Gay Marriage

[Guest]

I was discussing the headline of the San Fransisco newspaper with a friend (regarding the status of all gay marriages being turned to 'void') and was shocked to hear him say 'It's just not right.'

Allowing gays to marry isn't hurting anybody, and is making them happy. Why would anybody not want them marry??

[Archon_Wing]

Well, I have to stand by the court's decison. The court's job is simply to intepret the law; not make the law. Apparently, my mayor did overstep his bounds and that's that. The proper way to push gay marriage would have been to change the law.

I personally don't give two hoots about homosexuality though.

IMO, if two people want to be happy, they don't need really need the sanctioning of the government anyways. :)

I don't know too much about the legalise surrounding this situation, so I'll leave it at that.

[Guest]

Aside from getting some tax benefits if you're married, you also get lots of presents and stuff.

[Archon_Wing]

Yes, I do understand the tax benifit part as well as various other legal rights. The presents... well, the government has no place there anyways. :)

[Obi2Kenobi]

On gay marriage itself, I support it in the same way that I support heterosexual marriage. That is, only give the tax breaks to couples with children (whether by adoption or... "otherwise"), but give the other stuff, like hospital visitation rights, to all married couples. And as someone else said
"The real problem with only giving civil unions is filling out forms. 'Are you a) married or B) single?' Choose wisely, because lying is fraud."

[Chaerophon]

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index.p...hl=gay+marriage

Edit: in other words... been there.

[Munkay]

Couldn't resist. I release rights for this to be used against me as well. :P

[DeeBye]

What do I win?

[Sir_Die_alot]

Nothing. You put in the wrong type of mouse. *Draws a big "L" on Dee's head*

[Archon_Wing]

6 months is a long time. :P

Plus there was some extra news that happened, and it would be odd to bump such an old thread. People would start quoting up things I said 6 months ago saying that I'm wrong or evil or whatnot, and I'd be something similar to :unsure:

[Chaerophon]

No, fair enough, I wasn't really suggesting that he should have known it had already been covered. I just thought I'd direct him to the last discussion to show what came of it... my only point was that it has already kind of played itself out as a discussion topic. Maybe not? I know I don't want to get into it again!

[Archon_Wing]

You could always switch sides just for the sake of argument. :)

[Munkay]

What do I win?

[Chaerophon]

I just don't think I could do it - I thought about it for a minute, but I just don't find men attractive. :P
















P.S. - I do know what you really meant :)

[Chaerophon]

That's a show-quality Lemur.

[Munkay]

That's a show-quality Lemur.

I did a google image search for "Munk" "Trophy" and "Party Hat."

A little editing, and voila!

[Occhidiangela]

Sorry, at the moment, that is one of the least of my worries.

[Tal]

That looks an awful lot like a Siberian Hamster... ;)

[Guest]

NOTE: Please dont bother telling me how whatever psyciatric organization has delared it not a mental defect - they voted on that. Anything you vote on is an opinion and not backed up by fact.

In my opinion being gay is a mildly harmful mental defect, probabely with both genetic and envirmental causes.
The main negative effect is that it inhibits(not prohibits) procreation.
Its not unlike having only one hand from the perspective of how your genes carry on in the gene pool.

Some people suggest that there is a gene which in males that causes homosexuality thus decreasing a males chancees of reproducing increase while in females chances of reproduction.
This is logical from a population genetics standpoint. But making special social provisions for this isnt logical, especially seince it is likely that not all homosexuallity has such an origen.

[LemmingofGlory]

Its encouraging a moderatly inane mental pathology

Nice title. This one disagrees.

NOTE: Please dont bother telling me how whatever psyciatric organization has delared it not a mental defect - they voted on that. Anything you vote on is an opinion and not backed up by fact.

The issue is not whether it was voted on or whether it was an opinion, but the criteria by which they classify a "mental illness." So, rather than attacking it as an "opinion," you should argue that you, learned Ghostiger, have better criteria for classifying mental illness. For those not read on this subject, here's what happened:

apa.org
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

According to Wikipedia, a mental illness is a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. So, Ghostiger, if you believe homosexuality meets that criteria, I'd like you to illustrate how. (If you need help with this, some people may agree with you.)

But making special social provisions for this isnt logical, especially seince it is likely that not all homosexuallity has such an origen.

So, was it "making special provisions" to allow people of different races to marry?

Ha ha, very funny, right? You never heard that one before in a gay marriage argument. Well, piss on you for using loaded language ("making special provisions"). Same-sex marriage proponents want the marriage agreement to ignore the gender of the participants. That's not a special provision for gay people. That's changing the law to permit same-sex marriage.

-Lemmy