How many people do you know in plural marriages? They are no more likely to involve abuse than monogamous marriages.

For pete’s sake, you want to get into bigotry? Do you know how many different cultures and religion’s practice polygamy?

Where do you get off saying “My family is not inferior to yours, but we are both superior to that family of abusive degenerates”.

You are using polygamous marriage as a scapegoat to make your own fight easier. Its easier to say “Give our group equal rights because we have a chance at popular support, and ignore those unpopular families also being persecuted. If you will but spare us your scorn we will turn on them with you”.

I want to make a further addendum, to clarify a point I made. I said I was unsure whether homosexuality is or is not a choice. Now, I am not ignorant of research into genetic (among other) components of homosexuality. What I mean to assert is not an out-and-out agnosticism as much as an acknowledgement of our limitations. I do not deny that homosexuality may be, as far as anything is, outside of choice. What I take issue with is a definite assertion either way (note that I would take no exception to statements like “homosexuality is probably not a choice” or belief-statements), since even our most gifted psychologists, geneticists and etc. are not certain. But really what I was trying to show was that it is unimportant, not that one side or the other is right, or even ‘more right’.

Ugh, I should have proof read.

1. ‘Reasons which’ should read ‘options which’
2. The first the in ‘the aid in the fruition’ is superfluous
3. ‘Pernicious’ should read ‘perniciousness’
4. A full-stop is missing between ‘polygamy’ and ‘I have similar concerns’

I’m going to add a kind of footnote to my point on incest and birth defects; incestual couples do not have to have children (or might be same-sex, as others have stated). I doubt many rational people would wish to argue that no couple not yet prepared to raise children should have an amarous (or otherwise intimate) relationship.

To be fair, not all slipperly slope arguments are fallacious. If argued for they can be perfectly reasonable. But that’s largely an aside; you’re correct to cry ‘fallacy!’ in this instance. All those arguments amount to is vitriol.

Okay, with that out of the way, I have a few things to say:

1) I do not know whether homosexuality is a choice, sometimes or always. I don’t think we know enough about the human animal to say without a doubt that sexual orientation of any kind is not to *any* degree a choice. I DO, however, believe this to be immaterial. If it were a choice, what would change? Do we really only allow same-sex relationships to occur because the participants can’t help it? I don’t see why anything would change if sexuality were a choice. Same-sex relationships, intercourse &c should be accepted because they harm no one (excluding the plethora of bigots, fanatics &c out there; but if their supposed ‘harm’ stems from their ignorance (which, perhaps somewhat ironically, IS quite plausibly chosen), their interests are no more worth considering than those who lost out from the abolition of slavery) and produce happiness for many (even indirectly through those who are strong proponents of the cause).

2) The argument from nature is absurdly pervasive for one so plainly fallacious. Firstly, what is ‘natural’? There seem to be two options, if we are to believe that what is natural is good and vice-versa (reasons which I borrow from Mill):

a) If the natural is anything outside of human artifice, we have restricted far too much; everything we do, from cultivating crops, to eating our meals, to walking along a path, involves artifice.
b) If the natural is everything in the natural world, we have restricted nothing; humans are part of the natural world, as are all of the things avaliable to the aid in the fruition of their ends.

Personally, the second seems much more plausible. How can anything in our natural world, performed by inhabitants of our natural world, using other components of our natural world, be unnatural? It seems patently false that anything could be. But either way, the argument from nature (and its normativity) is quite clearly vacuous.

3) A point on some of the ‘terrible’ consequences of which the aforementioned slippery slope argument forewarns us. Personally, the only one of the three listed the pernicious of which I would need little convincing of is paedophilia (the considerations being quite similar to those the speaker in this excellent video gave). Bestiality and polygamy, are, in my view, rejected too hastily through an assumed propriety. I implore you not to misconstrue me: I do not wish to defend either off-hand. I simply believe that their qualities should be considered more carefully before dismissing either, especially as regards polygamy I have similar concerns regarding incest, about which I wish to make a quick cursory note. Some posters on this site have claimed that incest is illegal because of birth defects. This argument, standing alone, seems wholly unpersuasive. We should think carefully before placing a blanket ban on any procreation which might proliferate congenital birth defects, like disabilites, various illnesses/conditions etc. I believe the likelihood of birth defects in children of 1st cousins are identical with (perhaps even less than, although this information is tenuous (i.e. from memory) and I suggest independent research and adjudication, of course) children of women of 40 or over. I doubt many would intuitively wish to make it illegal for such women to consider procreation. In sum, I think that careful deliberation and deference is due with respect to all issues like these; not just an unconsidered conformity to the demands of propriety (consider the fact that it is a kind of propriety against which proponents of SMM are rallying).

Finally, I would like to say how impressed I was with this video. The arguments were eloquently, clearly and persuasively expressed. Which is odd, because the vile polemic on the anti-SMM side might lead me to believe that such qualities in a homosexual were unprecedented.

And with same-sex couples raising children, the only reason I can think of that the children will be worse off is that they would lack of an internal working model for a specific gender. But that happens with single parents, so surely same-sex couples are likely to be better parents than single parents, what with them having more time between them. It obviously won’t always be the case, but are they saying we shouldn’t let single parents keep their children?

For the “Think about the children” argument, I think that almost anyone would agree that children are better off being raised in a nurturing, loving, and supportive same-sex family than they are being raised by the state.

As for the “polygamy, bestiality…” rant, they flat out say that it is a slippery slope. For those unversed in the rules of logic:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Interesting. You have me tried and convicted before I even had a chance to answer the question. This is not the first time you’ve attacked my character during our debate. Why does the truth scare you so? I have been able to stick to the issues without criticizing your personality, your character, or your gender. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked your sources.

You lied to me Tomas. The American Medical Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, et. al, have mixed opinions on homosexuality and are at war amongst themselves over the debate on treatment. I have also done much research on children raised in same-sex homes and found that you lied to me again. These children have no choice in the matter….in one hand is an orphanage with very little freedoms and little attention, and in the other hand is a same-sex home. These children are not given the right to choose. If they were…they would choose to be with their biological mothers and fathers. Homosexuals that consider themselves the great saviors of the world should think again. These children are not well adjusted, they are brainwashed. Homosexuals take them when they are too young to know better and then they brain-wash them into believing that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle. In tracing these children’s lives into adulthood, they are found to suffer from mental health disorders, nervous conditions, and irresponsible behavior (i.e. drugs, alcohol, permiscuous relationships, etc.).

You claim that orphanages are bursting at the seams, yet your solution is to allow homosexual adoptions? How is that treating the problem? You are slapping a band-aid on a festering wound and calling it a day. Unbelievable! If you want to stop overcrowding in the orphanages, then start encouraging moral behavior. Set up workshops to teach young mothers and fathers how to cope with parenthood and help them learn to care for their children. Teach them how to live on a budget and help instill a solid work ethic. Counsel men and women on the importance of abstinence until they are ready to commit to a life of parenthood.

The same goes for insurance. If our country is suffering with a health care crisis, then find a way to bring affordable health benefits to all citizens; don’t make this a same-sex marriage issue.

Stop being so selfish Tomas. Stop making everything into a gay rights issue and start working on a solution to the real problem. Stop turning the truth into ‘hate’.

How convenient it must be to say that everyone hates homosexuals every time they disagree with you. Any reasonable human being does not hate you Tomas; they take issue with your sexual addiction, and they take issue with the fact that you spew rhetoric in an attempt to brainwash them into believing that human anatomy is just a figment of their immagination.

What would you do if your child was gay? Would you stand by your
claims? Would you have them go through pointless torturous therapy
because of who they are? Would you ostracise them because of who they
are? Would you hate them because of who they are? If you would, you’re
not a very good mother and indeed not a very good human being.

And as far as your argument that anatomy is against me is concerned,
as well as your claim that human sexuality is a choice, why not look
to the professionals for the answer? The American Medical Association,
The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological
Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American
Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of Social Workers
have all stated that homosexuality should not be treated as a mental
disorder and that they oppose attempts at reparative or conversion
therapy and that sexual orientation is not a choice and CANNOT be
changed.

We’re all people. We’re equal. I trust that it is your firm belief
that we are all created equal before your god. So why discriminate
against innocent people who have nothing wrong with them on the basis
of whom they love? And don’t equate gay love with gay sex. Same-sex
couples are just as loving, just as caring, with the same drama and
problems as heterosexual couples. And studies have shown that children
brought up by same-sex couples fare no worse than children reared in
more ‘traditional’ families. In fact, their social skills and general
success in life were above average. This is of course not to say that
they are better than a one-man-one-woman households, it is just to
demonstrate that a same-sex couple’s family is just as valid as yours,
and that it is much better for a child to be in such a family than to
spend its childhood in an orphanage.

Take my country for example. Our orphanages are bursting at the seams,
filled to the brink with children growing up without any semblance of
family support. Legally, every citizen has the right to adopt a child
from an orphanage (as long as they fulfill the legal criteria).
However, by entering into a civil partnership, one loses this right.
Thousands of potential families who would love to welcome a child in
their care and bring it up lovingly are denied adoption, while
children who would give anything for a functioning family are forced
to grow up in dreadful conditions.

Homosexuality has always been a factor in human society. It is not
just an alternative lifestyle as you like to call it, it’s embedded
into the very essence of who we (and by we a I mean me and hundreds of
millions of others) are. The only reason why it wasn’t very obvious in
western society throughout the last two millennia is because of the
religion-based oppression and stigmatisation. In particular
Catholicism and Christianity as a whole, as well as Islam.

So please, don’t meddle in matters that do not concern you and, most
importantly, don’t spread hate. (Yes, hate. At the heart of the
matter, that is what it boils down to. Hate and intolerance.)

It is a shame that so many people confuse love with sex, and hate with non-acceptance. The love that we hold for another human being is never based on sex Thomas. It is based on friendship, compassion, sharing common interests, trust, respect, etc. A reasonable human being will spend 90% of each day in the responsibilities of life, not sex. You are confusing the love and respect that you have for your friend with a sexual act. Love and respect does not demand touching, or acts of sexual desires. It demands working together to reach a common goal. It does not require health insurance, marriage, or special accomodations. Marriage is a contractual agreement that was developed to prevent males and females from engaging in permiscuous relationships; as they are detrimental to offspring and to an individual’s health. It was meant to bond the family unit together to prevent fornication and the threat of an absent parent; as children need both the male and female influences. Marriage should be fully recognized between males and females, because together, they have the capacity to pro-create. For those that do not, and in cases of adoption, a child still requires the influence of a male/female relationship to become well rounded. Also, because I refuse to accept homosexuality as nothing more than a sexual act, it does not mean that I hate the individuals who commit such an act. I understand that homosexuality is an addiction that requires treatment. Both the mouth and the anus have never been the proper receptacles for the seed, and you know this. I should not have to point out the anatomy of males and females. The object of sex is to pro-create (as 90% of life is spent working, socializing, and tending to household duties). Same sex partners cannot pro-create. The anatomy of a human being was never designed to accomodate homosexuality. Just because a homosexual has found an alternate way to sexual gratification, does not mean that it should be given rights and special accomodations. It is against the law to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded room, uless a fire actually exists. Unfortunately, this is what homosexuals are doing. You are raising awareness about a sexual addiction and asking that it be treated as a separate genus or species and given special rights. In the meantime, impressionable young children are being exposed to this twisted information and are becoming more and more confused about their sexuality. They are experimenting with bi-sexuality to see which way is the best fit, and they are being brainwashed into thinking that this alternative lifestyle is acceptable. It is driving teenagers that have never questioned their sexuality before, to question it now. It is being crammed down our throats on National television, to the point that you have to turn almost every channel to secure yourself and your children from exposure. Don’t get me wrong, steamy sex scenes between males and females give me cause to turn the channel as well; as it inspires children to become sexually active before they are mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions. This is an argument you just can’t win Thomas. Anatomy is against you. Homosexuality is a sexual addiction, and should be treated as such.

I think you’re being a little bit confused, here. Your country was founded on separation of church and state, was it not? Not on God, not on Christianity. It was founded by puritan Europeans fleeing from religious prosecution as a state of liberty and equality. One of the fundamental rights built into your constitution is the right to marry. Now I understand that you may not accept homosexuality as a genuine state of being, you think it’s a choice. You think we choose to act on our desires, when really what we are doing is following our heart. We don’t get to choose whom we love the same way you don’t get to choose whom you love. It’s that simple.
And frankly, your assessment of hormones and receptor changes as environmental is a pure lapse in judgement. Hormone levels in the womb are dictated by genes and are highly hereditary – genetic. (Studies have shown up to 1 out of 7 gay men’s homosexuality is caused by fraternal birth order.) Testosterone receptors in the amygdala and frontal cortex are – again – dictated by genes. Now this is not to say that because genes play a determining role that this is all set in stone. The genome is not a blueprint, it’s not a plan of how the body should be built; it’s a set of switches which can be activated by environmental triggers and which exert most of their influence through timing, not through simple ON or OFF. This is why it’s very difficult to pinpoint specific genes for most aspects of the human being (except for one-factor cases, such as Huntington’s), because even incredibly subtle differences in timing (determined by the aforementioned receptors) can amount to huge differences in the end result. It’s like baking a souffle. Timing is crucial, perhaps more so than slightly altering the ingredients. And just like with a souffle, you can’t break down the end result and expect to see primary components. You’ll find crumbles, not flour and eggs. Which is why you simply can’t discredit a whole group of people who have nothing wrong with them just because just because there isn’t a single gene for their difference. You can’t use that as evidence that sexuality is a choice.
I’ll give you one thing, though. You’re trying to equate who a person is to who a person sleeps with. I’m sure you wouldn’t like this to be applied to your life either, as it is degrading and dehumanising, so why do it to us? Doesn’t that go against the very religious views that you seem so fond of? Do onto others as you would have them do unto you?

All we want is equal status before the law. We don’t ask you to accept us for who we are, we just ask you not to spread hate. What is it to you if two women who love each other get married? Does it somehow make your marriage less valuable, less valid? No. In fact, does it any way, shape or form affect you or your marriage? No. So why, why do people like you keep doing all they can to prevent other people from being happy? Isn’t your religion supposed to be one of peace, one of compassion?