Dear ttbn,

Kindly read the link I cited about the AMA.
It explains their reasons for supporting
same-sex marriage.

Foxy,

Why do you insist on referring people like me to Left wing publications that we disagree with? I am not interested what the highly politicised and Left leaning AMA has to say, particularly as reported by the extreme Left SMH. I asked why YOU would think that the this dubious organisation has any credibility; why homosexuals would be any different from anyone else (medically), particularly as we are continually told that homosexuals are 'just like everybody else'.

I have no problem with YOU expressing YOUR personal views, but the organisations you cite – in this case the AMA and the SMH – have no particular expertise in the matter and they are merely demonstrating their political bias.

Now, we all have political biases, but please stop thinking my bias and beliefs are so weak that I will be swayed by the biases of an organisation that should be apolitical, and by a Left wing rag. If you can't speak for yourself without dragging up people and things that are so remote from the rest of us as to be totally irrelevant, there is not much point in trying to have a conversation with you.

AJ Philips,

Whatever. I don't have to put up with your crap.

Banjo,

I agree with you. I've been married for almost 50 years, and I take umbrage at a small bunch of freaks trying to denigrate marriage purely for political reasons. I'm sick and tired of hearing their whining, and I will be voting NO. Queers never used to bother me, but they have managed to earn my utter contempt for all time with their current behaviour.

Foxy,

"Kindly read the link I cited about the AMA."

I did. I read it a while back.

Did you read this? You might have missed it. While the MSM are quick, even anxious, to push any politically correct 'analysis', they seem less anxious to even advise of alternative positions.

Anyway for what its worth and not that'll change minds that have already decided what they want the facts to be:

http://critiqueama.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/medical-critique-of-the-ama-position-statement-on-marriage-equality.pdf

phanto,

What makes you think there's any meaningful difference, in this context?

<<Why would they suppose it was a trait rather than a behaviour?>>

Considering both have genetic and environmental influences, that is.

<<What makes it a trait?>>

As opposed to behaviour? Good question. Perhaps you should've answered that one for yourself before insisting that the difference matters?

--

Banjo,

It’s funny you should claim that the use of the word ‘marriage’ for same-sex couples will adversely affect your marriage, because asking opponents of marriage equality how it will affect their marriage is often done to convey to the individual how silly their objection to it is. It seems to do the trick, too, given that this question is often met with either silence or a change in the individual’s angle of approach.

Yet, here you are, actually claiming in all seriousness, with no apparent embarrassment at all, that your marriage will be adversely affected!

<<Homosexuality does not have this respect because of the sexual practices ....>>

I take it you’re referring to anal sex. If that’s the case, then I assume you won’t have a problem with the term being applied to the relationships of lesbian couples, or gay male couples who don’t engage in anal sex. What about heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex?

<<... the word marriage already has a meaning and homosexuals can think up another word.>>

The meanings of words evolve all the time, and what constitutes a marriage has changed, too. This isn’t an argument.

<<To use the word marriage relative to homosexual unions is simply an immoral and underhand way of obtaining some acceptance of their sexual practices.>>

Given they do much the same as we heterosexuals do, I seriously doubt it.

--

ttbn,

So, instead of retracting your accusation, you’re just going to say, “Whatever”, and then suggest that I’m somehow giving you “crap”? I take it, then, that you have no rational justification for your position?

How does discriminating against people, for what they cannot help, sit with you?

Interesting paper there, mhaze.

Assuming the claims of the papers to which it refers are accurate (and I seriously doubt it, given that the vast amount of research contradicts such findings http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=same+sex+parenting), this is not an argument against same-sex marriage, because same-sex couples are already having children.

So, if the concern really was for the children, one would think that people like yourself would be advocating FOR marriage equality in order to encourage commitment and reduce stigmatisation, thus reducing the harm to children.

Of course, the concern has nothing to do with children, they’re just the excuse.

Unfortunately, all you’ve offered up is another red herring, I’m afraid.

Yes, there is a small handful of papers that find that same-sex parenting has deleterious effects, but, from my observations, they all suffer from fatal methodological flaws which seriously compromise their findings. A classic example was the problematic paper you once linked me to:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229181

The paper you have linked Foxy to cites this problematic paper, too. It cites another paper, ‘High School Graduation Rates Among Children of Same-Sex Households’, which also suffers from methodological problems (http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/10/14/no-children-of-same-sex-parents-do-not-have-lower-graduation-rates).

I don’t have the time at the moment to check the other papers the article you linked to cites, but I have no confidence that they’re going to be any better. Unfortunately we get this sort of pseudoscience from religious and conservative groups from time to time.

AJ,

"How is the changing of the definition of the word ‘gay’, and what the rainbow can now symbolise, a bad thing?"

I didn't say it was a bad thing...just a thing. A process used to achieve a political end. A thing that should be noticed and noted so that we can see what's really going on. Those who've read AND understood Orwell and 1984 (or Alinsky for that matter) will see why 'gay' became a thing. The rest will just accept it and fail to see the creeping deception. Personally I avoid using 'gay' (except in its traditional sense), preferring accuracy over political expediency.

(as an aside, I've noticed that you quite often misunderstand my - and other's - points, then demand that they justify this misunderstood position. Dishonest as it is, it does seem to work for you, so now incentive to change I guess).

"Did you have similar complaints during the civil rights movement of the ‘60s?"

Struth, how old do you think I am?. As I recall, I had no position on the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. My biggest concern was why those bloody moronic bureaucrats keep forgetting to replenish Bobby's power pack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Planet), which probably explains my life-long understanding that government should never be allowed to be responsible for anything of importance.

/tbc