What would "getting married" gain you that you don't already have? A piece of paper?

You guys are like little kids who have a room full of toys, but you see another kid playing with one ugly little toy that you don't have, and all you can think about is the one ugly little toy that you don't have.

Every culture, the world over, and througout history, has recognized marriage as between a man and woman. Virtually no culture has EVER recognized marriage between two men. Furthermore, historically, only cultures at the bottom-end of their "decline" (Rome & Greece for instance) have even embraced or recognized homosexual behavior in any way.

If you're not "like" heterosexuals, why do you want so badly to be like heterosexuals?


- I could not get free college education that is available to Native American Indians. ISN'T THAT DISCRIMINATION?!?!
- I couldn't join the Girl Scouts. ISN'T THAT DISCRIMINATION?!?!
- I'm not allowed to join the Curves for Women fitness center. ISN'T THAT DISCRIMINATION?!?!
- I can't vote in Canada. ISN'T THAT DISCRIMINATION?!?!
- I can't join AARP, or get a Senior Discount at McDonalds. ISN'T THAT DISCRIMINATION?!?!

There is discrimination EVERYWHERE. You just pick and choose which perceived discrimination you want to complain about.

No, the claims have NOT been refuted, you dumbass.

YOU - a gay man - are simply claiming that studies that evidence rampant promiscuity among homosexuals are wrong.

Well Laddie-Freakin'-Daa!

One angry homosexual man believes his opinion carries more weight than dozens of surveys and studies.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... Who to believe. Who to believe.

That's what I said.
You never refuted anything I said.

Wow. Glad to see we're on the same page...


Oh. I see the issue.
I, a GAY man, obviously don't know what's happening amongst OTHER GAYS, and as such my response must obviously be invalid.

While you, a STRAIGHT man, obviously know much more on the issue.
And that's why you quote studies done by STRAIGHT men and women who also must know a lot more about gays than ACTUAL GAYS themselves.

Perfectly clear to me now...


It's not my "opinion".
The web-page I linked to earlier explicitly demonstrated those flaws in one of the studies. The flaws I discussed are real. I'm not making that crap up.

"3) A third problem, still relating to the heterosexual sample, is that it did not represent a true control group. Apart from the fact that the homosexual sample was not random and the heterosexual sample was, the homosexual samples were taken from the following places: singles bars (22%), gay baths (9%), public places (=guys hanging out in parks to find sex partners; 6%), private bars (=sex clubs; 5%), personal contacts (people that the bar people, public place people, bath house people, etc, knew personally and referred; 23%), public advertising + organizations + mailing lists (29%).The heterosexual sample, on the other hand, were people in residential areas, admittedly including married people. These two samples are not parallel, and even if they had included the heterosexual data, they would not be comparable. In order for this data to have been generalizable, they would have had to go to heterosexual singles bars, sex clubs, bookstores, etc, to get their population. "
Gay Mental Health

You can't obtain results that can be generalized onto the general population unless you have RANDOM sampling.
They picked gays PRIMARILY from spots where promiscuity would be found.
So, their results would probably be representative of PROMISCUOUS gays, but not representative of gays in general.


You'll believe whoever is painting homosexuals in a bad light, and ignore everything else.
That much is obvious.

Did you ever answer the argument as to why a MONOGAMOUS gay man, like myself, should be lumped in with the promiscuous group?
No?
Did you ever answer the argument as to why the MAJORITY of gay people who are not promiscuous should be punished because of a minority of gay people's promiscuity?
No?

Getting married brings lots of benefits, including health insurance for spouses and their children, a different way to file taxes, intellectual property benefits, pension benefits, housing benefits, food stamp benefits, etc. There are over 1,000 benefits of marriage.

But the most important benefit, in my opinion, is that gay relationships will be treated the same as straight relationships under the law. Recognizing gay relationships differently than straight relationships sends a clear message that the government considers gay relationships inferior to straight ones, and it considers beliefs which recognize same-sex marriage inferior to beliefs which do not.

Our government shouldn't make this call. If our government is going to create some special recognition for relationships, let it not pick and choose its favorites, let it treat relationships equally, without choosing playing favorites. If our government is going to recognize your relationship and your beliefs, why should it not grant mine that same recognition?

I don't want the government to decide that my relationship and my beliefs are inferior to yours. Leave that to individual people to decide for themselves.

I disagree. If we're all little kids in a room full of toys, then with most toys, there are plenty for everyone. But there's one pile of toys that only the straight kids can use. Of course, there are plenty of toys in that pile for everyone to use, but for some reason, the gay kids still aren't allowed to use it. But the gay kids want to use it, and they don't see why only straight kids are allowed.

Who cares that most cultures haven't recognized marriage between two men? Most cultures were totally horrible. There was inquisitions, wars, tyrannts, witch-burning, and slavery. Forget old cultures, and focus on this one.

As for Rome and Greece, I had talked about them in the Why is homosexuality wrong (Why is homosexuality wrong?) thread. I said that I thought Greece accepted homosexuality even before its decline, and even before it became great. I also thought that Rome never truly accepted homosexuality, and that its acceptance was not greatest during its decline. Am I wrong? Whether I'm wrong or not, there's certainly no reason to believe that homosexuality had even the slightest thing to do with the decline of those societies in any fashion.

What do you mean? I'm not different from a heterosexual, except that I don't mind dating other guys. I don't think it should be a big deal.

Yes.


Yes and yes, though I don't mind a private organization discriminating.

Absolutely.

Yes sir.

I do pick and choose which discrimination I want to complain about, for I don't think all discrimination is wrong. I generally look specifically for discrimination instituted by our government without a good reason. While a private organization should be free to choose its own members, our government needs to create laws that treat everyone equally.

Obviously I think it's morally wrong for anyone to discriminate against gay people. But people deserve to have that freedom, to decide about homosexuality for themselves. I shouldn't be deciding that homosexuality is right for anyone else.

But just because you have the freedom to discriminate against homosexuals doesn't mean our government does. The government exists to create laws with protect our freedoms, not to interfere in people's lives or decide that their beliefs are inferior to someone else's. So I complain when the government discriminates against gay people, just as I complain when the government discriminates against black people, white people, atheists, Christians, or anybody else. Why should anybody get a privledge that someone else does not?

I think part of the problem is that there is an inherent CONNOTATION on the part of some to believe that if the "discrimination" is acceptable, then it isn't really "discrimination" at all.

Ergo, a KKK member would not see it as "discrimination" to prevent blacks from voting.
Obviously, an incredibly subjective standard.

It's much more objective to remove that connotation from the word "discrimination" and just talk about whether the discrimination is JUSTIFIABLE or not. Just because it's discrimination doesn't mean it is wrong.

We discriminate by age when we prevent people under 21 from buying alcohol and tobacco. I support that discrimination.
A U.S. submarine discriminates against women by preventing them from serving on one, but it's justifiable given the circumstances.
The military discriminates against the handicapped. Justifiable.

Unfortunately, I have only bumped into a couple of people who can get past that presumption that for something to be called "discrimination", it must be wrong.
The constitution doesn't blanketly prohibit discrimination.
It prohibits UNJUSTIFIABLE discrimination from the government.

Newsflash for the thinking impared: I AM MORE APT TO BELIEVE INDEPENDENT STUDIES ON HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR THAN I AM TO BELIEVE A HOMOSEXUAL MAN WITH AN AGENDA.

Too bad for you. So sad. But that is the fact.

1 & 2. Wow. You DO want the government to moral judgments, yet you DON'T want the government to make moral judgments. You DO want the government to discriminate - in some cases - yet you DON'T want the government to discriminate in other cases. In other words, you're a selective discriminator. Nice. Another word for that is hypocrisy.

3. Actually, the government discriminates ALL THE TIME. It's part of what government does.



Next...

I discriminated today. I decided to wear my boxer shorts instead of Mrs. Alias' panties.

Oh man, you sicko bigot! How DARE you!

You don't have the first clue as to who did what with these studies.
I, a gay man, am REPORTING what these studies said, but that doesn't make them flawed.

And for you to turn a blind eye to NARTH, which is hardly an "independent study", and then complain about my quoting OTHER PEOPLE who did studies, is downright hypocritical.