Burnt Orange Report

The "allegedly scientific evidence" is the debunked studies which claim homosexuality is biologically determined. Since it's not, it is specious to compare interracial marriage - between people who have no choice over their skin color - and homosexual marriage - between people who have full choice over their sexual orientation.

Okay, so the ability to choose determines whether or not members of groups can legally marry. Gotcha.

However, this makes me wonder if we should also ban interpolitical marriage.

Talk about your specious arguments.

Where was the scientific assertion that homosexuality is determined at birth been debunked? Just because you don't LIKE the results of a scientific study doesn't make it wrong.

And I'd like to ask all of the idiots that think gay people "chose" to be gay one question:

Being gay in today's America means facing intense discrimination, an increased threat of violence, religious scorn, possible alienation from family, and depression brought on by discrimination sometimes leading to suicide or addictions.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE THAT?

Where was the scientific assertion that homosexuality is determined at birth been debunked?

Doubt cast on 'gay gene'

Okay, so the ability to choose determines whether or not members of groups can legally marry. Gotcha.

The post asserted that interracial marriage and homosexual marriage is "the same fight". I pointed out a most glaring distinction between the two.

Being gay in today's America means facing intense discrimination, an increased threat of violence, religious scorn, possible alienation from family, and depression brought on by discrimination sometimes leading to suicide or addictions.

Perhaps a decade ago. Now, anyone who dares oppose the gay agenda has a much higher chance of being discriminated against.

Interesting how you ascribe all of those downsides of being homosexual to discrimination when they could as easily be ascribed to the immorality of homosexuality itself.

Read your link before you cite it. This is a quote from the "debunking" article:

"However, both the studies targeted only one part of the X chromosome. The authors of the new study say that: "These results do not preclude the possibility of detectable gene effects elsewhere in the genome." "

Hardly a "debunking." All it means is that they could find no significant evidence in ONE PART of the genome.

"Perhaps a decade ago. Now, anyone who dares oppose the gay agenda has a much higher chance of being discriminated against."

Untrue. Hate crimes against gay people are at record levels. I have seen very few acts of violence against anyone who opposes gay equality.

As to the "immorality" of homosexuality: clearly, you have been brainwashed by some religious zealot somewhere in the past, which is incredibly sad. That means you will miss out on a lot of joy in life by your inability to open your mind to new people and new experiences. I really pity you.

However, I find that using religion, which was designed to bring people together, to spread hatred, bigotry and violece, is the greatest example of immorality in human history.

It's easy to be so moral and pure when you are just another white straight male conservative, isn't it?

I find it funny how it is always these people telling women what is best for them or telling gays what their feelings are. It must come from that innate personal knowledge and experience. Yep, that must be it, I'm convinced Mark.

The fact that you have seemingly never been a woman or a homosexual (though I'm assuming you could chose to be the latter by your argument) makes it hard for me to understand where you know more about these groups than these groups themselves.

never been a woman or a homosexual

And therefore, have no right to any moral opinion on the matter. Talk about being brainwashed.

Can't you guys do better? I'm surprised you haven't resorted to the "homophobe" ad hominem. Well, not explicitly, at least.

I'm of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" school. And the fact is, homosexuality is immoral, and harmful to those who choose to engage in that lifestyle. Suicide and depression is higher for gays, and it's not reaction to "discrimination" because it is geographically indeterminate - whether in Des Moines or San Francisco, in relation to heterosexuals, "gays" are anything but.

I'm of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" school. And the fact is, homosexuality is immoral, and harmful to those who choose to engage in that lifestyle.

Wow, with those two statments together, I am almost feeling the love. It's overflowing, pervading my every cell.

I keep wondering, though, if homosexuality is so harmful, then why can I not seem to figure out where the harm is after 19 years? I mean, I keep hearing this from the ridiculous right and for the life of me, I can't think of how it has actually harmed anyone?

I mean, I haven't killed anyone (though Matthew Sheppard among others were on the receiving end of that).

I havn't denied anyone their rights or jobs, even though many gays have had that happen in reverse.

All the same-sex relationships I've seen havn't had any effect on the opposite-sex relationships of their friends and families so I don't see how that is harming anyone.

In fact the only harmful thing I can think of about homosexuality is that it gives Conservatives a giant headache and thus me a giant headache because they start preaching about how they know of all these harmful things that somehow have escaped me.

I can't think of how it has actually harmed anyone?

I didn't say it caused YOU to hurt anyone else, but that you harm yourself.

Anything which binds us more closely to this mortal coil endangers our eternal selves. Non-procreative sexuality does so in all its forms, some more firmly than others. There are many, far too many, ways to succumb to materiality - the challenge is to not do so. Homosexuality and other forms of non-procreative sex are some of the most insidious. To excuse ("gay gene") and legitimize ("gay marriage") them so that others may Fall is evil.

I'm surprised that lefties, with their innate common sense that unthinking consumerism and materialism are quite wrong, find this so hard to understand. It's the same carnality...it's the same distancing of yourself from God.

Mark, if you were honest with us, and with yourself, you'd admit that scientific knowledge of the genome at this early stage is completely inadequate to allow you to justify sweeping statements denying a genetic basis for gayness. Even framing the discussion in terms of a "gay gene" is itself either a gross simplification or a blatant dishonesty, as anyone with even a passing association with genetics could tell you. But I'm certain your intent was never to investigate scientifically what may or may not be really going on: you have an a priori conclusion, religiously or ideologically driven, and are determined to force-fit available "science" to that conclusion.

Absent scientific backing, you could, if you wished, find out whether being gay is intrinsic or a lifestyle in another way: you could ask your gay friends and associates with whom you have a sufficiently good relationship to talk about such things. As a straight male in a context in which I have known many gays and lesbians over several decades, I've done exactly that. To a person, all who were willing to talk about it assured me it was innate, that they had known since puberty that they were gay.

But of course that would mean you would actually have to engage some gays and lesbians in conversation... sorry, but the browbeating, preaching and straight-superiorist ranting you do in this thread do not count as conversation... to find the truth in that way.

Oh, by the way... I asserted above that I am a straight male. How do I know? What's my scientific evidence? Well, I have none; I've always known I was straight, ever since puberty. Haven't you, Mark? Why is it impossible for you to admit that others have similar direct knowledge of themselves? Oh, sorry... asked and answered: fundamentalist religion on steroids and ideology run wild.

I pointed out a most glaring distinction between the two.

Right. And your distinction is pointless, unless you are truly saying that having a choice about your group is important in marriage.

Read the article again:

"We are saying that public unreadiness for or opposition to a censured social arrangement is not sufficient proof that the new structure must be immoral. It has to be examined on its merits -- on the basis of fairness, justice and practicality."

To take your distinction with the import you give it, there is no need to be fair or just on issues where people make a choice, unless you are being merely pedantic about differences.

Anything which binds us more closely to this mortal coil endangers our eternal selves. To excuse ("gay gene") and legitimize ("gay marriage") them so that others may Fall is evil.

Interesting. Homosexuality is an "insidious" way to succumb to materiality. But, in these terms really, any sexuality is a kind of materiality in that it focuses on the "mortal coil."

If people take marriage religiously or spiritually, the focus is on the love, a committment, a sacrifice. Marriage as a unification has been compared to the union of the Church and Christ. In other words, the focus is on the union. It is sacrificial in that the two participants sacrifice themselves as individuals to the primacy of their union.

Gender is irrelevant if you're talking about love. How is a homosexual marriage based on love any more material than heterosexual marriage? Because it is no procreative? How "mortal" is that? In fact, your complaint about the non-procreative nature of homosexuality is wrapped up in mortal coils. Are heterosexual couples who either chose not to have children or cannot bear children as guilty and evil as the homosexuals? I suppose getting married late in life, after a woman can no longer have children, is evil, too.

You in fact debase marriage by focusing on the sexuality of it.

Steve, I have quite a few gay friends, all couples in the neighborhood - and somehow, they manage to debate this sort of thing without your dripping sanctimony.

TXBubba - As Lenny Bruce said, "We're all gonna die!" We can spend our precious time on Earth fucking like animals and collecting toys, or we can spend it seeking God. The choice is yours, and the consequences eternal.

Ah, the evasive platitude.

Your equating homosexual marriage with "fucking" and the material world still warrants an explanation. I attend church with many homosexuals who seek God. I know homosexuals that are just as devoted to each other as any heterosexual couple.

Let's rise above the physical, then, and explain to me how the love between two homosexuals differs from that of heterosexuals.

I am truly open to your explanation.

Mark, do your gay friends read your opinions on this site? Would they still be your friends if they did? Would discussions continue to be as civil as you say they are?

You never addressed my key point: have you asked your gay friends if they've always been gay, or does your ideology provide you an a priori answer to that question?

As to how we spend our time on this earth, I don't have a lot of interest in collecting toys, but the fucking-like-animals part has a certain appeal. Fortunately, my religion has no problem with that. If yours does, well, what can I say: be true to your faith; don't fuck like an animal. At my age, I don't have a whole lot of years left to pursue that pleasure, and nobody else's church is going to deprive me of it.

Re your "eternal" consequences: historically, the Universalist side of my UU religious tradition specifically disavowed the existence of a hell; now we have no doctrine at all on the subject, because we premeditatedly have no doctrine on anything. But... hell, Mark, imagine me in hell if it pleases you... think of it as a place populated with people who look down on others based on their sexual orientation; that would certainly be hell for me.

As to sanctimony, I looked it up in Webster's: "Hypocritical piety or righteousness." There's only one person on this thread indulging in sanctimony, and it ain't me. My Christian friends and I manage to discuss religion without a hint of your my-way-or-the-highway approach, which frankly is what provoked me against my better judgment into responding in the first place. "My way or damnation..." now there's sanctimony, indeed.

As for dripping, the doc took care of that problem thirty years ago.

I've presented a coherent, morally based argument against homosexuality which is geared toward compassion, not condemnation of homosexuals. I've argued on their behalf, in sincere regard for their eternal salvation.

If you reject God and you reject the concept of asceticism, then you will reject that argument. But one cannot say that anyone who opposes homosexuality has no rational basis for his opposition other than homophobic bigotry, as gay militants so often claim.

I've presented a coherent, morally based argument

Coherent? Not really. Not at least in what you presented here. I took your values, your argument, and found it lacking consistency.

Believe me, I'm trying to understand the argument you're making, not merely refuting it. I'm trying to apply what seems to be the values consistently in different situations. And I've tried to avoid distorting what you have said.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is wrong because it's what your religion teaches, that's one thing. As for a rational basis, I don't see it.

But frankly, Mark, that's not really the issue of the court case. This country isn't a theocracy. Legally, this is the right decision.

But one cannot say that anyone who opposes homosexuality has no rational basis for his opposition other than homophobic bigotry, as gay militants so often claim.

One can say that. I do say that... or something very similar. Last time I looked, this was still the U.S. of A., and until your buddy John Ashcroft gets through with it, I can say what I please. Your opposition manifestly has no rational basis, because religion... yours, mine, everyone's... has an irreducible irrational component. That's no bad thing, if you ask me. But it does mean that "rational religious argument" is an oxymoron. Are you a bigot? a homophobe? I don't know. But are you rational in your condemnation of gays? That you are most certainly not.

Tx Bubba is willing to cut you some slack and argue on your terms, "trying to understand the argument you're making, not merely refuting it." I, on the other hand, am unabashedly opposed to the substance of your arguments, and I understand them all too well, because they are only a more virulent version of the irrational condemnations of gay sexuality that I've encountered many, many times in my life.

I evaluate your proposed policies by the likely effect of their implementation, not by your self-serving assertion of coherency and morality. And the likely ultimate effect of society-wide pursuit of your plans for everyone is just this: raw discrimination and deprivation of civil rights and civil liberties of gays, lesbians and others who don't meet your procrustean standard of normalcy. Whatever your motivations, the end effect is the same as that of "homophobic bigotry." Moral? Hey, Mark, whatever happened to, "Judge not..."?

One other matter. Who gives you the right to say that those of us who disagree with you "reject God"? It's like Bush saying people who disagree with him are unpatriotic. Both of you may succeed in your respective smear jobs... but that doesn't mean you are right. Or coherent. Or moral.

OK, I'll bite. The study previously cited is over 4 and a half years old. Can you not come up with more recent scientific findings?

Here you go, this one is only two months old. And more.

The problem is you think the homosexual act is what the problem is. You cite high suicide and depression rates as evidence that homosexuality is harmful. I think you forget about a thing called cause and effect. I'd bet most of the depressed and suicidal gays out there are the ones who are still in the closet and not sexually active, or the ones who just came out with disastrous results. And therein lies why they suffer from depression - their fear of rejection by family, friends, and society. You think because a young person lives in SF means they don't have any fears? I hate to tell you, but hate crimes happen there too.

When you say that people don't choose their race, so that's why it's okay for interracial marriage, why don't you apply the same logic to what family you are born into? Certainly, you didn't choose to be born to your parents, so shouldn't you be free to marry your sister? Sorry, but that is your own logic at work there, not mine.

Can't you admit that gay people are going to be gay, regardless of whether they are ever allowed to get married? If that is true, what harm is there in letting them get married? How does it affect you or your family? When the straight couple down the street gets a divorce, is your own marriage suddenly weakened? If gays get married tomorrow, will your wife suddenly come to you and say, 'you know, I just don't feel like our marriage is as strong as it used to be'? Do you think heterosexual couples would suddenly say, 'now that the gays can marry, I don't think we should get married, it just seems so tarnished'?

These are the questions that gay people want to know the answers to. No one who is against same-sex marriage really has the guts to answer these questions, because they know their own answers will weaken their argument.

You know Mark - I have read over your replies and a few things stand out. One of which I take exception to that no one has picked up on yet.

I am a 48 year old heterosexual male who has had a vasectomy. I am engaged to a Wonderful 52 year old woman who has had a hysterectomy. According to your arguments

(Anything which binds us more closely to this mortal coil endangers our eternal selves. Non-procreative sexuality does so in all its forms, some more firmly than others. There are many, far too many, ways to succumb to materiality - the challenge is to not do so. Homosexuality and other forms of non-procreative sex are some of the most insidious. - Mark Harden)

I should not be able to marry the woman I Love. There is NO chance that we will ever procreate. Using your reasoning about banning Gay Marriage we would also be banned from marrying. Add to that that I am of Northern European descent and she is of Hispanic descent and you might further wish to prevent this marriage?

California was the first state to to remove the laws against interracial marriage - that was only 56 years ago! I don't know what the last state was - but I am betting that the law was on the books through the 60's.

So Mark - should I not be able to wed my sweetheart even though there will never be children of this union?

As an aside - maybe the suicide rate is so much higher among Gays because of all the Crap they have to put up with from those wonderful, pious individuals who seem to be expert at living everyone's lives except their own.

P.S. I am studying to become a Minister - someone who actually ministers to ALL peoples needs and not just those of "the choir".

Michael,

Will you have a problem when one day fathers and sons want to get married? There is no biological or scientific argument to preclude them from getting married and if one day gay marriage is established based on an "equal protection under the law" argument there will not be a legal argument against father-son marriages either. I would support gay marriage if some one could present an arguemnt that allows for gay marriage but precludes marriage between father and son or mother and daughter, but it seems that no such argument exists.

I think we should allow people to drive cars - but only if we can outlaw accidents first!
All guns should be outlawed because they kill people. Pharmaceuticals should be banned because drugs can be abused. Your argument is specious. Deal with the issue at hand.

No one should be able to discriminate against another class of citizen solely because they don't like the way they look or act. As long as no one is being harmed or coerced - indeed, if there is an agreement between the parties involved, the law should PROTECT citizens from being excluded from equal rights.

One salient point was made the other day - gays are not asking the CHURCH to necessarily recognize their right to marry. They are asking the LAW to recognize their right to marry. With marriage comes the right to inherit, to make decisions for an incapacitated partner, to be treated fairly - and the right to divorce too! Marriage is not entirely a win-win situation - with it comes responsibilities.

There is NO difference between laws prohibiting people of two different races to marry and laws prohibiting two people of the same gender to marry. Some people are made uncomfortable by seeing a white man and a black woman together and some people are equally uncomfortable seeing two men walking hand in hand. Hell - it makes ME a little uncomfortable - but I have NO right to tell someone they can or cannot marry!

Michael,

"Your argument is specious. Deal with the issue at hand."

I think it is prudent to think about the long term implications of our decisions and I suspect you do to. More likely than not you made the above statement because you are unable to directly address the issues that I brought up - that's ok.

"No one should be able to discriminate against another class of citizen solely because they don't like the way they look or act. As long as no one is being harmed or coerced..."

Then you don't have a problem with father-son pr mother-daughter marriage? What about sexual relations between men and young boys (i.e. NAMBLA?) You know, apparently there are some of these young boys who claim that they are a consenting partners. Who are we to judge, right? Some people also enjoy sex with animals. Do you think it would be wrong to discriminate against these people? Oh, and don't pull the "well, the dog is not a consenting partner argument" because many people own pets and no pet has ever verbally consented to being owned. Interestingly enough, I know a very well educated lesbian woman who has told me that she enjoys the...uhem, companionship of dogs on occassion.

"They are asking the LAW to recognize their right to marry."

They do have the right to marry and I have had several gay friends who have done so but it didn't work out. The issue here isn't whether they have the right to marry. The issue here is whether we should redefine what "marriage" means. No one is going to stop a gay man from marrying a women or a gay woman from marry a man - they have the full legal right to do so - just like everyone else.

"There is NO difference between laws prohibiting people of two different races to marry and laws prohibiting two people of the same gender to marry."

Sure there are differences. One obvious difference is that sex between a male and female of different races has the natural potential to create an offspring whereas sex between two men or two women - like sex between different species - has no such potential.

You know, I love myself quite a bit. Do you think we can redefine marriage so that I can marry myself so that I can collect various benefits. How about if I marry my father - I love him - so that way I can collect social security survivor benefits when he passes away and also avoid inheritance tax. Do not doubt that father-son, mother-daughter marriage won't happen - there are a lot of benefits to be gained and once the definition of marriage "opens" up there will be no social stigma to doing so.

I think it is prudent to give some thought to the long term consequences of our decisions today.

Ben Zen, following from YOUR logic, if you think it's alright for men and women to get married, do you think it's okay for mother and son, or father and daughter to get married?
You didn't think of that did you? That's okay.

Is this society so messed up that others have to choose your lifestyle? Isnt the freedom of choice what makes the U.S such a signifigcant country? Wow that is really brilliant a gay persons buiesness is no one's buiseness but theirs in their bedroom. And if they want to mix races let them be judged by the content of their chracter not the color of their skin. And let that judging be done by the all mighty

Being gay is not a choice! For those straight people who believe being gay is a "choice," then I encourage you to be gay for one day. Go ahead, just try to "choose" being gay! Obviously if it's a such an easy decision you should have no problem being gay for the next week, and then straight the following. Go ahead.. try it. Let me know how it goes.

Mark, your comments actually make me physically sick to my stomach. It's hard to believe there are still people out there who hold such an archaic mentality. As a Christian woman, I've seen love between many homosexuals that is as strong and as meaningful as any heterosexual couple. It would really do you some good to open your mind and get to know and understand homosexuals better; you'll learn that many are exactly like you, rather than someone that you feel is beneath you and not worthy of God's love and acceptance. Your opinions stated here are repulsive and I hope the people who read your comments will pray for you as I will.