Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't feel marriage in 2009 is all that necessary of changing if we can find a resolution as to why civil partnerships are inadequate and deal with that head on.

Civil partnerships are inadequate because they are not marriage - steadfastly trying not to change marriage while holding civil partnerships as a lesser alternative to a certain group in society based entirely on their sexuality, is why they are inadequate. You kind of spelt it out yourself. I don't see why gay peoples wishes to change the definition to include them is any less valid than trying to prevent changes to current marriage legislation because it suits your personal definition better.

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I brought it up in response to this post:
Originally Posted by anoisaris
And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?

Anoisaris claims that many gay people knew they where gay when they where children. I am reminding anoisaris that there is no evidence that children can be gay.

actually while I was speaking from experience there is also evidence. If you go look for journals you will find evidence that a child can be homosexual. There is just no certain evidence if either one of genetic, environmental or other factors or combinations of several contribute.

Ickle Magoo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I brought it up in response to this post:
Originally Posted by anoisaris
And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?

Anoisaris claims that many gay people knew they where gay when they where children. I am reminding anoisaris that there is no evidence that children can be gay.

But your very own quote suggests it is primarily genetic which means that although we have no definitive answer on nature Vs nurture, current understanding means Anoisaris has a very good case. If gay people say they have been gay since childhood, I would take that as reasonable argument that children can indeed be gay - unless you are suggesting these people are lying?

Nerin

anoisaris wrote: »

Can't say I have heard of many wanting a religious ceremony I would have assumed anyone using the term marriage referring to civil marriage but then you never know I suppose. I doubt Jackass agrees with your view as a union equal to marriage would include adoption.

He agrees on enough things for me to not pounce on him

I am pro adoption.
I acknowledge that the kids may get teased or bullied, but thats hardly a reason to stop adoption. The kid could be over weight, or "weird" and be from a "traditional" family.

its my opinion that the more we make it a big deal and fight about it, the bigger an issue it becomes on its own. People shouldnt think same sex couples are weird. They should make efforts to get out of their little corner and hang out with same sex couples, stop being afraid or suspicious.

I was looking at the Air France thread this morning, Men are more likely to be paedophiles so kids arent allowed sit near them un accompanied now. This is just as blown out of proportion as the "kids with gay parents are gonna be messed up" arguements.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Civil partnerships are inadequate because they are not marriage - steadfastly trying not to change marriage while holding civil partnerships as a lesser alternative to a certain group in society based entirely on their sexuality, is why they are inadequate. You kind of spelt it out yourself. I don't see why gay peoples wishes to change the definition to include them is any less valid than trying to prevent changes to current marriage legislation because it suits your personal definition better.

I don't see why it is necessary if we are to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and civil unions as between two of the same gender. Both relationship structures are accommodated.

Future changes in the law won't require a referendum in any shape or form. It seems a much cleaner way of dealing with it. Whether or not the rights in the current legislation are adequate are up for discussion between the State and lobbyists on both sides of the debate.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why it is necessary if we are to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and civil unions as between two of the same gender. Both relationship structures are accommodated.

Because civil unions are inferior to marriage. It then follows that anyone in a civil union is legally inferior to a married couple. This might be okay for some- I'd go for that myself over marriage, but to put gays in the inferior bracket is making them second-class citizens. I see little difference between this and racial segregation.

Iwasfrozen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But your very own quote suggests it is primarily genetic which means that although we have no definitive answer on nature Vs nurture, current understanding means Anoisaris has a very good case. If gay people say they have been gay since childhood, I would take that as reasonable argument that children can indeed be gay - unless you are suggesting these people are lying?

I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.

No the argument that a person can be gay from childhood is a valid one. As is the argument that a person can be gay from birth, can be gay due to genetic factors or can be gay from environmental factors or can be gay due to a combination.

It would be invalid to argue all gay people are gay for one reason. (Until we can prove that is the case)

Ickle Magoo

What?

As it has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, all evidence to date is invalid? If our most eminent scholars in the subject say all current evidence points towards primarily genetic input then I don't think that can be discounted - neither can personal testament btw. Are you waiting for the gay gene to be discovered or something??

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why it is necessary if we are to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and civil unions as between two of the same gender.

Why should we do that though? Why should we lock out a particular group of consenting adults from something that the rest of the adult population is free to partake in. To segregate the two is grossly unfair - either adults can get married or they can't, there shouldn't be caveats imposed by some according to race, or sexuality, or anything else for that matter.

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.

"Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established

during early childhood"

(AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS. CLINICAL REPORT. Guidance for the Clinician in Rendering Pediatric Care. Barbara L. Frankowski, MD, MPH; and the Committee on Adolescence Sexual Orientation and Adolescents)

1. Ryan C, Futterman D. Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1998
2. Perrin EC. Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New
York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2002
3. Sell RL, Becker JB. Sexual orientation data collection and progress
toward Healthy People 2010. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:876–882
4. Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:
923–930
5. Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv

Pediatr. 1998;45:107–144

Iwasfrozen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What?

As it has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, all evidence to date is invalid? If our most eminent scholars in the subject say all current evidence points towards primarily genetic input then I don't think that can be discounted - neither can personal testament btw. Are you waiting for the gay gene to be discovered or something??

You understood wrong, I said that since homosexuality has not been confirmed. Then anoisaris's arguement about children being aware of their sexuality is invalid.

ChocolateSauce

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.

There is no argument; you're either gay from before birth or you're not gay (B and T's omitted for the sake of simplicity). Homosexuality is hardwired into your brain almost from conception. This is scientific fact, and that is not a term I use lightly.

Iwasfrozen

anoisaris wrote: »

"Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established

What does this prove only that evidence exists on both sides of the arguement, which I was already aware of.

Ickle Magoo

What do you mean homosexuality hasn't been confirmed?

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You understood wrong, I said that since homosexuality has not been confirmed. Then anoisaris's arguement about children being aware of their sexuality is invalid.

Are you now doubting the existence of homosexuality?

Iwasfrozen

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There is no argument; you're either gay from before birth or you're not gay (B and T's omitted for the sake of simplicity). Homosexuality is hardwired into your brain almost from conception. This is scientific fact, and that is not a term I use lightly.

There is conflicting evidence on both sides, one cannot say a child is gay from birth fact as this "fact" is still disputed.

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What does this prove only that evidence exists on both sides of the arguement, which I was already aware of.

It is evidence (other than my personal experience) for my point that a child can identify as gay which you claim they can't. There is no evidence for another side of the argument-are you confusing "from birth" with "a child" they are different things afterall?

"As a child, as far back as I remember and primary school" does not equal "from birth"!

Iwasfrozen

anoisaris wrote: »

Are you now doubting the existence of homosexuality?

How in the name of God did you come to that conclusion ?
Am I being Trolled ?

Iwasfrozen

anoisaris wrote: »

It is evidence (other than my personal experience) for my point that a child can identify as gay which you claim they can't. There is no evidence for another side of the argument-are you confusing "from birth" with "a child" they are different things afterall?

There is evidence for both the "nature" and "nurture" side of the arguement on the cause of homosexuality. You have mearly posted evidence for the "nature" side, evidence that I was aware of existing.

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How in the name of God did you come to that conclusion ?
Am I being Trolled ?

"since homosexuality has not been confirmed" !!!

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is evidence for both the "nature" and "nurture" side of the arguement on the cause of homosexuality. You have mearly posted evidence for the "nature" side, evidence that I was aware of existing.

How is that nature alone? A child can be influenced by social and environmental factors as a baby and child-that would count as the nuture side of the argument.

Iwasfrozen

anoisaris wrote: »

"since homosexuality has not been confirmed" !!!

... in the context of the discussion. i.e The cause of homosexuality.

Iwasfrozen

anoisaris wrote: »

How is that nature alone? A child can be influenced by social and environmental factors as a baby and child-that would count as the nuture side of the argument.

I'm glad you realize that, I wish other Homosexuals would aswell.

ChocolateSauce

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is conflicting evidence on both sides, one cannot say a child is gay from birth fact as this "fact" is still disputed.

The only good evidence I've ever seen supports the side that says it is an intrinsic biological property of people and is either largely or totally independent of environment. You at least think there is evidence for both sides, so I'm sure you shouldn't have a problem linking some of the evidence from the other side?

"As a child, as far back as I remember and primary school" does not equal "from birth"!

It points to it though. If they're gay from the ages of 2 or 3 and simply cannot remember further, isn't it logical to assume they were gay then too? I was straight when I was 3, and I assume I was also straight when I was 1.

Aard

Some say nature, some say nurture. In the end though, what does it matter? Homosexuality exists and it's not going to go away.

Iwasfrozen

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The only good evidence I've ever seen supports the side that says it is an intrinsic biological property of people and is either largely or totally independent of environment. You at least think there is evidence for both sides, so I'm sure you shouldn't have a problem linking some of the evidence from the other side?

Did a search, couldn't find anything.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It points to it though. If they're gay from the ages of 2 or 3 and simply cannot remember further, isn't it logical to assume they were gay then too? I was straight when I was 3, and I assume I was also straight when I was 1.

So if you where straight at 3 wouldn't it be safe to assume that you became homosexual later in life ?
Hence in your case it was "nurture" rather than "nature" ?

Aard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Did a search, couldn't find anything.

This surprises me; previously you wouldn't accept anecdotal evidence and now when asked about scientific evidence you can't provide any. Your argument is falling apart.

anoisaris

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The only good evidence I've ever seen supports the side that says it is an intrinsic biological property of people and is either largely or totally independent of environment. You at least think there is evidence for both sides, so I'm sure you shouldn't have a problem linking some of the evidence from the other side?



It points to it though. If they're gay from the ages of 2 or 3 and simply cannot remember further, isn't it logical to assume they were gay then too? I was straight when I was 3, and I assume I was also straight when I was 1.

Yeah I would agree with that assumption too.

Ickle Magoo

You did a search & couldn't find anything to back up your assertion that sexual orientation is driven wholly by environmental factors - so can we put that myth to bed now or are you still holding out for a future breakthrough?

You seem to be harbouring under the illusion that everyone who disagrees with you must be a gay man...