Homosexual Marriage

[psychopete]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

1) I know I cant spell worth crap
2)not really
3)if two people of the the same sex were suposed to have sex, they could have babys togeather. (no biblical reasons are neaded)

Get FireFox for spell check, then. Or at least proofread before posting.

Yeah, really.

And your statement was probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read for obvious reasons.
So, 2 gay guys, by your judgement, can have babies with one another. WRONG.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

they could have babys togeather. (no biblical reasons are neaded)

Guess what, some people don't have sex if they are married. Even still, some people don't neccessarily have babies after sex. There might be an instance where because of some medical problems, babies might die when they were supposed to be born. Sometimes, people who have children just toss them in the garbage (very insane people, but yes some might do this) or even kill them (more insane).

[Orch_Dork]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

So, 2 gay guys, by your judgement, can have babies with one another.

So you think that one man can take it from another... explain

[Orch_Dork]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Guess what, some people don't have sex if they are married. Even still, some people don't neccessarily have babies after sex. There might be an instance where because of some medical problems, babies might die when they were supposed to be born. Sometimes, people who have children just toss them in the garbage (very insane people, but yes some might do this) or even kill them (more insane).

wtf. thats not the point.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

wtf. thats not the point.

If gay marriage is wrong because gays cannot have kids, is heterosexual marriage wrong in the exact same ways for the exact same reasons for you, if say...the male is sterile or the female is barren?

[ledwix]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Do you see homosexuality in the rest of nature? If not, homosexuality is unnatural.

Is there a gay gene? I think that the way a person is raised is MUCH more prevalent in determining the orientation of a person. (any minor genes coding for homosexuality, if existent, are still much less significant)

Also, on the topic of 100% antidisestablishmentarianism:

Separation of church and state will NEVER completely happen as long as religions exist, so don't hope for it to happen. Many political leaders have religious values; President Bush even expresses them openly in his speeches/etc. (despite his hypocrisy) I used to live in a country where merely BEING a homosexual was against the law...and the people there had no problem whatsoever with that law. This is a little more extreme example of the United States.

[Relambrien]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Edit: Ninja'ed by ledwix, see the bottom of this post for my response

This whole thing falls under the category of "normal" that has been discussed in another thread.

Homosexuality is looked down upon because it differs from the majority, and is thus considered abnormal. Most people don't understand it, simply because most people aren't homosexual. And it's already been established that people fear what they don't understand.

In short...

1) Trait is present in the minority.
2) Majority, therefore, does not understand it.
3) Fear of the trait is developed, because people fear what they don't understand.
4) Fear turns to contempt.

Now for another angle, let me expand on devonin's point.

3) Tell me, why the hell are we so disgusting and wrong? DO NOT use biblical reasons.

3)if two people of the the same sex were suposed to have sex, they could have babys togeather. (no biblical reasons are neaded)

So your argument is that those who cannot sexually reproduce are disgusting and wrong. You state that if someone was supposed to have sex, then he or she would have the ability to reproduce. What of those who are sterile or barren? They're disgusting and wrong? Just because some poor guy got kicked you-know-where several times and now he can't have a kid, he's a blight on society?

If you look at your own argument, you see how ridiculous it is. Just because someone cannot reproduce does not mean there is anything inherently morally wrong with them.

Do you see homosexuality in the rest of nature? If not, homosexuality is unnatural.

I could've sworn I saw something about homosexuality in rats, but I don't know where or when. It just rings a bell, sorry. I'll look it up if I can.

Is there a gay gene? I think that the way a person is raised is MUCH more prevalent in determining the orientation of a person. (any minor genes coding for homosexuality, if existent, are still much less significant)

Forgive me for getting my information from a news show, but there was a set of identical twins, one of which is homosexual, the other heterosexual. Both were raised the exact same way, but from age 3, the homosexual one was asking for Barbie dolls for Christmas while the other wanted a fire truck. Apologies for not being able to cite a source, but like I said, this was a news show.

I don't believe homosexuality is hereditary, nor do I believe it is caused by environmental pressures after birth. It may be similar to handedness, which seems to have a variety of causes, genetics being only a very small portion, along with environmental pressures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/handedness). Conscious choice is obviously incorrect, as attraction (as we have all experienced) is not influenced by conscious choice. This is particularly evident in teenage years, where people unconsciously and unintentionally develop attractions toward someone very often. In such a situation, you don't -choose- whether or not you develop a crush on someone. And if you think about it logically, who would just wake up one day and think, "Hmm, I think I'm gonna be a gay person," especially with all the problems homosexuals are experiencing today?

Long story short, I believe homosexuality is caused by a large amount of different factors, such as development during prenatal months, genetics, environmental pressures, and a host of other possible effects. Handedness shows that a trait can be caused by a a variety of factors, so it seems highly likely to me that homosexuality is similar in that regard. Thus, I conclude that since homosexuality is a trait which cannot be influenced by the person himself, there is no reason to legally discriminate against those who exhibit the trait. There's more of a gray area in religion, though. Just how much should a religion be able to decide when its practices are mainstream and the basis for legal practices? Assuming that homosexual marriage is -legally- permissible, how should religions deal with it? Since a religion is supposed to be a collection of beliefs, can religious marriage be restricted when a similar legal policy is available?

To answer that, let's use the standard by which people in America have been acting for over 200 years. Essentially, until you infringe upon another's rights, you are free to do almost anything. This means that you can't kill someone because your religion said so, but you -can- have a carpet made out of gum if your religion says so. In the former case, another person's right to life is infringed, whereas in the latter case, no rights are infringed. The question becomes, does religious restriction of marriage infringe on a person's legal rights, when a comparable institution (civil unions) is available? An amendment to the United States Constitution essentially says that the rights enumerated in it are not the only rights people possess. Is this right to marriage then a right guaranteed by the Constitution? I believe it is, since marriage has become a staple, a standard. If the majority of people engage in a certain religious practice, I believe that the right to engage in that practice should be protected legally. But that's just my opinion.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Do you see homosexuality in the rest of nature? If not, homosexuality is unnatural.

Yes you do, so I guess it isn't.

[ledwix]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

okay.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Do you see homosexuality in the rest of nature? If not, homosexuality is unnatural.

Is there a gay gene? I think that the way a person is raised is MUCH more prevalent in determining the orientation of a person. (any minor genes coding for homosexuality, if existent, are still much less significant)

People's traits are determined by both nature and nurture. One's sexual orientation is not something someone can change at will and has more to do with hormone production that anything else. And what's this nonsense about "minor genes." For one, it isn't a genetic trait (if it were genetic, how would it get passed on let alone survive throughout mankind's history?), it's a chromosomal trait. And genes aren't "minor." There are some DNA sequences that have no phenotype or little effect over the organism. But if a gay gene did exist that is prevalent in homosexuals, you bet your ass it would be a major player in their homosexuality.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Do you see homosexuality in the rest of nature? If not, homosexuality is unnatural.

This would be true to an extent. There might be something about homosexuals that has something to do with genetics or whatever, but I don't really comprehend that much. If homosexuals really were controlled by the way they were made (born being homosexual or something) then you cannot take away their liberty for not being born ideal or being like the rest. As for if homosexuality lies more in making their own personal choice, one still should not take a homosexual's rights away just because they make choices that people assume are not "normal". If something is different in society, does that truely make something wrong? I would to think not because society has favored Earth being flat and that slavery was right along with many other "normal" habits that aren't a "normal" part of society now. So what if homosexuals are different from our everyday heterosexuals? Do we have any reasonable proof that we are losing any of our life, liberty, or property if we let a homosexual have the right to marriage (except for the right to restrict a homosexual's life, liberty, or property [unless there was a completely justified cause])? If a homosexual chooses to not have children, are they really restricting any rights on their children if they have not even brought their children to existance yet?

Edit: I don't believe that religion is justified in order to limit a gay person's life, liberty, or property. Religion varies from each other and sometimes greatly. Not every religion is the same and some people believe so strongly in theirs. You can't depend on any one sided religion to give you any answers against homosexual religion especially because no religion has had any reasonable proof against homosexuals. Since religions are so one-sided (which we can't trust because America is meant to have freedom of religion) and because none have any proof of a homosexual being as bad as what is shown in certain religions, we have no reason to restrict a homosexual's right to marriage.

[Kamunt]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

2) You're homophobic if you don't like gays.

2)not really

Yeah, really.

Um, actually no, not really. Last time I checked, it's possible, OK and likely that someone can dislike or not like something without hating it or having a phobia for it. Remember that at the word's roots, "homophobia" means something approximately equal to "fear of the same", if I remember my Latin (?) roots correctly. It apparently means "hatred of homosexuals" now, so would that make "homophilia" out to be "love of homosexuals"? Odd how we bastardize our own language so each and every day. In conclusion, you can dislike homosexuals without hating them.
Maybe gay men really do just creep him out--maybe he's been hit on before, and it made feel really awkward. I can relate to that if it's true: My town/area is Whitey central, where there is literally such a small number of Blacks that there's more Asians, Middle Easterners, and Hispanics than there are Blacks, maybe 8-11 Black kids in my entire school. Several times I've been vacationing with my family to places where there, God forbid, isn't a massive majority of Whites populating the area. Once it was just 1-2 hours south of St. Charles still in Illinois, while another time it was in Virgina, really close to North Carolina. There was a lot of Blacks there, like really a lot, probably at least 80% of everyone was Black. That made me feel pretty uncomfortable. Not because I'm racist or I hate Blacks, but because I've never been someplace where's I've been the minority...or at least, somewhere where my family's been the minority. VA came first, then souther IL, so I was a lot younger when we were in Virginia, so that's more reasonable for myself, and when we were in the "Black place" in IL I was older, so it wasn't as awkward for me, but my mom still felt it. She even felt a bit afraid when in IL. But does that make her a "hater"? No. She was raised in places where there weren't many Blacks, mostly just Whites, so it's understandable why she might feel nervous. We haven't been anywhere where we've been minoritized recently, though, so I can't say if she still acts that way or not.

3)if two people of the the same sex were suposed to have sex, they could have babys togeather. (no biblical reasons are neaded)

And your statement was probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read for obvious reasons.
So, 2 gay guys, by your judgement, can have babies with one another. WRONG.

Um, that's not really "one of the dumbest things" I've ever heard, psycho. I may be sympathetic with your story, but don't be so quick on the offensive like that. Orch really had a semi-valid point there: if members of the same sex were supposed to have sex with each other, if nature 'intended' for this to happen, then they would probably be able to reproduce with each other, as well. And before someone jumps on me, note the ''s placed around 'intended', like so. I know that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature, but not a whole lot of studies have been performed (to the furthest extent of my knowledge) that say whether it 'does any good' for the Circle of Life or not. Though I would certainly be interested in any results from any such experiences for personal knowledge database purposes.

Do you see homosexuality in the rest of nature? If not, homosexuality is unnatural.

Is there a gay gene? I think that the way a person is raised is MUCH more prevalent in determining the orientation of a person. (any minor genes coding for homosexuality, if existent, are still much less significant)

People's traits are determined by both nature and nurture. One's sexual orientation is not something someone can change at will and has more to do with hormone production that anything else. And what's this nonsense about "minor genes." For one, it isn't a genetic trait (if it were genetic, how would it get passed on let alone survive throughout mankind's history?), it's a chromosomal trait. And genes aren't "minor." There are some DNA sequences that have no phenotype or little effect over the organism. But if a gay gene did exist that is prevalent in homosexuals, you bet your ass it would be a major player in their homosexuality.

QFT, more or less, jewpin; I agree pretty much entirely with what you said. But about the genetic trait-thing, it could get passed along and survive by those who forced their urges into repression in order to be 'normal' or whatever, and reproduce like normal, as well. Since there were a lot more places in the world in years passed where people would get massacred for being gay, there would've likely been more incentive for gays to not give in to their natural urges. Not that I'm flat-out saying that homosexuality is genetic--if it was, then this is how it could've survived throughout the centuries.

Hoo...hope I didn't sound too dumb/wordy there, it's been awhile since I've had to actually try in a topic like this.

[ToshX]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Ugh, if "nature" really never intended to make people have homosexual feelings, then no one would have homosexual feelings. I mean, believe it or not, it's entirely natural. It is as natural as it is for a person to grow tall or be born with blonde hair, for example. Maybe it doesn't happen as often, but it's still natural considering a considerably large amount of the population is homosexual or at least bi.

Really, I don't think the "nature" argument works very well in this situation.

I mean man, for all we know, maybe that "nature" everyone's talking about did it to make us realize there are things more important than reproduction and having kids.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

For all humans know, the very existance of our well beings could be defiance of nature. After all, anything that isn't by nature is man-made. All of the houses and buildings that we make destroy environments for some and give us an environment. If that were the case, then nature could not be a justified reason against gay marriage at all. What I pointed out is a possibility and only a possibility. A reasonable person never denies possibility no matter how crazy it seems, but should not act upon it or against it without reasonable proof or else you might be taking an unreasonable chance of interfering with life, liberty, or property with no justified cause.

[Melone Marshe]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Yes you do, so I guess it isn't.

To add onto this - there's been numerous sightings of homosexual hooved animals as well as primates. This also isn't at all something newly discovered...it'd actually be a bit of a feat to haven't ever heard of this.


Also, if someone doesn't like gays, it doesn't mean they're a homophobe (remember, that means they're afraid of it). While fear can lead to disliking/hatred, disliking/hatred doesn't necessarily lead to fear.

It's a vicious cycle. Many people fear what they don't understand, and they dislike what they fear. And that's what most all homophobes are in the end - a bunchof ignorants who can't grasp the reasoning of love might just be a little more complex than they thought it might be.