Gay marriage : who cares?

[Leela]

Good reasons have been supplied Leela.

I don’t recall any reasons that stood up to scrutiny. Can you remind me what these good reasons are? (Note that to say it is against natural law is just to say that it is immoral in your view. That is not a reason why it is immoral.)

 

[Leela]

…you are correct in your statement that Sectarian religious beliefs are not reasons for Laws. I with they were sometimes, but they are not…in a democracy. If they were, Southern Baptists would demand prohibition, other faiths would demand laws against dancing, etc., & it really doesn’t matter if it’s “always been done this way”.

Good point, Cradle Catholic.

 

[John21652]

I have offered an argument on why the reasons to ban gay marriage are NOT based on any logically consistent objective reason. This has so far gone unchallenged on this thread and every other where I have posted it. In short, that argument boils down to the fact that you have allowed MASSIVE change to marriage by heterosexuals, allowing tens of millions of them to use the institution to perpetuate mortal sins which are every bit the equal of homosexuality in the Church’s eyes. You have no apparent intentions of moving the government to prohibit this. You only intend to enforce morality through civil law selectively against homosexuals. That is the very definition of prejudice.

Under our system of governance, the Bill of Rights makes it crystal clear that the burden of proof for denying individuals their freedoms falls on the government, or those who would do the denying. The government must demonstrate a clear and compelling reason. Sectarian religious beliefs are not reasons. Citing (largely inaccurate) data that things “have always been done this way.” is not a reason. The longevity of a practice or idea is proof of nothing. Plenty of rotten ideas in medicine and science and morality (slavery) lasted thousands of years. Cultural inertia does not create a presumption that something is good. It must demonstrate such on its own merits.

No one on this forum or any other has provided verifiable evidence by mainstream research which shows that gay marriage has caused REAL harms anywhere it is allowed, or that it is reasonalby likely to do so in the future. Again, we have to qualify things a bit. Offense to your sensibilities does not count as a real harm. Ludicrous predictions about waves of incestuous marriages and legal bestiality do not count as real harms. NO ONE has produced evidence that would convince a reasonably intelligent panel of disinterested, non-religious people that gay marriage must be banned for the public good. That being the case, the move to do so is very obviously driven by prejudice.

Have a read through this thread, Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law. Plenty of objective reasons given.

 

[Leela]

Have a read through this thread, Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law. Plenty of objective reasons given.

Can you list two or three of them?

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t recall any reasons that stood up to scrutiny. Can you remind me what these good reasons are? (Note that to say it is against natural law is just to say that it is immoral in your view. That is not a reason why it is immoral.)

On a previous thread, I generated a series of arguments that I personally believe are viable arguments against gay marriage that are not religious arguments. Anyway here you go:

1. The Slippery Slope Argument is that if same sex marriage is allowed based on the 14th amendment (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) then all forms of marriage that can be conceived must be allowed as well. Examples: all forms polygamy, human/animal, incestuous couples, etc. So from this standpoint where does it end? Some gay rights defenders on this forum have expressed that these other types of marriages are damaging while the same-sex form of marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. Also these same defenders say that this is not the case in court rulings because the arguments used in court exclusively refer to same-sex marriage as in the case of Judge Walker’s ruling.
   Yet Judge Walker’s ruling on Prop8 was based upon other cases that had nothing to do with same-sex marriage so this argument doesn’t work:

Turner v Safely (allowing prisoners to marry without needing consent from warden)
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur (Unfair treatment of pregnant teachers)
Loving v Virginia (ruling on inter-racial marriages)
Griswold v Connecticut (ruling on the use of contraceptives)

The primary argument, proposed in courts for same-sex marriage, is based primarily on the equal protection clause. If same-sex marriage is legalized then any other un-traditional marriage group can use the ruling for and the arguments used by the same-sex groups. If you need proof of this just look north to our sister country Canada, who legalized gay marriage in 2005. Canada is now considering legalizing polygamy. The Green Party just recently voted it down a few weeks ago but I doubt the battle is over. Argument used by the polygamist? Gay marriage.

polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2010/08/canada-greens-may-push-to-decriminalize.html

2.) By social definition of Marriage, same-sex marriages are not compatable. When evaluating the primary function and purpose of marriage, it is easy to conclude that the only reason why marriage exists in the first place is for procreation, establishing a stable environment to raise children, and regulate sexual behavior. All other purposes of marriage are secondary including mutual love between the couple. We all know that it requires a man and a woman to procreate, or in modern times sperm and an egg with a carrier. Of course, sperm come exclusively from males and eggs come exclusively from females. So no matter how you shake it; it requires a man and a woman.

Same-sex couplings are ALWAYS infertile and for a same-sex couple to have a child it ALWAYS requires a 3rd party to be involved. Thus, a child of a same-sex couple at best possesses the DNA of only one of the parents. Therefore, in a best-case scenario a same-sex family with children will always have one stepparent.

There are studies that show the best environment to raise children is a family with both biological parents involved in the rearing of the children.

blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/CDEV0009-3920~74~1~524%5C524.pdf

clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf

ryananddebi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Stacey-J2001.pdf

Even though in opposite-sex marriages there are a percentage of marriages where the children do have a stepparent, it is still a percentage where in same-sex couplings it is always the case.

The second article above points out that research shows that children raised in same-sex marriages are very similar statistically as those whose parents are divorced. It also pointed out that children of divorced parents do not have the same advantages of children in a normal marriage.

3.) It has also been mentioned on this forum that this isn’t a valid argument because there are marriages allowed where one or both of the members is either unable or unwilling to have children. Three points here. 1.) For those parents that are unwilling, biologically they are still open to having a child either by accident or by latter changing their minds. 2.) For those that are unable to have children, I do not think anyone would like to have the government digging into the privacy of the individuals to determine fertility. I do believe that this would encroach upon a few privacy laws in this country. Therefore, the government has either intentionally or unintentionally used the one man and one woman requirement for marriage to minimize this possibility without dealing with the privacy issues. 3.) Concerning the heterosexual couples that are either unwilling or unable, they comprise a certain percentage of all heterosexual couples; while in same-sex relationships, it is always the case that they cannot on their own bear children.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t recall any reasons that stood up to scrutiny. Can you remind me what these good reasons are? (Note that to say it is against natural law is just to say that it is immoral in your view. That is not a reason why it is immoral.)

Continued…

4.) It can be argued from a natural law view in two ways: pro-creation and by extinction. The primary natural function of sex is for pro-creation not pleasure. Even though we are designed to deprive pleasure from sexual intercourse, which I believe the evolutionist on this board would say that this trait was necessary to make sexual intercourse desirable and to induce sexual behavior to propagate the species. Thus biologically, the primary function of sex is pro-creation. Since same-sex sex cannot procreate, it is an insufficient form of sexual intercourse with its primary purpose being pleasure. Marriages built upon pleasure alone do not last that long (this is my assumption).

5.) Same-sex couples cannot procreate without a 3rd party, so same-sex couples cannot carry on the human race alone. Therefore, the gay community requires heterosexual couplings to produce gay men and women since gay men and women cannot naturally produce other gay men and women. This is one of the better arguments against a “gay” gene. How is a “gay” gene passed down the line?

Judge Walker, in his ruling, and others have proposed that there is no significant evidence to show that heterosexual marriages are better than same-sex marriages. I would have to disagree and research either directly or indirectly supports this.

Again, I refer to Canada, which has been allowing gay marriages for 5 years now. In the below article proposed by the “queer” rights groups in Canada to the health department, evidence is supplied by gay groups outlining the issues that gay men and women endure due to their lifestyles. Even gaining the ability to marry has not “normalized” their lifestyle nor has it reduced the inherit dangers of their lifestyle. I will let you read it yourselves.

exacom.net/firstlibrary/Articles/Moral%20Issues/Homosexuality/Health%20consequences/HRC%20complaint.pdf

The most amazing statistic from this report is that the average lifespan of a gay man is 55 years. 55 YEARS. They also admit that it is due to the lifestyle choices of those in the gay community.

6.) When evaluating and living in healthy marriages, there seems to be one primary requirement and that is trust. I think that all would agree that the primary factors for a loss of trust in a marriage are due to: 1) infidelity, 2) physical/mental abuse and 3) financial secrets. Baring financial secrets the first two are serious issues in the gay community and the lifestyle they choose especially in men, which there seems to be a lot more statistics on men than women. Anyway here you go:

Infidelity: research has shown that particularly gay men (not as much data on lesbians it seems) that infidelity is very high and at least 50% as per the NY times are “open” relationships. nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html Also the following website has some very good statistics on it as well that are footnoted: frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Granted the many proponents of same-sex marriages will probably disregard this website as bias but in my opinion the best unbiased stats available is the breakdown of AIDS victims. Personally, I do not think that AIDS is a “gay” disease but rather a “promiscuity” disease, which I think that we all can agree. The CDC reports that: “MSM (men have sex with men) made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.” cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm If this information is correct, one can easily induce that gay men must have much more sexual encounters that straight men. Also, if you have read the report above concerning Canadian gay health grievances that in Canada where marriage is legal, they are still having a major problems in its gay community concerning AIDS.

Abuse: Studies have shown that in gay relationships physical and mental abuse is more likely between couples. As attested in the following study on the American Bar Association website:

• One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

• 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted and/or stalked by a male partner, but 10.8% reported such violence by a female partner.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
So if trust is the primary factor of a healthy marriage from the information supplied one can reason that there will be fewer healthy marriages in the gay community.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t recall any reasons that stood up to scrutiny. Can you remind me what these good reasons are? (Note that to say it is against natural law is just to say that it is immoral in your view. That is not a reason why it is immoral.)

Continued…

7.) The last argument I have is it proper to equate a lifestyle the same protections as race or ethnicity under the 14th amendment. From what I understand is that when interpreting one of the amendments in a court of law, the “original intent” of the amendment is taken into consideration. Obviously, this is the difference between “liberal” and “conservative” judges. Liberal judges interpret an amendment as they think it should be applied today, while conservative judges look at original intent. The original purpose of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment was to provide equal protection for all races and ethnicity. Thus the question is are “lifestyles” protected under the equal protection clause? One who interprets the amendment by its original intent would say no they are not.

Now people will try to argue that homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) isn’t a lifestyle. True, but living as an active gay is a lifestyle. Others will also say that being homosexual is not a choice. I think that can be debated since there has been no empirical proof of the “gay” gene. Even if there is a “gay” gene, the fact of the matter is that an individual must CHOOSE to live that lifestyle. They are not forced genetically or biologically to have sex with anyone. They may be tempted sexually, but still they are not in any way forced to live that lifestyle. In other words, it is a choice.

Others would like to equate homosexuality with being Black or some other racial group, and as such hitch a ride on the civil rights movement. Others would like to refer to gays as a minority just like Blacks, Hispanics, etc. The major fallacy with this argument is that Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Native Americans, etc. cannot wake up one day and cease to be what they are. I am of mixed heritage white & Indian. I was born with this heritage and I will die with this heritage. No matter how much I want to be other than that, there is nothing I can do about it. In other words, race and ethnicity are NOT choices.

The same cannot be said of gays. One is not born gay. At some point in their life he/she becomes gay. There are even those who at some point in their life cease being gay and become heterosexuals again. And there are those who live most of their lives as a happy heterosexual and then at one point or another choose to join the gay lifestyle. Thus they are not comparable.

I know that these are not all of the arguments against same-sex marriage out there and this is not an exhaustive list of arguments to say the least but these are the one I think personally are viable to the debate.

 

[John21652]

Can you list two or three of them?

Can’t you go and read two or three of them?

 

[John21652]

I don’t recall any reasons that stood up to scrutiny. Can you remind me what these good reasons are? (Note that to say it is against natural law is just to say that it is immoral in your view. That is not a reason why it is immoral.)

Totally wrong. To say something is wrong “in your view” is subjective. To say something is wrong under Natural Law requires objective reasoning.

 

[Darryl1958]

Can’t you go and read two or three of them?

Good counter-point.

 

[mackk]

What Constitutional right? Which amendment of the Constitution equates ‘lifestyle’ with race or ethnicity? The facts of the matter are that the practising homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If one is black, hispanic, or whatever is black, hispanic or whatever from the moment of birth to the moment of death. He/she cannot choose their race or ethnicity. But this isn’t true for practising homosexuals. It is a lifestyle choice. And don’t come back and say people are born gay, because until you or someone produces ‘proof’ that there is a gay gene it is not a valid argument.

Lifestyles are not covered in the 14th amendment.

first :: wow you are worked up .
second :: you just skipped right over the Catholicism is a choice part didn’t you? whether or not being gay is a choice or a genetic disposition is irrelevant. We choose our religions and we expect to have equal rights regardless of what alter we pray at. so the constitution does in fact ensure the rights of a person based on life style choices.
third::thank you for responding
i appreciate hearing other peoples points of view
//mackk

 

[CradleCath]

Good point, Cradle Catholic.

If that’s all you got from my post, well…I’m disappointed. The fact is there is a natural moral law, that transcends all religions. A mental & emotionally normal person would know that murder of another, simply because one doesn’t like this other person, is inherently wrong. If we struck these laws from our socity, we would have anarchy. A thief causes an imbalance within a society where people work for a living. Some are working hard, others not…while they both enjoy the same lifestyle. If we struck the laws against stealing, again…we’d have a disordered society.

This Natural Moral Law is called by some…just basic common sense. I call it the Law that is written on the hearts of men. It is not something that must be taught…by a Church, by the Bible, etc. We are capable of KNOWING. Natural Law tells us, as regards the two sexes that man & woman complete one another, are capable of generating life, thus they are able to create a unit that we call a family & our communities & nations have grown from the basic unit. Homosexuals do not have that ability. You may say that they can adopt, be artificially inseminated, etc., etc. & that again defies Moral Law. Two gay men (or Lesbian women) are not because of their disordered sexuality to **create **a natural family. (reasons against gays adopting…later.)

Read Immanuel Kant’s “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”.

If one is going to change a law that has been in existence for centuries…one has to be able to show that it will benefit the MAJORITY. Please show me how changing the laws on marriage to include homosexuals…will benefit society. This proof has to come from the small minority who want to do the changing. The burden of proof is on them.

I have kept my religious beliefs, which are Catholic of course, out of this in answer to the posters who say that bowing to religions while changing a law won’t work. There are many secular, societal reasons, which need to be looked at also.

 

[CradleCath]

Totally wrong. To say something is wrong “in your view” is subjective. To say something is wrong under Natural Law requires objective reasoning.

I’m beginning to wonder if people understand what the Natural Law is.

 

[CradleCath]

first :: wow you are worked up .
second :: you just skipped right over the Catholicism is a choice part didn’t you? whether or not being gay is a choice or a genetic disposition is irrelevant. **We choose our religions and we expect to have equal rights regardless of what alter we pray at. **so the constitution does in fact ensure the rights of a person based on life style choices.
third::thank you for responding
i appreciate hearing other peoples points of view
//mackk

The CAUSE of homosexuality doesn’t matter when arguing for gay “marriage”. It’s a fact that homosexuals can choose whether or not
to have disorderd sex, while people of different races & colors can’t choose to change their race/color.

I am a heterosexul woman. Can you tell me what rights I have, that you don’t. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex that you choose to marry…just like me. You have a right to own property, a right to work. What are the “freedoms” you are denied?

BTW. The “you” that I mention in my post is a generic “you”. It does not apply to you personnaly.

 

[Leela]

Swizzlestick suggests some reasons why he thinks gay marriage ought to be illegal.

“1) The Slippery Slope Argument is that if same sex marriage is allowed based on the 14th amendment (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) then all forms of marriage that can be conceived must be allowed as well.”

If there were no good reasons to prevent people from having any conceivable sort of marriage, then we would have to worry about such a slippery slope. But of course there are good reasons to prevent people from marrying children and animals and objects. The obvious one being that they cannot possibly consent to the marriage.

“2.) By social definition of Marriage, same-sex marriages are not compatable. When evaluating the primary function and purpose of marriage, it is easy to conclude that the only reason why marriage exists in the first place is for procreation,”

It is of course debatable what the primary function of marriage has always been or whether there even is a primary function of marriage given that marriage has been very different at different times and for different people, but that is a moot question since whatever marriage has been in the past can’t decide for us what marriage ought to be today or in the future. For example, many cultures tell their children that they ought to have arranged marriages because that’s how it has always been. Is that a good reason? Of course not.

“3.) It has also been mentioned on this forum that this isn’t a valid argument because there are marriages allowed where one or both of the members is either unable or unwilling to have children.”

This is an argument against legalization of gay marriage???

 

[Leela]

“4.) It can be argued from a natural law view in two ways:…”

What is natural is of course not always what is moral. Scientists will tell us that rape is natural, that it is natural for males to have multiple sexual partners, etc. They will even tell us that homosexuality is natural.

“5.) Same-sex couples cannot procreate without a 3rd party, so same-sex couples cannot carry on the human race alone.”

This would be a serious problem if anyone thought that gay marriage should have to carroty the burden of single-handedly sustaining the entire human race.

“6.) When evaluating and living in healthy marriages, there seems to be one primary requirement and that is trust. I think that all would agree that the primary factors for a loss of trust in a marriage are due to: 1) infidelity, 2) physical/mental abuse and 3) financial secrets. Baring financial secrets the first two are serious issues in the gay community and the lifestyle they choose especially in men, which there seems to be a lot more statistics on men than women. Anyway here you go:”

I think you could you could say the same sorts of things about poor people or about certain ethnic groups. Should there be financial or entice requirements for marriages? Of course not. That would be bigotry. The lack of any good reasons to prevent gay marriage suggests that there may be some of that going on in the opposition to gay marriage.

 

[ERose]

first :: wow you are worked up .

Maybe a little. My goal on this forum is to challenge people on their opinions and beliefs and be challenged. That is what I expect, but in the threads that I have dealt with concerning this subject and I have been involved in 4 or 5 so far, there is no real argument from the pro-gay marriage group. I haven’t seen any. So what I am asking, is if you truly believe passionately that gays should be allowed to marry you should have solid reasonable arguments right? Yet I see none except for why not? And when solid reasonable arguments against are propsed you get either silence or “you are a homophobe” comments.

What I am saying is if you are going to believe in something you got to have a good reason to believe in it. Or am I asking too much. Give me a solid reason and I will at least respect it. I cannot respect unintelligable arguments.

second :: you just skipped right over the Catholicism is a choice part didn’t you? whether or not being gay is a choice or a genetic disposition is irrelevant. We choose our religions and we expect to have equal rights regardless of what alter we pray at.

And that is covered in the first amendment. So is homosexuality a religion now?

so the constitution does in fact ensure the rights of a person based on life style choices.

Still you are wrong. The only amendment that is being used is the 14th amendment. But the section of the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) is in the Constitution to protect racial and ethnic rights.

I am not saying that gays cannot live the lifestyle that they want. That is up to them and I am not a legislator or judge. In fact I would vote to protect their rights if I had a vote. But getting married is not a right it is a privilege as is being in the military. And privileges can be given or denied by whomever is in control of giving them.

third::thank you for responding
i appreciate hearing other peoples points of view
//mackk

And thank you for your response as well. I really do appreciate peoples (name removed by moderator)ut. All I am asking for is for people to give solid reasons why they believe what they believe.

 

[Leela]

What I am saying is if you are going to believe in something you got to have a good reason to believe in it. Or am I asking too much. Give me a solid reason and I will at least respect it. I cannot respect unintelligable arguments.
All I am asking for is for people to give solid reasons why they believe what they believe.

The simple and obvious reason is that homosexuals are human beings deserving of all the same rights as all other human beings. The onus is on you to say why a particular group of people ought not to have the same rights as other people. In a liberal democracy, the question is never “why should we extend rights that other people get to this group?” but rather “is there any good reason to deny these rights to this particular group?” It is clear that there is no good reason to deny marriage rights to homosexuals. That is why courts have ruled and will continue to rule against such description regardless of what the public opinion is of homosexuals and whether or not people think what they do is icky.

 

[ERose]

“1) The Slippery Slope Argument is that if same sex marriage is allowed based on the 14th amendment (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) then all forms of marriage that can be conceived must be allowed as well.”

If there were no good reasons to prevent people from having any conceivable sort of marriage, then we would have to worry about such a slippery slope. But of course there are good reasons to prevent people from marrying children and animals and objects. The obvious one being that they cannot possibly consent to the marriage.

Then what about couples marrying other couples, or whole community marrying each other to take advantage of healthcare and taxes, one guy marrying 10 women, or one woman marrying 10 men or two brothers marrying each other or two sisters marrying each other or mother/daughter or father/son or two or more business partners marrying each other to take advantage of the tax codes/insurance? If you allow a change you must accept all forms of marriages that can be concieved in the human mind. So you have to do better with your counter point.

“2.) By social definition of Marriage, same-sex marriages are not compatable. When evaluating the primary function and purpose of marriage, it is easy to conclude that the only reason why marriage exists in the first place is for procreation,”

It is of course debatable what the primary function of marriage has always been or whether there even is a primary function of marriage given that marriage has been very different at different times and for different people, but that is a moot question since whatever marriage has been in the past can’t decide for us what marriage ought to be today or in the future. For example, many cultures tell their children that they ought to have arranged marriages because that’s how it has always been. Is that a good reason? Of course not.

How is it debatable concerning the function of marriage? It has always been for the purpose of procreation and establishing a stable environment to raise children. Until someone produces a society that has ever existed that marriage was not for this primary reason I would like to know which one.

For example, many cultures tell their children that they ought to have arranged marriages because that’s how it has always been. Is that a good reason? Of course not.

This example in not an example concerning a different marriage but rather a different means of how a couple is brought together. Try another example. This is not applicable.

“3.) It has also been mentioned on this forum that this isn’t a valid argument because there are marriages allowed where one or both of the members is either unable or unwilling to have children.”

This is an argument against legalization of gay marriage???

More of an argument against an frequently used argument that I dealt with on this forum. But it is very valid concerning this subject.

 

[ERose]

“4.) It can be argued from a natural law view in two ways:…”

What is natural is of course not always what is moral. Scientists will tell us that rape is natural, that it is natural for males to have multiple sexual partners, etc. They will even tell us that homosexuality is natural…

You didn’t completely read it did you. Do yourself a favor and go back and read the argument and then argue against its points. This is not a counter argument to my argument that I proposed.

“5.) Same-sex couples cannot procreate without a 3rd party, so same-sex couples cannot carry on the human race alone.”

This would be a serious problem if anyone thought that gay marriage should have to carroty the burden of single-handedly sustaining the entire human race…

Well they cannot whatsoever assist in sustaining the human race. That is the problem. If they cannot procreate, then why should they get married? Until someone comes up with a better argument against the true purpose of marriage, gay marriage is a oxymoron.

“6.) When evaluating and living in healthy marriages, there seems to be one primary requirement and that is trust. I think that all would agree that the primary factors for a loss of trust in a marriage are due to: 1) infidelity, 2) physical/mental abuse and 3) financial secrets. Baring financial secrets the first two are serious issues in the gay community and the lifestyle they choose especially in men, which there seems to be a lot more statistics on men than women. Anyway here you go:”

I think you could you could say the same sorts of things about poor people or about certain ethnic groups. Should there be financial or entice requirements for marriages? Of course not. That would be bigotry. The lack of any good reasons to prevent gay marriage suggests that there may be some of that going on in the opposition to gay marriage.

Then show proof of your assertions. I would recommend that you go back and read the article concerning the Canadian gay bring up a grevience against the Canadian health care system. This shows more than any other document that allowing gays to marry because it will make them happier is a fallacy. The facts show that the gay lifestyle is a self destructive lifestyle even if it is classified as a ‘normal’ lifestyle as it is in Canada.

Leela, thank you for at least commenting on these arguments. You are the first one that has tried.