Homosexual Marriage

[devonin]

As an aside, you might want to actually try using the forum's quote functions. They make seperating out what you're quoting us as saying, what you're paraphrasing us as saying, and what you are in turn responding much easier to tell apart.

I've given you several counterexamples right here in this thread, and apparently not a glimmering of comprehension has been displayed in return.

I warned you about the insulting language. I comprehend that you have not provided any counterexamples that met my criteria. Please instead of insulting my intelligence, clearly and obviously restate your counterexamples.

Regarding your request that I "not attack others in that way", I agree with your suggestion, though I believe it's important to note that communication is always a two-way street. Devonin goes on to say that "there's nothing contemptuous in that statement". Actually, there is, I've established beyond all doubt this comment's unmistakable propensity to demean all that disagrees with its premises.

You've established absolutely nothing "beyond all doubt" let alone that. I'm under no obligation to grant equal standing to any opinion that differs from mine. I'm under an obligation to grant equal standing to any opinion that presents any kind of compelling evidence, or reasonable arguement. If you tried to tell me that the moon is made of cheese because "your mother told you it was made of cheese" I see no reason to grant that belief the same standing as say, claiming the moon was made of rocks because "Someone who has been to the moon brought back rocks and not cheese" I have no fundamental and automatic propensity to dismiss opinions that differ from my own. In fact, I'm quite possibly the most open-minded person who frequents this portion of the forum. This is why I was put in charge of this forum, and why I take great offense to you maligning my motives with no actual support for doing so.

First, one could easily correlate the sanctitude of marriage with the biological necessity of reproduction (which obviously entails a mutual compatibility), and basic traditional family principles adopted by humanity and in all forms of nature.

You can't equate sanctity with biology because sanctity is inherantly religious. Something can only be "holy" or "sacred" if it is set apart for the service or worship of a diety.

Second, homosexuality can be regarded as morally deviant on the grounds of one's deliberate alternation of the natural merely to fulfill their sexual satisfaction.

Something is only unnatural if it does not occur in nature. That is what the word unnatural means. Homosexuality occurs in nature, thus homosexuality is not unnatural. Unless of course you want to try and argue that homosexuality is say...a disease (Hey look, biological causes) or a freak mutation (Hey look, biological causes)

Third, it doesn't matter; one simply can't spite all of religion merely for voicing its opinion in such a light, nor are they justified in assuming such beliefs directly trace back to a religious origin. Such comments attempt to degrade one's argument by asserting its illegitimate basis, perpetuate animosity, and merely beg the essential questions. I've said it before and I'll say it again: pure biased conjecture.

I don't recall spiting religion at all. In fact, I seem to recall having originally stated that the only remotely valid reasons for justifying ones opposition to homosexuality are religious reasons. As in, I grant the right of religious people to have the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, because it is a factor of their religious beliefs. However, I also stated, and feel, that while a given religious person is perfectly allowed to belief that homosexuality is wrong, that does not mean that homosexuals should be disallowed from engaging in the actions that they want to. Hindus believe cows are sacred, and I'm not going to make a Hindu eat a hamburger, but I'm going to expect a Hindu to leave me to eat my hamburger in peace too. I begged no questions, perpetuated no animosity unless you are so thin-skinned that you would take my pointing out that "The vast majority of objections to homosexualty stem from religious though" as something offensive, which it clearly isn't.

Dev tries to downgrade the validity of my argument by claiming he's unable to find the group who's discoveries serve as unfavorable to his position. To which one can only respond, perhaps you should've search a bit harder- Family Research Institute.

Neither Google nor Wikipedia generated any useful results whatsoever from a search for "FRI" Perhaps you should have told us what that group was instead of assuming we'd all know. Anyway, I had a look at their website, and right on their main page they state the purpose of the institute as intending "to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family"

So since they are -starting- from an assumption that "homosexuality is an issue that we view as a threat" they are automatically almost unforigveably biased. Let's quote from their main page again:

We welcome all who would join in the fight to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level.

I direct you to a number of scientific groups in the past several decades and centuries that explicitly intended to generate scientific proof to support sexism, racism, slavery et al.

Your institute sets forward "Our purpose is to prove that Homosexuality is evil bad and wrong" which is horrible science right from the get go.

Highly dubious. In either case, had it ever occured to you that heterosexuals make up the majority of the population?

Even on a per capita basis. Given recent statistics on the general incidence of bi- and homo-sexuality in the country, I've seen far more heterosexuals engaging in romantic and intimate behavior in public than homosexuals.

Preaching of one's religions views or political affiliation is neither illegal, nor what could be considered public social annoyance. On the other hand, public sexual-activity or obnoxious behavior to that effect is typically regarded as deviance, by all definitive criteria.

"Or obnoxious behavior" I like that, compare the volume of obnoxious behavior in public carried out by heterosexual teen males to the overall amount of "obnoxious behavior" and I think you'll see that it represents a firm majority. As for sexual activity, I agree that two people having sex in the middle of a public space is inappropriate no matter the gender of who is doing it, but outside the concept of the Gay Pride Parade (which I've already stated my issues with anyway) I'm hard pressed to think of a single incidence of "gays having sex in public" that I or anyone I know has ever reported seeing, though I've seen heterosexual sex in public on more than one occasion.

My comment regarding Grandi's orientation was merely an addon to the same hasty presuppositions initiated by Grandi himself. Grandi opines " many gay people remain "in the closet" for years before revealing their orientation, and many don't come out at all, unless caught.

But see here's the thing. Grandi stating that many homosexuals stay in the closet unless found out is actually backed up by a great deal of evidence that this is -precisely- what many homosexuals do. Nowhere in what he said did I get the impression that he was even thinking that "all those who disagree on his position be rendered mere self-hating closet homosexuals " Quite the opposite in fact. I think you'll find that the two thoughts are completely unrelated. He was making a general statement about the degree to which many homosexuals are uncomfortable coming out into today's social climate unless they are found out. That in no way implies that people who are anti-gay are somehow themselves gay. I saw no personal attack in any of that.

I already mentioned that current consensus postulates the origin of homosexuality to be a combination of environmental and cognitive factors only.

The only evidence you have given in support of this claim is to direct us to a website conducting studies from pre-determined conclusions. When they explicity state that their whole purpose is to -prove- that homosexuality is -wrong- then it should come as no surprise that lo and behold, all their research backs themselves up. Do you really think they would publish something that was DIRECTLY AGIANST their explicity stated purpose? I think not.

Moderator Note: I think you can take a day off to relax, and think about insulting the intelligence of other people. You might also consider formatting your posts in a way that makes it more clear what you are directing to whom about what text. As I mentioned at the top of the post, there is a very conveniant set of "quote" tags that can make your posts much easier to parse.