Bye. Oh, you’re not leaving? Well, you will be soon.
Thanks dutchboy - I was going t go into a long rant to Chicago-spigot [sup]i mean faucet[/sup]. But you hit the nail on the head…it is a complete contradiction. I’m not of the opinion that a necessary definition will win in the end for anyone. Massive societal movements will have to exist for certain groups of people to recognize that humans are individuals, captains of their own future, not marionetted stooges governed by a few individual gods. It doesn’t matter what religion one is, no one has the right to judge another, and in the end that is what is happening. Certain groups are trying to judge other certain groups and limit their rights. And that is what is fundamentally wrong with this whole situation.
Things I would love having cites for:
-
The fact that homosexuality is a mental illness (from the past 5 years please, and don’t forget peer-reviewed)
-
The fact that marriage has remained unchanged for 10,000 years (silly me, I thought that marriage today was significantly different from the purely legal contracts between husband-to-be and father of the bride in Greek times!)
-
A definition of the word “unnatural” that would somehow apply to homosexuality.
I believe that all arguments presented by Quint Essence and augusta have rested on at least one of these three assumptions. I will therefore assume their arguments are invalid until presented with a cite (or two, or three).
I get the impression I’m going to be waiting for a while.
Heh. You had a lot more written, though, so I’m willing to concede that you actually addressed the point before I did, but took longer to post. We can call it a draw. 
A lot of people think that this is okay . . . as long as they don’t get to call it marriage. I say that no single religious body has a monopoly on marriage. “Marriage” isn’t a trademark or a brand name after all. It’s simply a word that describes a concept – a concept that is embodied by the union of two loving members of the same sex just as much as by members of the opposite sex.
Well for starters, a fish won’t do anything but swim in a brook; he can’t write his name or read a book. I can’t see how encouraging unemployment and illiteracy can be anything but a disbenefit to society as a whole. Furthermore, to fool the people is his only thought, and though he’s slippery he still gets caught. Thus we see that these so-called “fish” are not merely idle but downright criminal, and not even very good at that. No, I don’t agree with people calling themselves fish at all. But then if that sort of life is what you wish, you may very well grow up to be a fish.
As for me, I’d rather be swinging on a star.
God, I hope not.
Who doesn’t?
Homosexualityin the animal kingdom.
I always find it amusing when homosexuality (HS) is referred to as unnatural. Humans are part of nature. If humans exhibit behaviour, by definition, it’s natural. Of course, what “natural” has colloquially meant is instinctive behaviour. But the NY Times article linked above, should dispel that notion.
But the real issue is different. What place does HS have in the ethical/moral structure of human society? So far, the chief rallying point for denying it legitimacy has been the “unnatural” schtick. But besides that, accepting HS would open the way towards new, unconventional familial structures, like polygamy (which I support). And this is a primary reason for anti-HS movements. The opening up of avenue that leads to a society whose values and attitudes and approaches are pretty deviant from the ones they’re ingrained with.
Small comfort for current generation, but I think, give it 2 generations and gays will be properly integrated, atleast in Western society.
OK, Quint Essence, I’ve read all of your posts, and besides being completely hateful, you have never addressed the OP.
The original post asked:
Your reply is that homosexuality is a mental illness and it’s “not normal.”
First, it’s not a mental illness. A vast majority of psychiatrists agree that it’s not a mental illness, and as I haven’t seen your psychiatry credentials, I strongly doubt that you are even remotely qualified to say that it is a mental illness. And yet, even if it is a mental illness, you haven’t specified why two mentally ill adults should’t be married. In fact, if they’re a couple of the opposite sex, the mentally ill can get married.
Second, so what if it’s not normal? Why should abnormal marriages be banned? I mean, if it’s normalcy you want, then why don’t we ban every marriage that isn’t between a man and a woman of the same race, within 3 years of each other in age, both under 40, who plan on having children? That sounds like a “normal” marriage to me. Simply by saying you want to ban gay marriage because it’s not “normal”, you are also saying you want to ban every marriage that doesn’t fall into the description I just typed. Over 40? Not normal. Interracial? Not normal. No kids, ever? Not normal. Ban them all.
I mean, I’m really trying to understand your point of view, but all you’re saying is “it’s abnormal.” Well, of course it’s abnormal. Otherwise gays and lesbians (and enlightened straight folk) wouldn’t be fighting for it, because it would be accepted. Simply arguing that gay marriage shouldn’t be legal because it’s not normal is equivalent to me arguing that the Muppets should be banned because Kermit the Frog is green.
So, I ask, what’s wrong with not being “normal”? What’s wrong with same-sex relationships being accepted? Specifics, please. Otherwise, I’ll just chalk this up to being the rantings of a bigot.
Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness. Anyone who argues that it is might as well be arguing that the earth is flat. The DSM-IV no longer lists homosexuality as a disorder. It went out (as did nymphomania and bondage/sadomasochism) long ago. So please, QuintEssence, have the decency to just admit that you’re a homophobe and let’s move on from this ridiculous pseudoscientific argument.
I like the comparison to left-handedness. There is strong evidence to suggest that homosexuality is simply a genetic expression. Any psychiatrists want to look up the MZ:DZ concordance ratios of homosexuality? I have a psych lab to go to right now, if nobody steps up, I’ll hit up PsycInfo in a few hours. 
Whoops, that’s monozygotic : dizygotic. Sorry for any confusion.
‘Natural’ is highly over-valued; meringue isn’t natural, chocolate-covered brazil nuts aren’t natural. Reading the Bible isn’t natural.
Best… argument… ever.
Several decades ago the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage. Before the decision marriage meant the union between a man and a woman of the same race. Many churchs at the time opposed miscegenation and did not recognize such marriages, so such a ruling was controversial. Now according to many posters on this board, it would have been acceptable at the time and even now for interracial unions to be registered as civil unions by the government. They would not be marriages, because to declare them marriages would involve the court in church issues. Am I missing something here?
Huh.
Right now, I’m only gonna go after the idea that “marriage is between a man and a woman, and it always has been.”
Mariage has changed a LOT in recorded history. Read a few history books to figure that out.
Howzabout we check out polygamy real quick-like.
“While modern Western societies believe in the sanctity of monogamy and enshrine it in their legal codes, most social traditions, over 80%, accept at least some degree of polygamy, the union between a person and more than one spouse.”
Different types of marriage around the world.
“The different types of marriages listed above show that marriage is not one set, unchangeable definition. Even in male-female marriage practices, there are many variances in what is acceptable. However, the average American citizen may not have such a global awareness of marriage. This may in part be due to the Christian heritage of the majority of US citizens. This country directs the most marriage exposure to Christian church weddings. It may not occur to many people that there are other traditions of marriage in other countries that are considered equally valid. What this country considers the most natural and normal is not necessarily a universal standard. That the range of acceptable marriage practices may change in the future is not an unprecedented possibility nor is it unrealistic to expect changes. Marriage has never been an immutable and fixed standard.”
And how about we examine what the Bible says about marriage and its Laws?
From same page.
"Historical marriages documented in the Bible were barbarous, in which women were seized during warfare to become wives. Parents viewed their daughters as child-bearing commodities, and just as frequently sold their children into slavery. Polygamy was frequent, especially in early Biblical marriages, such as the stories of Solomon and his “700 wives, princesses and 300 concubines,” as related in 1 Kings 11:3 (Revised Standard Version).”
On to Gay marriages:
"Research by the Yale historian John Boswell in the book, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, explores the historical context of homosexual marriages. His studies revealed that homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996).
"Paul Halsall, also a historian, supports the findings of Boswell and unearthed other cultures’ acceptance of male-male or female-female relationships. In his essay, Lesbian and Gay Marriage through History and Culture, he documents the recognition of same-gender couples in many cultures. He specifically lists, “Ancient Greece, Egypt, Crete, Sparta, Thebes, Ancient Rome, China, Japan, Malay, Bali, Australia, India, Native Americas (Chukchi, Koriaks, Kamchadale), New Mexico tribes, Peru, Brazil, Medieval Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism” (Halsall, 1996). While certainly the couplings and the recognitions were not everyday common occurrences, they were recorded as happening.
"The role of the church in condoning homosexual marriages is also evident, according to Boswell. The Catholic Church, in particular, legitimized same-gender unions for over 1,500 years. This tradition was halted only in the 1800s. There were over 100 liturgies specifically for same-gender marriages. Since childbearing parts of marriage did not fit the same-gender unions, they were removed. As a replacement, the liturgies praised the companionable parts of marriage. For instance, a gay couple was cited as celebrating "brotherhood.” (Dorrell, 1994)
“Other religious denominations accept and support same-gender commitments. Religious ceremonies for gay male couples and lesbian couples have been performed in assorted religious persuasions, including, Buddhist, Episcopalian, Reconstructionist, Jewish, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, Quaker, Unitarian and others (Where to Get a Religious Blessing, 1995). It is noteworthy that while many of the arguments against same-gender marriage pertain to religion, currently the only instances where Americans can have same-gender marriage rites performed are religious. The law does not recognize same-gender marriages, but many churches do.”
"Condemnations of homosexual relationships are rampant, especially the charge that recognizing same-gender couples as legal is promoting immorality. The American Psychological Association (APA) disagrees, in its released statement of its position on homosexuality in July of 1994. According to the APA:
“Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.” (What Do Some, 1996).
"It further goes on to state that research suggests homosexual orientation is decided early, perhaps before birth. It is found in 10% of the population, constantly across cultures irrespective of values or standards of each culture. Rates of homosexuality do not seem to change with new moral codes or social mores. Efforts to reverse homosexuals are simply social prejudice trying to sound scientific. While some people may label same-gender relationships as depraved based on their own feelings, the American Psychological Association does not view it as a medical or moral problem. This is not a new view, either. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the 1970s. Even the American Medical Association calls for “nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians” (What Do Some, 1996). Perhaps religious sentiment may inspire views of homosexuality as immoral. Nevertheless, nationally accredited medical, psychiatric and psychological associations do not share the view of homosexuality as immoral.”
Ahem. I hope that’s enough citing for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
Here you go, QuintEssence!
-Kendler, Thornton, et. al. American Journal of Psychiatry. (Nov 2000)
What monozygotic : dizygotic concordance rates mean is: if a particular characteristic is seen more frequently in identical (monozygotic) twins than in fraternal (dizygotic) twins, this lends support to the theory that that characteristic has genetic factors.
Hence, it makes as much sense to deny marriage to homosexuals as it does to, say, schizophrenics or the mentally handicapped. Are you willing to take that step? You better be, if you want to hold on to the argument you’ve been making above.
Biblically minded citizens note that the Bible refers to homosexual acts as an abomination to God, a unique and harsh category. So even if one is inclined by nature to “Live and let live”, the Bible commands that one become more judgemental.
[p]
Changing Marriage will change our society in unknown ways. Call it fear of the Law of Unintended Effects.
As long as I’m out of lurker mode, I just want to point out that Scylla, you taught me a valuable lesson today. Though your various political commentary on these boards makes me claw at my LCD screen in an unbridled liberal fury, your posts here have shown me that people who disagree with me can never be dismissed so readily. The devil’s advocate thing in the first part of the thread? Magnifico. Thanks.
Wwwwhat the hell is that supposed to mean, dude/dudett?
The implication is: people with the unique set of argumentative tactics and reactionary beliefs such as those you have tend to get banned rather quickly.
Note that it’s not the beliefs that might get you banned, but the tactics.
I don’t have any kind of evidence for this, but it’s my impression that the mods tend to rush the people with really out there beliefs out the door. I mean things like racism, anti-semitism, severe homophobia, etc. Or am I totally wrong? Is there just a high comorbidity between the racist/anti-semetic/homophobic posters that I remember and poor debating tactics?
Apologies for the hijack.