Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[The Duke]

OK. Blame it on population and land area. Earlier, a big argument was that gay marriage was a disorder, hence bringing down your SoL. Incorrect.

Even if homosexuality was a disorder, it would take time for the economic impact to be fully felt.

Even so, the Netherlands has a lower per capita GDP than we do, so how have you proven anything anyway?

[The Duke]

Here is a little something from Mitt Romney on why lawyers andjudges should not be in charge of defining marriage.

"(Lawyers) viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights."

But, he went on, marriage is not solely for adults.

"Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother."

[The Duke]

First of all, homosexuals can't reproduce. Second of all, the American Academy of Pediatrics says the adopted children of homosexuals show no real variances from other children. But I'm sure an exhaustively conducted study by a mainstream medical organization doesn't count because it's, according to several staunch conservatives, liberal.

If you allow homosexuals marriage rights, they can adopt, no?  This is basically the same as if they could produce children on their own.

I have no opinion on the American Association of Pediatrics, since I don't know much about them.  That said, I am suspicious that they found NO difference in these children.  If I was raised Catholic, I'd come out different than if raised Jewish.  Not necessarily worse or better, but different for sure.  The idea that an even more drastic difference in a person's environment had ZERO impact seems a bit fishy, almost as if the study was commissioned soley for the purpose of reaching a preordained conclusion.

[The Duke]

I don't know about Atlanta (that site seems pretty sex-oriented); it may be an exception, but the point is that homosexual regions are predominantly like this. This, however, is a small dab in the big painting. Homosexuals as I've shown have enourmous amounts of promiscuity. Homosexuality is not normal.


One aspect of homosexuality is the fact that they cannot control their sexuality. Again, AP Bell and MS Weinburg reported that 25% of homosexual white men had sex with children sixteen or under. One study stated "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men; in contrast, around 25 to 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."  (Archives of Sexual Behavior, "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles"). Another study done by Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy showed that homosexual men are three times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men. A gay magazine, The Gay Report, found that 73% of homosexuals had at sometime had sex with children sixteen to nineteen or younger.

I suppose I could keep throwing statistics, but it's not going to change anyone's minds.

There is a really relatively simple explanation to this. A lot of these gays were closeted as children/teens and so were sexually unable to .......experience everything.......normally....... at that age. They are still in a way living their childhood.

That seems a bit speculative.

It seems more likely to me that pedophilia towards little boys is a different instinct than homosexual attraction to grown men, though both technically involve sex with other males so it is easy to lump them together to make a point like Brambila did.