to become parents, but in the real world this does not happen. In the real world real people do real things.

If you're going to argue against gay marriage on the grounds that promiscuity is somehow a gay problem that disqualifies them, you need to do better than to present arguments that address everyone, gay and straight, and openly suggest monogamy as a solution. And you need in addition to find arguments that somehow suggest that offering the option of marriage to gay couples would, somehow, decrease that monogamy rather than increasing it. This would be the case even if it were true that the problem of promiscuity is greater among homosexuals. For any argument based on promiscuity, it would be useful, though not entirely necessary, to demonstrate that the promiscuity itself is real or inherent, but it would be utterly necessary to demonstrate that the option of marriage would make it worse. You cannot make the argument that promiscuity itself is a disqualification for marriage, since it exists everywhere among those who are already married, so if you are going to make an argument that it disqualifies gays from being married, you MUST prove that marriage will make it worse.

That argument, along with the fundamental argument that gays are in some inherent way more promiscuous than others, failed miserably and notoriously when bozos like the egregious Archbishop of Vermont and the aptly nicknamed "Ruthless Ruth" Dwyer tried them here in 1999. In case that escaped you, we got Civil Unions, and later we got gay marriage. The thing you believe does not exist exists. Good practice has trumped bad theory, and your future is our past.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 09:30 AM   #109
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,112
I was in error in my previous post. Modern concepts of what it means to be "Married" do not date to the Romanization of Christianity. They aren't that old. For example, gay marriage was recognized by the Catholic Church in the Medieval period.

This Cracked.com article, of all things, has a fairly well researched introduction to Medieval Gay Marriage.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 01:02 PM   #110
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,393
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/...nts-suggest...




Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.
How many of the respondents were adopted from foster care?
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 02:00 PM   #111
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."
Marriage is whatever the state says that it is.

Gay Marriage Around the World | Pew Research Center's Religion ...

Same-sex marriage in the United States


Your argument by definition is fatuous.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 05:41 PM   #112
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
. . .The word "unnatural," when applied to homosexual behavior, is pejorative. It is not anything but pejorative. If you do not mean it to be pejorative, you should not use it.
I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mal...xual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 06:24 PM   #113
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Once again, do you think that we aren't going to read the sources ourselves?

Let's look at what the Mayo Clinic has to say, in greater detail than you have presented.
Why do you suppose the Mayo Clinic identified those specific problems and advised people to take precautions? Answer: Because they are strongly associated with homosexual behavior.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:16 PM   #114
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I wonder if you have noticed that comments by my critics have taken the discussion down disparate paths, some of which you "own."
1. It was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect. You could look it up.

2. Your "critics" cannot obscure the fact that it was, in fact, you who claimed that the "moral issue" with marriage equality is "the good of the children," or words to that effect.

3. Perhaps you could clarify, or explicate, what you think you meant by your statement that I "own" some of the "disparate paths" down which your "critics" have taken the discussion. That is, if your intent was communication...

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.
Have you read more than just the titles and cherry-picked sensationalist excerpts of this literature? Have you considered the sources of your information about this literature?

Have you considered the paternalistic nature of your offer to protect homosexuals form something that may happen? (While neglecting to offer similar "help" to other groups equally, or even more, at risk?)

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Avail yourself of Madsen Pirie's excellent book, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic.
Thank you for the fine, functioning link to the source you recommend.
Oh. As usual, it wasn't a link.

Pirie's book is, of course, about "winning arguments" rather than about presenting the truth of an issue. Which, now that you mention it, explains (among other things) your use of sources...

At any rate,I would rather continue to argue ethically than to stoop to such tricks as depending upon an inherently circular argument, then pretending that the inescapable circularity was not obvious.

Perhaps you even recognize the allusion to the classic example of a circular argument:

"If you pray hard enough,water will run uphill"
"How hard do you have to pray?"
"Hard enough that the water runs uphill..."

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'll take your word about that.
Perhaps you ought--your ignorance is leading you to depend upon the screeds of deceitful bigots. Did you read Foster Zygote's analyses of your sources, with the parts you left out restored?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Sorry, but you run off the rails here.
I'll break it down for you.

1. You said that the "moral issue" with marriage equality was "thegood of the children".

2. You sidetracked the issue with sources you claimed showed how inherently unhealthy the"gay lifestyle"might be.

3. I listed some other factors that are just as "unhealthy", just as "dangerous", and wondered why your sect is not opposed to them, instead of being so focused upon homosexuals.

4. Do try to keep up.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.
Then you would not object to a society where homosexuals had the opportunity to legally marry, encouraging monogamous, lifelong commitments, mitigating, even eliminating, the "complications"? And you intend to dedicate your sect to opposing remarriage after divorce,which increases the participants' exposures to more partners, putting them at risk for "complications"?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."
May I point out that YOU are the one using the term "gay marriage"? I am, and have been, and will continue to be, using the term "marriage equality", which you dismissed as a euphemism without even realizing that my agenda is broader than same-gender unions.

Not only that, 15 states, and the District of Columbia, disagree with you--and no longer deny the benefits and protections of civil marriage to couples of the same gender.

Nor has civilization-as-we-know-it been sundered thereby.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.
...and see the severalresponses to your "response"...

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.
Which is why I asked you about the pregnant, the overweight, the meat-eating, skydivers, motorcyclists, urban cyclists, and their ilk. Your "concern is suspiciously narrow.

I don't need to mock you to point that out.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.
Multiple posters have pointed out to you that sources you claim support your argument do not, in fact, do so. it is almost as if you are cherry-picking titles and biased reviews without actually reading the sources.

Perhaps the esteemed Mr. Pirie can help you with the concept of a "false premise"...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:24 PM   #115
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,295
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mal...xual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.
Many of the ailments cited above are not present for those who live monogamously. It would be utterly and unabashedly stupid and absurd to suggest, for example, that gonorrhea has any connection at all to what part of one's monogamous partner one uses. Get real. The problems listed may exist among those living some specified lifestyle, but they are not problems that attach to the physical act of homosexual love. It is utterly backwards to cite as reasons for banning the normalization of homosexual behavior and marriage the ills that result from the very ban you want. Nor, I hasten to add yet again, are the problems thus described exclusive to homosexuals. I hate to break it to you, innocent though you seem to be, but anal sex is not an exclusively homosexual practice, and in most places at least, its practice is not barred, nor is it made a reason to ban or dissolve marriage among heterosexuals who might practice it.

Besides, as one continually seems to have to mention, your argument ignores the approximately half of those affected by gay marriage bans who, though they certainly will never show them to the likes of you, possess vaginas.

By the way, for those who might not be aware of it, the "American College of Pediatricians" cited as the source of Skyrider's above quotation is not the more generally known American Academy of Pediatricians. It is an organization founded in 2002 by social conservatives promoting a religious viewpoint, with the explicit and stated goal of opposing the viewpoint of the American Academy of Pediatricians. The latter organization has made statements accepting homosexuality and suggesting that the quality of parenting is not directly related to orientation. Readers of the ACP site will be treated to information on "gender identity disorder" and suggestions that homosexuality can and should be reversed. They also oppose contraception and abortion, promote spanking, and link directly from their site to The Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, and Focus on the Family.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:32 PM   #116
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mal...xual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.
That's not a medical site. It's an anti gay site created by bigoted anti-gay doctors who write sciencey sounding nonsense with the intent of pleasing other anti gay bigots. If you want a real medical site, go to the AMA or mayo or the cdc or NIH or other reputable sites.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 07:59 PM   #117
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
How many of the respondents were adopted from foster care?
That's a good question. A number of methodological problems have been brought to light regarding the study.

200 researchers respond to Regnerus paper
Quote:
He creates several categories of “family type”, including “lesbian mother” and “gay father” as well as “divorced late,” “stepfamily,” and “single-parent.” But, as the author notes, for those respondents who indicated that a parent had a “same-sex relationship,” these categories were collapsed to boost sample size:
"That is, a small minority of respondents might fit more than one group. I have, however, forced their mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3 so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs). Since Group 3 (GFs) is the smallest and most difficult to locate randomly in the population, its composition trumped that of others, even LMs. (There were 12 cases of respondents who reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father)."
By doing this, the author is unable to distinguish between the impact of having a parent who has had a continuous same-sex relationship from the impact of having same-sex parents who broke-up from the impact of living in a same-sex stepfamily from the impact of living with a single parent who may have dated a same-sex partner; each of these groups are included in a single “lesbian mother” or “gay father” group depending on the gender of the parent who had a same-sex relationship. Specifically, this paper fails to distinguish family structure and family instability. Thus, it fails to distinguish, for children whose parents ever had a same-sex relationship experience, the associations due to family structure from the associations due to family stability. However, he does attempt to distinguish family structure from family instability for the children of different-sex parents by identifying children who lived in an intact biological family. To make a group equivalent to the group he labels as having “lesbian” or “gay” parents, the author should have grouped all other respondents together and included those who lived in an intact biological family with those who ever experienced divorce, or whose parents ever had a different-sex romantic relationship. That seems absurd to family structure researchers, yet that type of grouping is exactly what he did with his “lesbian mother” and “gay father” groups.
New York Times

The New Yorker
Quote:
The study, of fifteen thousand adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-nine, turned on this question:

S7. From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
Yes, my mother had a romantic relationship with another woman
Yes, my father had a romantic relationship with another man
No

A yes—even a single “romantic relationship”—put the person in the category of child of gay or lesbian parent, and excluded them from the category of intact biological families, regardless of their actual living situations. (And what does that yes mean? Sex once in a bar? An infatuation from a distance?) Regnerus says that he chose this question because he doesn’t want to get into sorting out who’s really gay—and that can be a complicated issue, to which he, unfortunately, has an absurd response. Because of how the study is set up, any stress to a child from living with a married man and woman, one of whom had ever had a same-sex affair of any kind, would be ascribed to having a gay or lesbian parent, and statistically erased from the analysis of “mom and pop” families.
Slate

The Atlantic
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 08:06 PM   #118
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I stand by the following statement (and there are others like it) from medical sources.

". . .human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by seamen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an 'exit only' passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mal...xual-behavior/

The same source calls the list of diseases "found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners. . . alarming." Here is the list:

anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, micosporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.

The threat that living a homosexual lifestyle poses to human health is very real. Study after study after study makes that clear. The threat cannot be wished away by semantic manipulation.
Are you really proposing that straight couples do not engage in anal sex, cos it sure as hell seems you are.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 08:07 PM   #119
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Holy expletive deleted, batman. Did any thinking occur before this one? . . . If you're going to argue against gay marriage on the grounds that promiscuity is somehow a gay problem that disqualifies them, you need to do better than to present arguments that address everyone, gay and straight, and openly suggest monogamy as a solution.
I haven't argued against gay marriage on the ground that promiscuity is "somehow a gay problem." I simply listed precautions homosexuals should take according to the Mayo Clinic. Independently of the Mayo Clinic post and the issue of gay marriage, I may have alluded to a study or studies showing that promiscuity occurs at a higher rate among homosexual men than it does among non-homosexual men.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2013, 08:14 PM   #120
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Holy expletive deleted, batman. Did any thinking occur before this one?
Correction: In my response to Pup's Post 89, I did refer to promiscuity in connection with gay marriage. I apologize for the error.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.