Gay Marraige will be legal in 50 years

[Brambila]

PART 2)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, the APA and AMA are undenyably liberal. This is simply a fact, a fact known by Psychologists I know, and the general American population who knows about the APA. You obviously know very little about it. As a matter of fact, when my father was being accredited back in the 70's, he told them he did not support homosexual rights, and was thrown out of the school with people throwing coffee at him- this was in the 70's, where the APA was not nearly as liberal as it is now. I don't know very much about APHA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've given you evidence by APA-accreditted organizations. I'm not simply making this up. These are REAL statistics by REAL psychologists and REAL homosexuals. Let's review the statistics:

A great number of homosexuals were molested as children.
The majority of homosexuals are feminine.
The majority of homosexuals have seeked help for depression.
Homosexuals are six times more likely to commit suicide.
One third of all pedophilia cases are done by homosexuals*

There obviously is something wrong with homosexuals. Tell me what it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This study was done by a guy named Bruce Bagemihl, but his theory has been attacked by many biologists and zoologists. The problem is, evolution proves his argument wrong. Firstly, his study is based on the fact that animals only have intercourse for pleasure. This is not the case, as if it were, Charles Darwin makes clear, animals would not reproduce. However, animals instictually know to have heterosexual intercourse. Further, you can't ever know if an animal is homosexual because it's having intercourse with other males- firstly, they don't talk. Secondly, Augustine, the famous philosopher and theologian, had sexual intercourse with other men and women before his reform. He wasn't homosexual, but at that time- as in the animal kingdom- there wern't terms such as "hetrosexual" and "homosexual". It was "active" and "passive". If you were actively sexual, you would have sex with everything- men, women, goats, etc. Believe me, I've studied this subject quite extensively.

Bruce Bagemihl also hates heterosexuality, as he's made quite clear in his unfounded book.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've already said, this is simply my basis for the unnaturality of homosexuality in general. Many heterosexuals don't reproduce for children, which is fine. Evolution teaches that all in the Animal Kingdom have sex for reproduction.

Also, the world isn't at all overpopulated, which I knew was going to be introduced into this discussion.

*Clark Institute of Psychiatry, and Whitman College School of Psychology.

[WMS]

*sigh*
Pardon me for interrupting the left-right debate for a second, but here's another POV dealing more with the legal and political side of this issue:

Currently, I am rather annoyed at both the left (for trying to use the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution to force legal gay marriage down everybody's throat) and the right (for trying to use a constitutional amendment to force a permanent universal ban on gay marriage down everybody's throat) for making this such a major bloody issue. Yes, I am a bit suspicious at the speed by which all these San Francisco mayors, county clerks, etc. *spontaneously* had all these people show up and get - illegally at this point - married, with much publicity. I think ACT UP and like-minded groups planned to make this an issue...not sure why, considering the timing is dreadful, but the left can be really silly sometimes. And I am also suspicious at how quickly GW signed on to this, considering I don't think he really believes a constitutional amendment is the way to go. I'm one of those "let the d*mn states decide it" people, just so you know.

Here's my big question: Why is this happening now? Honestly, I think the gay movement's cause would've been much better served by first continuing their push for gay rights (an issue they were getting really close on, judging by the increasing number of libertarian Republicans willing to support it and by public opinion polls showing majority support for gay *rights*) and getting that hammered down, so they couldn't be discriminated against in housing and the like. Then, they really should have pushed for the civil union compromise, whereupon they could receive all the *civil* rights and responsibilities of marriage without the religious or cultural connotations. Heck, I think Dick Cheney supports that idea. But I would have made that part of it a state-by-state decision, so that the gays could convince everyone that they're not out to subvert The Very Fabric Of Society. I think they would've gotten more support for that than many would think.

But NOOOOOO, instead we get an attempt to force the issue through the courts, in a rather sneaky manner *guaranteed* to spark a severe counterreaction (note the opinion polls on this one, if you will) that could reverse the progress toward gay rights that they've made up to this point. Seriously, marriage is a *VERY* touchy issue in the U.S., and what happened in Massachusetts pounded that cultural 'buzzer', as it were, repeatedly.

This is just like the abortion issue now. Abortion rights WERE being handled by the states, as was proper for this type of touchy cultural issue, until the feminist left just HAD to drag it before the Supreme Court. And because of that, we're STILL arguing about it, since it wasn't handled at the level it should have been, and really PO'd the pro-lifers into waging a partially successful attempt to reverse it. [Roe v. Wade isn't a very steady or clear decision, IMHO, and so it is vulnerable to reversal - I mean, FIRST there's a 'penumbra' emanating from several amendments that creates *poof* a right to privacy, and THEN that right to privacy kinda sorta gives *lesser poof* abortion rights...kind of a rickety way to establish rights, eh?]

And now, no matter which side wins the legal debate, this issue will go on *forever*...
*sigh*

[CTguy]

Now I can see where you get your biggotry from.  There are just so many idiotic statements I could respond to I don't think I would be able to get to them all.

First of all you brought religion into this, not me...  I believe religion has no place in political discourse.

Second, you're twisting my comment about having a homosexual child around and making it sound like any homosexual child must be attracted to their parent is pretty sick.  You don't see straight children attracted to their parents of the opposite sex.  And no, if I have a homosexual child I will not tell them they have a mental disorder because I don't believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality.  

I don't think it is at all responsible for someone like you, who probably has little or no education in psychology to be throwing around accusations about an entire class of people based on the fact that your father studied it in Berkeley.  Who cares?  One of my roommates at Yale was a psychology major but I don't purport to have any real knowledge of the subject.

The fact is that you can throw around labels about groups like the APA.  But that is as pathetic as religious leaders who call evolutionists, liberals who haven't found Jesus.  The point is, that the thinking of the APA is the mainstream, not the thinking of your Dad who obviously raised you to hate and label other people.  

That's all I am going to say to you since it is a waste of time even trying to talk to someone like you.


But to WMS, you say that gay marriage shouldn't be forced through the courts.  But what about interracial marriage...  that came through the courts not through the legislature or public which was 90% against it just 40 years ago.  It's easy to tell people to wait to get acceptance but I think if it was you who would want to marry interracially then 40 years is a long time to wait.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And where is that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't bring religion into this at all. I simply stated that morality is a widely accepted fact, and that the only three religions that claim to have religious truth, Islam, Judaism, and Christainity, practice this. It wasn't introducing religion, I was simply mentioning that interesting point. You've completely changed the debate from "why is homosexuality disorderd?", to "it is only your religious opinion that homosexuality is disordered".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that all homosexual children are attracted to their parents. I'm sure some of them are- as some heterosexual children are, but that wasn't my point. You completely missed my point, so I'll repeat it. If you had a child who was sexually attracted to you- gay or straight- would you tell your child he is mentally ill or seek help for him?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Listen, it is a logical fallacy to claim that I cannot debate because I'm not accredited (Argumentum ad verecundiam). I was simply responding to people who were claiming that I had no right to say anything because I'm not accredited.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The thinking of the APA is mainstream among Psychologists, although many Psychologists, including one of the nominees for President of the American Psychological Association. The APA is one organization that happens to be the most widely known and ergo prestigious. They don't realize that they have many problems in their orgnazation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, so I give you sources from accreddited organizations that show that the majority of homosexuals suffer from mental issues, and I gave you many analogies for which you have not yet responded, and now you treat me as if though I'm ignorant. I've been very polite and very open, and you've been attacking me and calling me an "Evangelical" "radical", et cetera. Nice move.

[WMS]

...
But to WMS, you say that gay marriage shouldn't be forced through the courts.  But what about interracial marriage...  that came through the courts not through the legislature or public which was 90% against it just 40 years ago.  It's easy to tell people to wait to get acceptance but I think if it was you who would want to marry interracially then 40 years is a long time to wait.

Ah, I got you to admit that you liberals are up to something.

While I sympathize to an extent with gays who want to get married (at least some people take it seriously ) I also respect the opinions of those who don't want this forced on them. And this is an *especially* devious way of doing so: go to the most liberal state Supreme Court you can find, get them to rule in your favor, then use that to force *every* state to your will. Do you not see how dangerous that can be? What if a conservative state rules in a way that you don't like and applies that case law everywhere through the same method being used here? Like, say, a state court strikes down ALL campaign-finance laws, or makes abortion illegal, or something like that? If you don't provide leeway for varying state interpretation, things get nasty really fast.

And while I have no opposition to interracial marriage (I take the Bulworth approach to it) and quite frankly can't see why it was such an issue, I think it's better if those wanting to make a change can convince people, one state at a time, that they are right. I believe interracial marriage would have been lifted in most places by now (OK, maybe not Mississippi, given how long it took them to get their laws changed, but we're talking about Mississippi here) based on the inherent silliness of banning interracial marriage. And as before, I think the gay left is risking an awful lot of progress it's made by raising this issue - and the counterreaction could be severe.

Anyway, I still think civil unions are the way to go...it might help improve the institution of marriage as a whole if done right - I agree with Dazzleman that the entire institution of marriage needs an overhaul, and this might be a way to get that started...

[nclib]

Brambilla,

I find it interesting that you:

a) claim homosexuality is a mental disorder

AND

b) espouse animosity towards homosexuals

I DON'T agree with you on a)  but if you feel that way, how can you justify b) ?

[Brambila]

I'm not animus towards homosexuals- I'm animus towards the homosexual movement. Because of organization such as the APA, thousands of homosexuals are dying every year in America.

I look at homosexuality like I look at pedophilia- I feel sorry for the pedophilers, because they suffer from mental issues.

[zachman]

The difference is that pedophiles can't achieve their goals because that would be harmful towards others. The mental issues homosexuals deal with can be solved without hurting others.

[Brambila]

Homosexuality is harmful to others. STDs, for instance. Homosexuality also causes depression and other mental disorders.

Further, pedophilia doesn't have to be harmful to the child. What if the child wants to be molested? That's happened before! There was a case a few years ago in Florida where that happened.

[zachman]

Homosexuality is harmful to others. STDs, for instance. Homosexuality also causes depression and other mental disorders.

Further, pedophilia doesn't have to be harmful to the child. What if the child wants to be molested? That's happened before! There was a case a few years ago in Florida where that happened.

First off the child doesn't understand long term goals, and the parents or state have the right to protect him from later psychological damage, or an increased likelihood of himself beginning a pedophile.

Your argument about STD's is something that effects two consensual gay people. You have to raise the same argument against heterosexuals. Although gay sex has no productive purpose, so does most sex between men and women.

[migrendel]

I also know that a majority of sexually transmitted diseases are spread by heterosexuals. The problem isn't one of sexual orientation, but one of deficient contraceptive use and sexual irresponsibility.

[Brambila]

We can go on with this. Fortunately for you, I'm not against sodomy. I'm against gay marriage. Gay marriage means that the government is condoning a curable disorder, and introduces this disorder to the next generation. Ergo, millions of us in future generations will also suffer from homosexuality, and we don't need that to happen.

[Beet]

If homosexuality is a health disorder, why would gay marriage "introduce" it to the next generation? Gays can't have children, and all gay children are born to heterosexual couples. You don't get schiziophrenia just by looking at other people with schiziophrenia, or that schiziophrenia is "curable".

Also, most people with diseases tend to want to be cured. You never hear any people trying to get sick and wanting to stay sick for its own sake. Not the case here.

[Brambila]

The same way poligamy, marriage with minors and incestual marriage will cause problems. People will define these unions as "normal", but they arn't. Why is the government condoning such a disorder?

[Beet]

Of course I agree that the government generally shouldn't condone deviant sexual liasions. Essentially everyone is against all those things you listed. The only problem with gay marriage is that, according to some studies, the brains of gays are actually very different from those of heterosexuals of the same gender. While a polygamist can adapt to a monogamous relationship and still be sexually attracted to his/her partner, same with incestual relationships (a person wanting to engage in such a relationship is still free to engage in relationships with people whom he or she is sexually attracted to), and minors may grow up. However, if you are biologically attracted to the same gender and cannot change that, it would be a violation of your rights to say you cannot act upon your sexual orientation.

Imagine living in a world where 95% of the population is gay and you cannot marry a woman, only other men. This is the perspective of gays. Of course, there is scientific ambiguity here. There is not a 100% correlation between biological twins and homosexuality. Therefore, the issue needs to be studied further. It is probably partially biological and partially environmental. But the fact that societies that strongly condemned homosexuality, socieites spanning thousands of years and diverse cultures, have had homosexuals, does indicate that it is substantially biological.

The other question about whether homosexuality is voluntary is, why would a heterosexual person choose to change his preference and be gay? It just doesn't make sense.

[zachman]

Elton John is the only one who is choosingly gay.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is exactly what liberal medical organizations try to teach, but the APA diisagrees. The APA, as liberal as it is, believes homosexuality (any sexuality, for that matter) appears in the third adolescence. The only support given that shows homosexuality is biological is known as Harmer's Study, which was a study done by a neurologist and psychiatrist, Dr. Harmer (I can't recall his first name at this time). He gathered 44 homosexuals and found that 33 out of 44 of them had an xq28 gene. He concluded that homosexuals are born with these gene. However, his study has yet to be redone with the same results. Another Neurologist did the study- he got 50 men, no sexuality specified, and found that 23 of them had the gene as well. Science magazine blasted the study, as well as Archives of General Psychiatry and several other magazines, psychologists, and psychatrists. The APA has no opinion on the study itself, but remains it's belief that sexuality appears in the third adolescence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The twin studies are extremely biased. The twins were recruit via advertisements in homosexual newspapers and magazines, so it's not suprising that half of the female twins were homosexual. Further, many of the twins were raised in the same home.   Though there are theories that homosexuals could be born with the disorder, it's not probable. There are also studies that abortion causes breast cancer, but a direct link has not been confirmed by any organizations. If, however, it is true that homosexuals are born with the disorder, this only proves that the disorder comes from conception and perhaps is genetic- this will also prove that alcoholism is genetic. However, this does not make it untreatable. Many genetic disorders can be treated and cured.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't misunderstand me- i'm not saying homosexuals choose to be gay. That's completely ridiculous. I believe that it has to do with childhood envirmental issues, specifically parental imbalance. Notice that the overwealming majority of homosexual men and women are, for men, feminine, and for women, masculine. Though this is more so with homosexual men rather than women, why is this? Obviously, the child had an imbalance with the parents. Many homosexual men claim to have had "wonderful relationships" with their father, but this doesn't nessecarily mean that the relationship was unbalanced.

[CTguy]

Homosexuality is harmful to others. STDs, for instance. Homosexuality also causes depression and other mental disorders.

Further, pedophilia doesn't have to be harmful to the child. What if the child wants to be molested? That's happened before! There was a case a few years ago in Florida where that happened.

Immigration from Mexico is harmful to others...  for instance Americans who lose their jobs to Mexicans willing to work for less.  Since about half of them are here illegally, it is harder for law enforcement to track them.  Mexicans also commit crimes at a greater rate than the general population.  

Should we ban Mexicans from living here and deport the ones that do live here now?  Since as a group they seem to be highly detremental to American culture.

[Brambila]

Once again, that issue is uncomparable. Although I do agree that Mexicans here illegally should be deported back to Mexico, this is irrelivent to the homosexual issue. The only relevency I see is that not all homosexuals are practicing. But of the practicing homosexuals, and of the illegal mexicans, justice could be shown. In the Bay Area, for instance, there's a man who had commited acts of sexual assult, and has been castrated and paid fines. He lived in Marin county, but was kicked out. He moved to Oakland, but was kicked out. Same thing happened in Alameda. Now he's living in San Jose, and people want him out again. So yes, citizens have a right to kick people out of their town if the majority of them don't want them there (with good reason). I'm not saying I support the proposal, but I can understand why they are proposing it.

[CTguy]

The relevancy is that you are talking about discriminating against an entire group of people based on the fact that you say a large percentage of them have certain problems (mental problems according to your studies, that are contradicted by other studies by credible organizations which you call liberal), so I am taking that concept and applying it to another group.  Since 50% of Mexican Americans are here illegally and are therefore likely to commit crimes perhaps my town should make an ordinance that it will not allow Mexicans in it out of fear they would commit a crime since it is already proven that they have a tendency to do so just as homosexuals tend to "have mental disorders."  

Many religious leaders have also claimed for decades that "mixing of the races" is against God's will...  so that adds credibility to the idea that there should be an ordinance banning Mexicans from my town.  So tell me, by your religious and moral philosophy, what is wrong with banning Mexicans from living in my town?  

[Brambila]

Dang, that took you like six minutes to read and respond....

My point was that because homosexuals have so many problems, there has to be something wrong with them. I mean, not all people suffering from depression commit suicide. Not all alcoholics abuse alcohol*. Does that mean that there's nothing wrong with the two groups of people and we're "generalizing" if we believe otherwise? Of course not. For your second point, you're simply making a historical trivialization. Homosexuality is something mental, not physical. We know for a fact that you are born of a race, and that it is impossible to change your race. Even Michael Jackson, who has been pygmented, is still considered black. He's black, that's all there is to it. Homosexuals, however, can be cured; they can change. As a hispanic, I find it insulting and racist that you're comparing homosexuality to being mexican.

*Yes, there is such a thing as alcoholics who have never taken a sip of alcohol, and millions of alcoholics who don't abuse it (anymore). I spoke to Psychologists on the matter.  

[migrendel]

As a Hispanic, you should know the pain and moral horror that discrimination causes. You should know the frustration and anger someone feels for not judging you based upon the content of your character, but upon one aspect of you. After all this, you should be able to realize that discrimination is wrong, be it against Hispanics or homosexuals. You expect to be treated equally, now let us see you accord that to all people regardless of arbitrary classification.

[CTguy]

You are ridiculous in the fact that because you say you've spoken to a few psychologists or read a few studies that you know all homosexuals have mental disorders or that they can change.  

Then when someone points to an organization that disagrees with you, you brand them as liberals...  So in other words, only people who agree with you know what they are talking about and anyone else is just a liberal.

And don't go throwing around the race card...  You still have not given an adequate reason why my town shouldn't ban Mexicans from it by your philosophy.  You say that since homosexuals have so many problems there must be something wrong with them...  Well what about Mexicans...  they have lower education levels, are more likely to commit violent and petty crimes, 50% of them are here illegally, they are less upwardly mobile, so something must be wrong to them according to your logic.  And since something must be wrong with them, I think my town should be able to ban them from living here much like you think Tennessee should be able to ban gays.  And again, lots of religious leaders would agree with me, since they have been saying for years that integration is a bad thing and God intended different races to live on different continents.

[migrendel]

It's perfectly legitimate, Brambilla. If you say that the government can and should discriminate against homosexuals, why can't it be said that the government might discriminate against other minorities, including one you belong to? You can raise the flag of racism when you claim to be offended, but it is paltry compared to how others might have been offended by your talk of deviancy and perversion. I myself am unoffended. I have learned to put little stock in idiocy.

[CTguy]

His posts have been extremely offensive to many different groups and then as soon as someone talks about a group he belongs to he gets offended and plays the race card.  I cant say I am suprised though.  He still hasn't given me a good argument.  It's interesting too that he is so insensitive to all the other groups that he berates, considering in a lot of areas racial prejudice towards Mexicans is much more rampant than homophobia or anti-feminist intolerance.