I have to add that drug abuse and suicide is much more frequent among homosexuals in big cities than in rural areas in the US in spite of the fact that it is less socially rejected in big cities. So then the homosexual subculture and style of living which is more prominent and characteristic in big cities seem to be responsible for these negative phenomena rather than the social rejection of homosexuality

Mary there is something missing in your life, being invisible you appear to be using soft targets to make up for what appears to be a lack of self confidence.
Gay and Lesbian people are not on this earth to be abused, for the ego benefit of those of social ignorance, because if you cannot respect others, then you do not respect yourself.

Mary,

The 'gay marriage is bad because it will increase the rate of homosexuality (bisexuality etc.)' is only persuasive if you operate under the assumption that being gay (bisexual etc.) is a bad thing. But I don't hold this assumption, and nor do a lot of other folk.

I doubt the children of gay couples living with only one of their biological parents would find it an "especially disturbing psychological situation". I see no reason to assume that they would find it any more psychologically disturbing than other children raised by only one of their biological parents. Many of my friends were raised by only one of their biological parents, and don't seem to have been the least bit disturbed by it - indeed, I would argue that they are better adjusted than some of my friends raised by both biological parents.

As for your argument that 'gay marriage is bad because gays make parents': I feel I should point out that this is another moot point - homosexual couples enjoy exactly the same parenting rights as heterosexual couples. The debate is not about gay parenting (that debate has already been settled in favour of gay parenting): it's about gay marriage. Irrelevant arguments don't actually score any points, I'm afraid. But leaving the issue of irrelevancy to one side, there are still big problems with this argument. Consider an argument almost identical to yours:

TBC

Continued from above:

Data shows (http://www.abs.gov.au/) that a certain group in our society has a much higher rate of drug abuse, alcoholism and STD's than the general population. They are more likely to abuse their children, more likely to commit suicide and more likely to be incarcerated. As such, I propose that they be forbidden from marriage.

Now, I'd hazard a guess that at the moment, you consider my proposition quite reasonable (if not, you're being rather inconsistent). But that certain group I was talking about are indigenous people: Aboriginals & Torres Strait Islanders. Suddenly it doesn't sound so reasonable any more, does it? And why do we consider this an unreasonable proposition? I believe there are two main reasons. The first is that we recognise that just because indigenous people sometimes make bad parents, and are indeed more likely to be bad parents, they don't necessarily make parents - some make wonderful parents. We do not punish the group as a whole for the misdemeanors of a few, and we do not revoke the entire group's rights on the grounds that they are more likely to abuse them. Instead, we look to punish those that do abuse them. I put it to you that we should treat homosexuals no differently.

The second reason is that although all those unpleasant statistics about indigenous people are true, we recognise that they are not because the person is indigenous - they arise from the disadvantage suffered by indigenous people. It is not ethnicity which causes such poor outcomes, but rather socio-economic status. The important point here is that although there is a correlation betwixt aboriginality and poor outcomes, aboriginality in and of itself is not the cause of those poor outcomes. The difference between cause and correlation is a very important one. Whilst there may be a correlation betwixt homosexuality and poor outcomes, your argument does not establish any causative link betwixt them - it merely assumes it. Without the establishment of that causative link, your argument is unpersuasive at best.

Kipp

Social ignorance? Soft targets?

Have you read but one line from the articles I proposed?

I have written a series of facts, research results and arguments. Do you accept them and agree with them or not? If not then what are your counterarguments? If you have not any then what do you base your suppositions about me?

I tried to understand homosexuality that is why I have read quite a lot about it. By now I have some results. Do YOU really understand it? Have you ever thought about it, reflected upon it? And on your own way of life, on your own life and the advancement of your personality?

Acolyte Rizla

I wrote that a homosexual couple means a bad example for children and young people who copy social examples when they form their ideal, way of thinking, values and behavior in connection with relationships and sex. A society with such a model of homosexual relationships wouldn't work, it would collapse demographically. So it is necessary for any human society to sideline and strictly limit such a model - and any other model (say bisexual, TG etc.) that would undermine its survival. This limiting might happen by law by everyday behavior (habits etc.) or both.

Marriage is about reproductive sex of heterosexual couples, about its defence and about the defence of raising children who are naturally conceived in them. It ever was. Any society that would give up such a model would sentence itself to gradual collapse.

Societies in the developed world are already slowly collapsing because of the often too low or declining fertility rates. Migration imight only be a temporary help like blood trasfusion for a person who have a grave and uncurable illness like cancer. This "no marriage no child" culture is spreading in the 3rd world, too, and it will eat them, too. When the normal family is no important any more, then might become widely accepted any other model - like homosexual lifestyle.

In a normal heterosexual society becoming a homosexual might often if not always the result of some distortion in the family, ist values or behavior, or some other serious psychological in childhood or the teen years. These might lead not only to homosexuality but to other consequences like drug abuse and the others. Promiscuity which is quite understandable in a relationship of two mwn might aggravate the personal psychological problems. So in a society where heterosexuality is the norm and rightly so homosexual persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly and so marriage is not for them.