Can't get married? Go to Disney World!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Families warned: Disney to allow gay marries within its parks

 

I think this is a splendid move, unless it's an April Fool's joke, of course:p. What are your thoughts?

[El Sitherino]

Not surprising. They have a flamboyant mouse for a mascot, plus Disney himself wasn't a stranger to man-love.

[igyman]

As I am opposed to gay marriages as well as gay adoption, my thoughts on this are quite negative. I have already expressed my opinion on what homosexuality is in this thread and my opinion being what it is makes me consider it an illness of sorts and I think it needs to be treated, not encouraged.

[Quist]

I think it's a step in the right direction. However, I don't really forsee that many gay couples rushing to get married under Disney's auspices, since the price tag for such affairs looks pretty steep. Weddings themselves are quite expensive in and of themselves, so I think that unless Disney lowers the price a bit, the only gay couples who will be able to take advantage of this opportunity will be ones that have money to throw around.

[Achilles]

Not surprising. They have a flamboyant mouse for a mascot, plus Disney himself wasn't a stranger to man-love.

LMAO

 

What are your thoughts?

I think it's a brave, yet risky move on the part of Disney. I'd like to view this a sign of progress.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Homosexuality has several benefits for society:

• Homosexuality gives unwanted children loving homes.
  
• Homosexuality does not contribute to overpopulation.
  
• Homosexuals who have sex with each others won't end up needing abortions:p.

Taking this into consideration, plus the fact that neither homosexuality nor same-sex marriage or child adoption has no measurable negative effect on society or those involved, I'm inclined to support the homosexuals all the way.

 

As for gay adoption, even if you apply Jae's arguments about gender roles and the need for the combined knowledge of representatives of two genders (see other thread), two males with no clue on menstruation and other female issues are still far, far better for a girl than living in an orphanage where she has to share her busy 'parents' with a whole pack of other children.

 

So acknowledging this, I support Disney all the way. If I support gay marriage, logically I also have to support Disney's move.

[Samnmax221]

Well hopefully this is a sign that post-Eisner Disney is going to get itself back on track, now all they have to do is make some movies that don't suck.

[Jae Onasi]

There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US. I don't know if there's any relation to alcohol use and homosexual/heterosexual behaviors. Male-male physical relations have greater risk of causing colon/rectal problems in the...recipient(s), including very serious (but rare) problems like colon rupture and peritonitis. I can't link to the site because it's too graphic for this forum.

 

Let me clarify my parental stance--I'm not saying gay or single parents _can't_ be good parents. I said it is not the _ideal_, and that's very different. Single and gay parents have to be careful to give kids exposure to both genders--it's not built into their family structure like it is for a male/female relationship. I would say that gay/single parents are far better than abusive hetero parents.

 

Don't Norwegians have foster care? Here in the US the goal is to get the child and parent together, and if that's not possible, then get the child into foster care, and as a very last resort orphanages.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US. I don't know if there's any relation to alcohol use and homosexual/heterosexual behaviors. Male-male physical relations have greater risk of causing colon/rectal problems in the...recipient(s), including very serious (but rare) problems like colon rupture and peritonitis. I can't link to the site because it's too graphic for this forum.

Yes, homosexual sex is a risky activity, and I'm not sure if I condone it. But I don't believe that even that has much of an impact on society and economy.

 

Oh, and of course we've got foster care.

[igyman]

Homosexuality gives unwanted children loving homes.

You make it sound like they are the only ones that are willing to adopt a child. There are just as much heterosexuals on who the quote above can be applied and, IMO, they'll always be a better choice for parents than homosexuals.

Homosexuality does not contribute to overpopulation.

This might come back to bite me in the form of a mod warning, but still - you're right, they don't contribute to overpopulation, they do just the opposite. I have also read and heard from multiple sources that they fall under the groups with a higher HIV infection probability, along with bisexuals (unfortunately I haven't been able to find a reliable web article about the matter).

Homosexuals who have sex with each others won't end up needing abortions

I know you meant this as a joke, but I really don't find it funny.

 

Now, I realize that what I said can be interpreted as some form of discrimination, but I assure you and everyone else that it's not. Homosexuals are people (and should never be treated as anything but people) and have almost all the same rights as the rest of us. As for gay adoption and marriage, I don't think they should be allowed because I don't think of homosexuality as a lifestyle, I think of it as unhealthy behavior and I base my opinion on many scientific facts.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You make it sound like they are the only ones that are willing to adopt a child. There are just as much heterosexuals on who the quote above can be applied.

It's a simple matter of math. You've currently got only straight people adopting, and lots of kids wanting adoption. When homosexuals are allowed to adopt in addition to the heterosexuals, there'll be less children in orphanages - in other words, more happy children with loving parents.

 

IMO, they'll always be a better choice for parents than homosexuals.

Even if that's true, having two loving homosexual step-parents is still better than living in an orphanage sharing the few overworked adults with many other children.

 

This might come back to bite me in the form of a mod warning, but still - you're right, they don't contribute to overpopulation, they do just the opposite.

Which, in my eyes, is a good thing. There are too many unwanted children in need of homes in the world. The more of those we adopt, the more of them will grow up to live good lives and have kids on their own. Children rotting in orphanages, on the other hand, are more likely to lead less stable lives.

[Jae Onasi]

My sister-in-law and her hubby are foster parents. They've had as many as 9 boys under their roof at one time and could probably fall under the category of small orphanage at that point. I guarantee you they love those children, take excellent care of them, and in fact have adopted 2 of them. There are currently childless straight parents on waiting lists for adoption, so there are no lack of adoptive parents. What there is a lack of is parents willing to adopt children of different races or those who have health/emotional problems (usually from being born to drug-addicted mothers). Since homosexuals represent around 5% of the population, I don't think we're going to get that much of a boost in adoptive parents.

 

As far as Disney and marriages--as long as people are discreet, gay or straight, I'm OK with it. What I don't want to see is people sucking out their tonsils (or even more explicit) in the middle of Cinderella's castle or other public areas.

[SilentScope001]

One pro-homosexual website quotes a Disney representative as saying the company's decision to update its program guidelines to include "commitment ceremonies" is consistent with Disney's overall policy of "creating a welcoming, respectful, and inclusive environment" for its guests. "We are not in the business of making judgments about the lifestyles of our guests," said the Disney spokesman. "We are in the hospitality business and our parks and resorts are open to everyone."

 

There is a reason why homosexual people want to get married, and that is, to go and get tax breaks and ability to inherit each other's property without any legal tangles. If these marriages aren't treated with respect or recognized within the United States of America, then it really means nothing.

 

Homosexual people should get the right to marry, in that case. If they are a loving couple, then they should get tax breaks from the government. Marriage has, to me, been a secular affair, and I would prefer it to be renamed to "civil unions" to cement it. [if marriage was soley a religious affair, then Jae wouldn't techincally be married, since she did not marry within my church. ]

 

I also read a viewpoint by gays arguing against gay marriage: It would basically turn gays into nothing more than hetrosexuals and that the gay subculture would be destroyed. Really interesting, and well, different. I never thought of the problems inherent in gay marriage.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I have also read and heard from multiple sources that they fall under the groups with a higher HIV infection probability, along with bisexuals (unfortunately I haven't been able to find a reliable web article about the matter).

 

You,re actually right. But it's no different then if I went to Africa and had sex with people there. These probabilities are nothing but the current trend. If we can better prevent HIV infection, the numbers would go down and it would be marginally more or less then with heterosexual.

 

As for gay adoption and marriage, I don't think they should be allowed because I don't think of homosexuality as a lifestyle, I think of it as unhealthy behavior and I base my opinion on many scientific facts.

 

And those facts are?

 

 

There are some negative effects to both those involved and society, and they get glossed over. Homosexuals are more likely to be involved in greater risk-taking behaviors in both drugs and sexual activities, at least in the US.

 

For the guys, yes it is more risky, but what about the women? Lesbians do exist.

 

Drug taking, I believe is more related to various cases of depression. Being rejected by everyone, it can be quite hard to be gay I'm sure. I have no evidence to back this up so it's only speculation.

 

 

 

As for Disney doing gay marriages...well...cool I guess...

[igyman]

And those facts are?

Even though no precise cause for homosexuality has been determined, the most probable one is that homosexuality is a hormonal disorder that can occur during puberty.

Estradiol, and testosterone, which is catalyzed by the enzyme 5α-reductase into dihydrotestosterone, act upon androgen receptors in the brain to masculinize it. If there are few androgen receptors (people with Androgen insensitivity syndrome) or too much androgen (females with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia) there can be physical and psychological effects. It has been suggested that both male and female homosexuality are results of variation in this process. In these studies lesbianism is typically linked with a higher amount of masculinization than is found in heterosexual females, though when dealing with male homosexuality there are results supporting both higher and lower degrees of masculinization than heterosexual males.

 

I have read that there were some controversies about this theory, mainly the ''people are born gay'' interpretation. This interpretation is wrong, since there are no scientific evidence to support it, but science has proven that hormonal disorders described in the theory can occur during puberty.

[lukeiamyourdad]

So even if that was true it should be cured because...? I believe homosexuals who engage in homosexual activities are well aware of the dangers. So gays and lesbians have a hormonal disorder that causes no physical problem, only emotional and psychological ones due not to the hormonal disorder itself but by how others around them perceive them.

[igyman]

So, you're saying that nothing's wrong with them, it's the rest of the world that's sick? If that is the case, I am inclined to disagree. When you ask ''Why should homosexuality be treated?'' it's just as if you asked ''Why should we treat people from depression?'' - if the disorder causes unhealthy emotional behavior, then it should be treated. Right?

 

Now, as for the dangers of HIV infection, you yourself have confirmed my knowings that homosexuals and bisexuals have a higher probability to be infected with HIV. I imagine that there is a good number of them that's aware of the dangers, but if the above is true, what do you think how many of them actually take precaution and use protection?

[Achilles]

So, you're saying that nothing's wrong with them, it's the rest of the world that's sick?

Why does one of these groups have to be "sick" in your scenario? This is a false dichotomy.

 

If that is the case, I am inclined to disagree. When you ask ''Why should homosexuality be treated?'' it's just as if you asked ''Why should we treat people from depression?'' - if the disorder causes unhealthy emotional behavior, then it should be treated. Right?

As you state yourself, depression is a unhealthy disorder. As such, people should have treatment available. Even if we were to concede your point that homosexuality is a disorder, the argument that it is unhealthy is largely arguable (inherently, it is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality).

 

Now, as for the dangers of HIV infection, you yourself have confirmed my knowings that homosexuals and bisexuals have a higher probability to be infected with HIV.

Yes, there are a higher number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community. Do you have evidence that shows this is because they are more likely to have HIV/AIDS or would you be willing to consider that they might be more likely to check regularly for HIV/AIDS and therefore have their cases reported?

 

The point is that HIV/AIDS is not homosexual specific. Heterosexuals can get it too (and are arguably less likely to check regularly for infection). In other words, this argument is a red herring. HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.

 

I imagine that there is a good number of them that's aware of the dangers, but if the above is true, what do you think how many of them actually take precaution and use protection?

How many heterosexual people are walking around infected right now that haven't been checked because they think HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease"? Let's head over the abstinence thread and talk about safe sex practices amongst heterosexuals. Or we can just concede that this line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and drop it.

[Jae Onasi]

If marriage was soley a religious affair, then Jae wouldn't techincally be married, since she did not marry within my church.

 

I'm such a slut.

[igyman]

Why does one of these groups have to be "sick" in your scenario? This is a false dichotomy.

Why do people understand ''sick'' in a negative sense? If you get a cold it means you are sick. It's not your fault you got the cold, but you sure as hell won't leave it untreated.

 

the argument that it is unhealthy is largely arguable

I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle. I am saying that it isn't a choice, just like schizophrenia is not a choice (I admit my comparison is a little crude), it's an illness caused by that hormonal disorder and illnesses should be treated.

Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse? Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex?

 

The point is that HIV/AIDS is not homosexual specific.

I never said that it was. What I said was that they and bisexuals fall under the group with a higher infection probability.

 

HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.

I never said that it did.

 

How many heterosexual people are walking around infected right now that haven't been checked because they think HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease"? Let's head over the abstinence thread and talk about safe sex practices amongst heterosexuals. Or we can just concede that this line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and drop it.

As we have determined, it is a fact that there is a higher probability of HIV infection when it comes to homosexuals. It isn't a fact because HIV/AIDS is a gay disease (because, as we all know, it isn't), it's a fact because it's a lot less healthy for a man to have sex with a man, than with a woman. Why is that? (I'm tagging this in a spoiler because it's a PG-13 forum)

 

Because they can have oral or anal sex and anal sex has been proven to be one of the best ways to get infected by HIV. This isn't to say that straight people don't have anal sex, they just have it a lot less than the homosexuals.

 

 

Do you have evidence that shows this is because they are more likely to have HIV/AIDS

Check the spoiler tagged text.

[Achilles]

Why do people understand ''sick'' in a negative sense? If you get a cold it means you are sick. It's not your fault you got the cold, but you sure as hell won't leave it untreated.

We can use the word in whatever context you'd like. This doesn't answer my question. Why does sexuality (homo- or hetero-) have to be an illness, as your earlier dichotomy proposes?

 

I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle. I am saying that it isn't a choice, just like schizophrenia is not a choice (I admit my comparison is a little crude), it's an illness caused by that hormonal disorder and illnesses should be treated.

I agree that sexual orientation is not a choice, however there is no conclusive evidence to show that homosexuality is a disorder (it hasn't been considered a disorder since the 1970's) or an illness.

 

Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse? Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex?

I don't see how personal opinions have anything to do with the matter. There are lots of behaviors that I don't particularly care for, but rarely jump to the conclusion that someone has an illness when I see them. This statement further cements for me the idea that you have a personal problem with homosexuals and want to find evidence that supports your bias.

 

I never said that it was. What I said was that they and bisexuals fall under the group with a higher infection probability.

Yes, but unless you can identify causation, your conclusion is false.

 

I never said that it did.

Then please tell me where you are going with this.

 

As we have determined, it is a fact that there is a higher probability of HIV infection when it comes to homosexuals.

There is no such fact.

 

It isn't a fact because HIV/AIDS is a gay disease (because, as we all know, it isn't), it's a fact because it's a lot less healthy for a man to have sex with a man, than with a woman. Why is that? (I'm tagging this in a spoiler because it's a PG-13 forum)<snip>

The behaviors you referenced are not specific to homosexuals. Therefore your argument is false.

 

Check the spoiler tagged text.

I did. That's not evidence for your argument. That's flawed supposition.

 

Thanks for your response.

[igyman]

This statement further cements for me the idea that you have a personal problem with homosexuals and want to find evidence that supports your bias.

My main problem is that I can't find the words to express my opinion in a non-offensive and prejudice-lacking way. I'm really trying to approach this topic without prejudices and only with science-based opinions, but I am failing. Most of the things I say sound like they have been said by a racist, or something like that.

 

There is no such fact.

Ummm, what? Let me quote your earlier post in which you confirm it. (post #18)

Yes, there are a higher number of reported cases of HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community.

 

Also, lukeiamyourdad's quote in favor of my statement. (post #14)

You,re actually right.

 

This is why I really don't understand your sudden negation of a proven fact, not my personal opinion, fact - that there is a higher probability of a homosexual being infected with HIV than a heterosexual.

 

The behaviors you referenced are not specific to homosexuals.

And I have said so myself, as you probably noticed, but even though they are not specific to homosexuals, they are more often practiced by them than they are by heterosexuals and that alone increases the chance of infection. Pure logic.

[Achilles]

Most of the things I say sound like they have been said by a racist, or something like that.

The term is "homophobe"

 

Ummm, what? Let me quote your earlier post in which you confirm it. (post #18)

<snip>

Yes, it is a fact that highest percentage of reported cases come from homosexuals. No, it is not a fact that being a homosexual puts you at greater risk. See the difference?

 

This is why I really don't understand your sudden negation of a proven fact, not my personal opinion, fact - that there is a higher probability of a homosexual being infected with HIV than a heterosexual.

I understand that this is how you're interpreting what you're reading, but the fact is your conclusion is not what the figures actually support.

 

Go back and read my first response to you. I'm not flip-flopping. I pointed out the methodological problem (which you've ignored) very clearly.

 

And I have said so myself, as you probably noticed, but even though they are not specific to homosexuals, they are more often practiced by them than they are by heterosexuals and that alone increases the chance of infection. Pure logic.

Your "pure logic" completely ignores safe sex practices, therefore your conclusion is still pure supposition.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

HIV/AIDS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the morality/immorality of homosexuality.

Exactly. To strike an analogy, smoking makes you more likely to get cancer. Drinking excessive amounts of coke or coffee increases the chances of developing anxiety or sleep problems.

 

Am I mentally ill if I drink coke and live in Norway? Should the inhabitants of sub-arctic Northern Norway be evacuated and given psychiatric treatment? I don't think so.

 

 

I understand that homosexuality is a taboo topic and because of that it has mostly been branded as a choice, a lifestyle.

First of all, no one who supports homosexuality want it to be a taboo topic. We want it to be a non-issue, like inter-racial dating. There's a difference, 'cause as soon as anything, be it psychiatry, grief, smoking, or homosexuality becomes a taboo subject, it gets flooded by stereotypes, misconceptions, irrational scrutiny, and so on.

 

Second of all, homosexual behaviour is a choice, but you hear the claim that your sexual orientation is a choice mostly from the anti-homosexual rights crowd.

 

Can you honestly say that you see nothing wrong with two men or two women french-kissing, or having intercourse?

I'm sure you know that's utterly irrelevant. I think hot dogs are disgusting, yet I don't brand the people who eat it mentally ill. Likewise, in a lot of countries they are appalled at the very idea of eating cheese.

 

Back in certain African tribes, it was perfectly normal for a woman to walk around with her breasts bare. Kissing, however, was considered downright disgusting, probably as much, or more, than anal sex as considered by you. What's 'icky' is a matter of culture, taught to children as they grow up. It's not an instinct.

 

Can you honestly say that you think it's healthy to be attracted to people of the same sex?

Yes.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Also, lukeiamyourdad's quote in favor of my statement. (post #14)

 

It is true that there's more homosexuals who have HIV/AIDS but to properly quote me, you would have to add the other part:

 

But it's no different then if I went to Africa and had sex with people there.

 

Because Africa is the continent that is the most affected by AIDS. Asia also suffers a lot from it. Is anyone ready to claim that whole continents are populated by homosexuals?

 

There is no evidence pointing to homosexual sex being the culprit of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Third World. There's a correlation between it and safe sex though.