Homosexual Marriage and Lifestyle: Detrimental and Not Necessarily About Equality.

Despite what you might believe, gay marriage is about equality. You said there's a cottage industry dedicated to gay marriage. I hardly see the harm in that, boosting the economy and all. Ok, I brought up more than one point when I began this debate. One was homosexual marriage and the other homosexual lifestyle; How it"s detrimental and not necessarily about equality. I went on to explain that the homosexual lifestyle can adversely affect society and the homosexual as an individual. Please keep these distinct observations in mind, and refrain from taking all of my points as an argument against only one. The equality to get married is existent " the recognition of the marriage by the government, however, is not equal. There"s a distinct difference between the two. The propaganda says that gays do not have equal rights to get married. The law states you can get married and have it recognized. It just has to be to a member of the opposite sex. There"s a reason why it"s been that way, and during my responses, you may grasp the reason. When you change the requirements, due to preference of sexual orientation, the law becomes something about personal desires and not what"s best for society. Here"s an illustration behind what I mean There"s a big difference between treating people equally and treating behavior equally. We do not recognize all behavior as equal. The terms heterosexual and homosexual are used to define sexual behavioral preferences. When you look on your birth certificate, you will see your name and your sex .. it says male or female. So we are defined as people being male or female" not heterosexual or homosexual. gay marriage is less monogamous, "If the lack of monogamy is a problem, then banning marriage would hardly help. That'd be like banning medicine because sick people use it. Andrew Sullivan's main point was that the lack of societal support for their monogamy may be the reason why [1]. Also, allowing gay marriage won't be an instant change because the culture would need time to adjust as well." Ok, here: If you know that AIDS and other STDs run rampant in the homosexual community, and that is not enough to dissuade you from living that lifestyle, or convince you to practice monogamy, what makes YOU think that societal support or legalizing gay marriage will change that? "If the lack of monogamy is a problem, then banning marriage would hardly help." The lack of monogamy is the very point I am making. If the subject of marriage in the homosexual community is really about equality, then it begs to question why they are fighting for a right that statistics and studies show do not really fit with their particular lifestyle. Funny you used Andrew Sullivan, even though you say he doesn"t represent all gay people. I reiterate: Andrew Sullivan has even claimed that he doesn't believe that gay monogamy is possible. Instead, he claims that homosexuals "need" multiple partners! Apparently monogamy is not "flexible" enough for homosexuals. He calls monogamy a "stifling model of heterosexual morality" and thinks homosexuals have a greater "understanding for the need for extramarital outlets." Furthermore, Sullivan believes heterosexuals could learn from the promiscuity of homosexuals. He writes," something of the gay relationship"s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds." When you stated monogamy isn"t objectively better because sexual frequency tapers off in a long-term relationship " That"s frankly not a good argument. It would seem that argument is derivative of the mindset that monogamy is strictly about sexual longevity. I"m married with kids, and I can tell you first-hand that marriage is about much more than sex. It"s about much more than love. It"s about commitment through thick and thin. Some people who get married, actually take marriage as a vow of devotion to one another. In marriage, there is sex and love, but also bond of trust, and for the majority of married couples, procreation. That married couple now has responsibility, not only to one another, but to those children to raise them, nurture them emotionally, and educate them in order to be productive members of society contributing to society"s existence. "There are plenty of men who cheat with their wives and vice versa, and in a deceitful manner. Should marriage be banned for everyone because of the infidelity of others?" No, it should not, because I have already provided the information which shows the benefits to society and children that come from a heterosexual marriage. And for the percentage of men who do not cheat, those particular marriages could arguably be considered a major contribution to society. By the way, women cheat too. I really don't think the United States of America is comparable to primitive tribes and civilizations. We're concerned about developing infrastructure and advanced technologies. They were worried about finding food and growing their numbers. "The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs." The Mosuo people would disagree. I"d have to disagree with your refute of Unwin"s studies. Those civilizations he studied encompassed the Roman, Sumerian, and Babylonian empire. How old is the United States of America? 237 years, going on 238. The Roman Empire spanned over 1,300 years. And they were worried about more than finding food or growing their numbers " In fact:" The inventions and innovations which were generated in the Roman Empire profoundly altered the lives of the ancient people and continue to be used in cultures around the world today. Advancements in the construction of roads and buildings, indoor plumbing, aqueducts, and even fast-drying cement were either invented or improved upon by the Romans. The calendar used in the West derives from the one created by Julius Caesar, and the names of the days of the week (in the romance languages) and months of the year also come from Rome. Apartment complexes (known as `insula), public toilets, locks and keys, newspapers, even socks all were developed by the Romans as were shoes, a postal system (modeled after the Persians), cosmetics, the magnifying glass, and the concept of satire in literature. During the time of the empire, significant developments were also advanced in the fields of medicine, law, religion, government, and warfare. The Romans were adept at borrowing from, and improving upon, those inventions or concepts they found among the indigenous populace of the regions they conquered. It is therefore difficult to say what is an `original" Roman invention and what is an innovation on a pre-existing concept, technique, or tool. It can safely be said, however, that the Roman Empire left an enduring legacy which continues to affect the way in which people live even today." http://www.ancient.eu.com.... And that just covers the Roman empire. The Sumerian empire spanned about 4,200 years and their list of accomplishments are also note-worthy out-side increasing numbers and looking for food: http://www.ancient.eu.com... . Your example of the Mosuo people are an exception to the rule. Just because there is an example of a society which operates outside of traditional monogamy, that does not refute the value of traditional monogamy as a whole. It also does not refute the years of study conducted by Unwin. Furthermore, you failed to include a key aspect in the Mosuo culture: "While it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes, few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time." A term called "serial monogamy"- So monogamy, nonetheless. Lugu Lake Mosuo Cultural Development Association (2006). The Mosuo: Walking Marriages. I find it interesting that when I made my point with Unwin, you dismissed the tribes of his research as being irrelevant, yet opted to provide a tribe of about 40,000 individuals as an example to refute my point. "AIDS is rampant in the homosexual community. Again, I don't see how banning gay marriage would help fix that." I go back to my beginning statement in this rebuttal. This specific point is not necessarily an argument against gay marriage, as much as to point out the detriment of the lifestyle to the homosexual as an individual, and society. The United States and other countries recognize this detriment as well: Specifically, the United States recognizes the lifestyle being detrimental, hence the current ban against donated blood from men who have sex with other men. If it were natural and "..is not detrimental to society in anyway whatsoever", as you claimed, why the ban in our country and other countries? Better yet, if you needed blood, and it were legal, would you knowingly accept blood from a man you knew to be gay without thinking twice? If you had the choice between a heterosexual and homosexual"s blood, given no background or info in that setting, what would you gamble with? http://en.wikipedia.org... I"d post a link to substantiate AIDS being prevalent in the homosexual community, but I don"t think that fact will be disputed. "First off, it drives me nuts that you didn't cite your sources. Merely stating "surveys say" does not allow me the chance to review their highly questionable conclusions without speculating their method. Also, this is gay adoption, not gay marriage, so it's off topic. While I do disagree with your point, I'd like to stay focused on the issue of our debate." It"s not off topic. This is a detriment to society " one of the key topics I brought up when I started this debate. Children from natural marriages (man and woman) are seven times less likely to live in poverty, six times less likely to commit suicide, less than half as likely to commit crime, less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, and they develop better academically and socially. However, children from fatherless homes are seven times more likely to live in poverty, six times more likely to commit suicide, more than twice as likely to commit crime, more than twice as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, worse off academically and socially " and account for 60 percent of Amercia"s rapists, 63 percent of America"s youth suicide, 70 percent of America"s long-term prison inmates and reform school attendees, 71 percent of America"s teenage pregnancies, 72 percent of America"s adolescent murderers, 85 percent of America"s youth prisoners, 85 percent of America"s youth with behavioral disorders, and 90 percent of America"s runaways. http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com... I have already pointed out that homosexual couples effectively remove either the father or the mother from the home. They claim that there"s no difference, but a far more recent study says other-wise: http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu... This study was conducted utilizing an impressive 20% of Canada"s 2006 Census, and at the time of this census, Canada"s same-sex couples had enjoyed all taxation and government benefits since 1997 and legal same-sex marriage since 2005. The study concluded that children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types (common law heterosexual couple, single mother, single father, and gay male couple) are similar to each other and lie in between the married opposite-sex household and lesbian household extremes. Allen summarizes his findings on the effect of parent and child genders in same-sex households as follows: "the results on high school graduation rates suggest that children living in both gay and lesbian households struggle compared to children from opposite sex married households. In general, it appears that these children are only about 65% as likely to graduate from high school compared to the [married opposite-sex] control group"a difference that holds whether conditioned on controls or not. When the households are broken down by child gender it appears that daughters are struggling more than sons, and that daughters of gay [male] parents have strikingly low graduation rates. The latter conclusions are worthy of greater clarity, because they are the first findings that can really address the effects of fatherlessness or motherlessness on boys and girls in same-sex households. These data indicate that the specific gender mix of a same-sex household makes a "dramatic difference" in the association with child graduation. Girls in lesbian households were only 45% as likely to graduate compared to girls from homes with both a mother and a father. More strikingly, girls from gay male households were only 15% as likely to graduate as girls from an opposite-sex household. A parallel comparison for boys in lesbian households found them to be 76% as likely to graduate as their male peers in opposite-sex households. Finally, boys in gay male households were found to be 61% more likely to graduate than boys in opposite-sex households. However, Allen added that the results for boys, unlike those for girls, were not statistically significant. Looking at these differences from another angle, Allen"s findings indicated that in gay male households, sons achieved a 72% graduation rate and daughters achieved a 43% graduation rate. For lesbian households, the graduate rates were 48% for boys and 55% for girls. Allen notes that such differences seem inconsistent with blanket claims of discrimination as an explanation for these findings, which he summarizes as indicating "sons do better with fathers, and daughters do better with mothers." And this is just covering the subject of education. "gay marriage causes more illegitimate child births, and crime in turn." Here you go: "Demand for Same Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada, and Europe," http://www.marriagedebate.com... gay sex isn't normal Actually, I said .."there"s nothing inherently loving, healthy, or natural about inserting a penis into the anus." Yeah, the standard response is, "It"s natural or normal for me because it"s what I prefer." And I don"t mean "natural" in the sense of preference, but "natural" in the sense as to how the human body is designed to function. You and I have all manner of "natural" desires to do things that are physically destructive, (tobacco use, getting drunk, violence, etc.,) and those things often feel good. However, we don"t excuse those behaviors because they come "naturally". Hence anti-smoking adds, "Don"t be THAT guy" posters, etc.,. Sorry, but the human body was not designed for anal intercourse. Science already shows the function of the anus. Its sole purpose is to excrete waste. Notice everyone has the same body part designed to excrete waste, yet we possess unique body parts for sexual functions. The same way science shows the functions of the vagina and penis. Furthermore, it is in line with what human bodies are designed to do " not what they desire to do. I"d also like to point out that heterosexuals couples have been known to perform this kind of sexual activity as well. I"d apply the same argument to them as well. The following provides a link as to the purpose of the anus: http://www.health24.com... Since the beginning of time, the anus has also been accepted by many cultures as an erogenous zone, explaining the act of anal stimulation. The anal walls are rich in nerve endings that can give a feeling of pleasure. Many homosexual and heterosexual people practice this form of intercourse. However, anal sex should always be practiced with a condom and a good water-based lubricant. It is very possible for the walls of the rectum to be torn either through a very solid stool, or by rough anal sex. This puts the receiver at a much higher risk of HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and other bacterial infections. What gives you the right to decide that? What gives you the right to ask that question? I"d also like to add some illustrations as to how homosexuality and homosexual marriage have and will possibly affect society: Freedom of speech and religion will be restricted: Any disagreement with homosexuality or homosexual marriage will automatically be deemed as hate speech and intolerance. Regardless of how cordial it is stated. It"s already happening. I, personally, have already been accused of being intolerant, which I find hypocritical on the part of my accusers if you actually look up the definition of tolerance. The people accusing me of being intolerant are being intolerant. The only tolerance granted will be reserved for those who support the homosexual activist position. And that"s not tolerance at all. Funny thing: How can you demonstrate tolerance unless you know another person"s opinion? How can you express an opinion unless you speak it or write it? Here are some examples: http://www.lifesitenews.com... In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington"s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state"s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer. Owners of a small, privately owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued. A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room. A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church. Canada and Sweden already restrict speech against homosexuality to the point that even pastors have been fined or jailed: http://townhall.com... Possibilities and things that are happening: Social Security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual "widows" and "widowers" Medical insurance premiums will rise to offset the higher health care costs associated with homosexual behavior, i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases. Furthermore premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples. Employee benefits will be reduced as employers are mandated to spread their limited benefit dollars to include homosexual partners. Limited benefit dollars given to homosexuals must come from somewhere; indeed, they will probably be taken away from everyone else "including married couples raising children. Homosexuals will probably be given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate. In other words, not granted equal rights, but super rights. So kids become trophies that validate the normality of their lifestyle. Children will be indoctrinated without parental consent to accept homosexual behavior and same sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage (Already taking place in the public schools of California and Massachusetts) " granted, this one is a stretch to me because even though it"s a concern, as the parent, they could opt to put them in a private school, or homeschool. The workplace will attempt to indoctrinate you. If you refuse to be a "team player", you could lose your job . This is already happening in the Military. On the record, you have to agree with the lifestyle, and say it"s ok. Off the record, if you are not on duty, and you explain your personal opinion to someone else, you will experience a backlash if another person listening takes offense. If none of what I have presented is a sign of how homosexuality is detrimental to society, then I would daresay you"re being intellectually dishonest. However, to make the absolute assertion that it does not have a detrimental effect on society anyway whatsoever is a pretty bold statement. I posted what my beliefs were about the subject and provided the reasons why. If you"re going to refute, with absolute certainty, then the burden of proof would be to show how it is not detrimental, and how it equates as equally in contributing to our past, present, and future society the way heterosexual marriage has. And maybe that"s part of the reason why societies past have placed a higher value on heterosexual marriages and grant them benefits they do not grant homosexual couples in marriage " because Governments past have recognized how heterosexual marriage actually contributes to society. I apologize for not writing sooner, but I had to take my wife to the hospital yesterday and we didn"t get home until midnight. I thought about relinquishing the debate, but she has felt well enough for me to rotate between taking care of her, the kids, and finishing this final rebuttal. Thanks for debating with me!