Deny their true thoughts? So a person with depression feels dishonest with their thoughts? They can't control how they feel after all, or how their mind works, the treatments they have are designed to help them regain that control. I hardly see how autism hurts people, they just don't socialize well, but there are treatments and research to try to help with that. Mind you, I'm referring to the less intense examples that don't actually lead to depression or the inability to care for themselves, but they still have treatment for those people too.

So why not homosexuality? What makes this part of their nature somehow their "true thoughts" such that denying it would be dishonest? We have drugs for impotence too. Them not having sex doesn't harm anyone, but we have treatments for that. Or are you going to claim that NOT having sex harms people? Are they denying their true nature by taking viagra or whatever the latest brand is?

I still having nothing against homosexuals, I just don't feel its an acceptable activity. I even specify that I have no issues even with a relationship between two men or two women, that's hardly unacceptable at all, the only part I don't accept is the idea that those relationships need to include sex somehow. I've listed out my reasons why I feel that way about a page or two ago. Yet people are claiming MY logic is flawed, so I assume they have some examples that actually make sense here. I've yet to see them.

I find it funny how quick gay people tend to throw around terms like homophobe and bible basher, as if I've even mentioned god at all, and haven't expressly pointed out that I don't really care if that's what you want. My blood and the blood of "people like me" will hardly boil if we see two guys kiss.
Yep, "people like me" must be such bigots. It sure is terrible how we make sweeping uninformed opinions about individuals based on what views we have of their group. You guys are just so much better than us, and your opinions must be far more valid than ours too.

But anyway, if it's connected to brain metabolism, then does that mean it's treatable? From what you just quoted me there, homosexual tendencies are being compared to a mental disorder. They treat people with depression, why not homosexuality? I mean think about it, Damkira just said; "Most people wouldn't choose that because there are so many hateful bigots like yourself who try to make life difficult for us" well there we go! We just need to do a little more research on the subject, and then soon it WILL be your choice!

So what will the argument be for homosexuality then?

(Chicago, August 14, 1997). The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has passed a resolution affirming four basic principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation, so-called conversion or reparative therapies.

These principles are:

• Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and the APA opposes all portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as mentally ill and in need of treatment due to their sexual orientation;

• Psychologists do not knowingly participate in or condone discriminatory practices with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients;

• Psychologists respect the rights of individuals, including lesbian, gay and bisexual clients to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and autonomy;

• Psychologists obtain appropriate informed consent to therapy in their work with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients.

The resolution further states that the APA "urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientation."

Supporters of the resolution, which passed the APA Council overwhelmingly by a voice vote, believed that it was critical for the Association to make such a statement due to the questions of the ethics, efficacy and benefits of conversion therapy which are now being debated within the profession and within society as a whole.

"Our concern," stated Douglas Haldeman, Ph.D., President of APA's Society for the Psychological Study Of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues, "is that a person, especially a young person, who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation should be able to have the expectation that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any societal bias. Additionally, therapists should be providing clients with accurate information about same-sex sexual orientation. This resolution reasserts the profession's commitment to those two principles."

The APA Council of Representatives is the major legislative and policy-setting body of the organization. The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 151,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 50 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

Its amazing that you think I should try to change my sexuality in order to conform with what you think is right. It seems like you are the one who could benefit from some counseling. Megalomania is not generally a good thing.

and yes, it sure is terrible how you make sweeping uninformed opinions about individuals based on what views you must have of a group.

Psychology is not my area of expertise and it clearly isn't yours... So lets see what the American Psychological Association has to say about whether gay people choose to be that way or can change:

	(Chicago, August 14, 1997). The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has passed a resolution affirming four basic principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation, so-called conversion or reparative therapies. These principles are: Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and the APA opposes all portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as mentally ill and in need of treatment due to their sexual orientation;   Psychologists do not knowingly participate in or condone discriminatory practices with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients;   Psychologists respect the rights of individuals, including lesbian, gay and bisexual clients to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and autonomy;   Psychologists obtain appropriate informed consent to therapy in their work with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients. The resolution further states that the APA "urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientation." Supporters of the resolution, which passed the APA Council overwhelmingly by a voice vote, believed that it was critical for the Association to make such a statement due to the questions of the ethics, efficacy and benefits of conversion therapy which are now being debated within the profession and within society as a whole. "Our concern," stated Douglas Haldeman, Ph.D., President of APA's Society for the Psychological Study Of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues, "is that a person, especially a young person, who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation should be able to have the expectation that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any societal bias. Additionally, therapists should be providing clients with accurate information about same-sex sexual orientation. This resolution reasserts the profession's commitment to those two principles." The APA Council of Representatives is the major legislative and policy-setting body of the organization. The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 151,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 50 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.

...

but then I suppose you know more about the subject than the largest profession group of psychologists in the US.

Well, to start off, depression is natural, so is being a crazy murderer for some people. But, what do these things do? Depression causes the individual harm, a need to murder causes others harm. Harm is bad. Homosexuality is different because it's a function of love and passion, not sadness or madness. People who do wrongs or have negative disorders SHOULD deny their true thoughs, to reduce harm to themselves and others. What does treating homosexuals fix except other's bigotry?

Impotent people not having sex harms themself and their sex drive, and their sexual partner if they have one. Also, if someone wants to have sex but is impotent, their true nature is wanting to have sex. Your body and your mind are different things, and for most people limp noodle is often caused by physical problems, rather than emotional ones. They're are some who are denying their true thoughts with anti-impotence medicine, but most just have old penises or disorders and need a jump.

Why is it unacceptable? I looked at your posts here, and the reasons I found were.... (I put them in numbers so you can refute them easily )

1. Parenting, Father and mother better parents. So? 2 Dads are better than nothing. Weak argument, I know, but I consider yours weak as well, because lots of poeple are messed up with perfect parents, and lots turn out great with abusive rapist parents. Some actually turn out better for their abusive parent and make the world a better place. Same sex parents might actually be better for children of different minds. Not everyone's equal when it comes to needs in parents.

2. You think it's a choice. I do think it's a choice from my own experience, but a choice that can't be unmade without deluding yourself. But I also think being straight, asexual, bisexual, pedophile, zoosexual, are also choices. I think people have a natural disposition to one of the states from their brain chemestry, hormones, and genes. I was naturally straight but I chose that I didn't find the idea repulsive, and now I can't unlearn that. Lesson: Knowledge is the devil. Hahahahaha... Don't eat the fruit!!!

3. Unnatural intercouse. I don't believe in the concept of natural and unatural. Everything we do is natural because we're part of nature, unnatural is just a term used by those who want to bring institutions, scientific advancements, and people down, without a real reason. Who cares if it's natural, it feels good, harms no one. If you weren't predisposed to be against it you wouldn't have any problem with it and you would think it's natural, or at least not unnatural.

4. You can't understand why you'd be interested in another guy's cock. Well, I can tell you my reasons if it helps. Cock(or just any phallic shaped object) feels good in your ass, because it stimulates the prostate gland, creating orgasms so intense, normal orgasms, even your best ones, pale in comparison. What's wrong with the cock? It's the same thing as a clitoris, but with male genes activating it to grow different. Also, If I liked a guy, I'd suck him off because I would get off on giving him pleasure, so it's win-win for me. You wouldn't get off on it though like me because of your social and/or religious stigma. 

5. You think it's animalistic behavior. It is, we're animals, and it's not insulting. "Are you saying beastiality should be accepted and supported among humans because they apparently don't have a choice?" Yes, it should be supported and accepted, because some animals like receiving sexual stimulation from humans. It would be tricky to implement though, but with procedures and tests one could prove the animal liked it, and was not getting violated. What's wrong with animal love if no one is harmed? I feel the same way about all conduct... No harm = Not wrong.

6. If everyone was gay/straight argument. Well, It's not like that for a reason... Gays are natures birth control.

So NOW you care about everyone. Funny how you change your views of who should get liberty based on the argument.

I love this thread. One for educating people like Gray Acumen on how is views are just down right insensible, and secondly, because everyone who is trying to do so uses the same principles they fought against when arguing with me.

So I will change Steven's quote for him.

If liberty isn't guaranteed for everyone who is not rich, then no one truly has it.

There, that's I think how you mean it.

What you're missing is that tax breaks have nothing to do with the religious side of things. The whole point is to protect society as a whole, of which a key aspect is supporting the upbringing of children, which will be the future society. Marriage, and specifically religious marriage is for a man and a woman to commit to a relationship that will result in bearing and raising children together. The tax breaks are to support and strengthen the relationship BEFORE the child is born so that it is already a solid foundation with which to raise the child.

Of course then you get into the whole issue of comparative abilities of child raising, and you hear people putting out cases about how they were raised by single parents just fine, or cases where a man and a woman turned out to be horrible parents, etc etc, blah blah, but a man and a woman in a committed relationship are still going to be the best option for child raising, and religion has nothing to do with that.

1) A marriage between a man and a woman can typically be expected to result in offspring, maybe not immediately, maybe not always, but typically. If you were to force this issue, then that would put unreasonable strain on the relationship between the man and woman that is needed as the stable base for child raising, which is why you base the tax breaks on the marriage, not the presence of children.
A marriage between two men or two women cannot truly be expected to result in offspring. At this rate, any guy could just find another guy and say "hey, lets get married so we don't have to pay as much taxes, if we want to marry a chick, we'll just get a divorce(it's not like there's any legal backlash to getting a mutual divorce)"

Now, there are of course a few arguments against this, such as adoption, artifical insimenation, and sterile couples, which I will address next.

2) Even for those couple that cannot bear children naturally, there is still adoption and artificial insimination. For these cases, gay couples technically have just as much of a shot as straight couples. Except I turn back to original statement that a man and a woman is still the best way to go for child raising. You can bitch at me all you want, my reasons aren't religious, so harping on that isn't going to get you anywhere, but you still don't have a chance at changing my views on that.
Men and Women are physically, socially, physiologically different from each other. When it comes to a relationship, this doesn't make that much of a difference to me, it's purely a personal thing, but when it comes to raising children, the differences are crucial. No matter how in touch with his feminine side a guy is, or how butch a woman is, there's a limit to how well they can understand, empathize, and get the opposite gender to recognize that empathy. Lacking a true mother or father figure that is commited to the other is a SEVERE handicap to child raising, whether that child is a boy or a girl, not only for their ability to grow as an individual, but also for their ability to interact with the opposite gender, form a stable relationship of their own, and raise their own children.

Of course, this is where the main arguments come up involving the single parents, whether by death or by seperation, and I get the indignant questions of "so since my dad raised me alone, I'm less of a person?" Quite frankly it's ridiculous. I never said it's IMPOSSIBLE, I said it's BETTER, and don't give me this shit about "Oh, so I would have been better off if my mom stuck with her abusive husband" and again, no, quit being a retard. The issue is that with the same individual emotional stability of two people involved in childraising, a team of a man and woman will always have the best range of skills and perspectives to handle whatever comes up. That's why a marriage between a man and a woman should be supported.

What this all boils down to is that the purpose of States laws recognizing and supporting marriage is that you cannot make a law that forces people to reproduce and raise children, but that action is still essential to society, so all it can do is encourage those actions.