Homosexual Marriage

[seltivo]

too lazy
besides, i think it needed to be said again

[GuidoHunter]

No, it didn't, because your argument carries no merit here, as evidenced by the real debate that was going on in the thread.

You won't find yourself welcome in CT anymore with that "too lazy" attitude, either, so I suggest you start reading threads before you post in them.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[sgkoneko]

Originally Posted by Murderizer

I dissagree with them because if it kept going on then not soon but in the far future, there wouldnt be enough children produced and the population could go down alot, unless there's lesbians because they can get babies from a little building, but gays cant do that.

*blinks*

What? How is this an argument? You think everyone is just suddenly going to go gay? What if I don't know, blondes procreating was outlawed, and then suddenly it was trendy or legal, do you think suddenly we would have this huge amount of blonde children running around? No.

People have always been free to choose. The amount of gays hasn't gone up any, it only seems that way because they aren't afraid of coming out anymore.

And actually! They are working on a way for women to be able to make artificial semen from their bone marrow or something. Anyways, soon Lesbians WILL be able to make babies.

And another thing.. The world is SEVERELY overpopulated. China and Japan could do with more gays and I think MANY places in the US could as well. I think we are nearing a point where we need to limit procreation. I seriously, SERIOUSLY, doubt homosexuals are going to drop our population number.

[devonin]

I really don't think that encouraging the rights of homosexuals is even something that should be brought up in the same breath as discussion of world population. The two have not one thing to do with one another.

[PurifiedWater]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Wrong. You're completely missing the issue if this is what you think could happen.



So people can't have everlasting love without government recognition?

When I get married under the eyes of God I'll be married. Signing papers is a mere formality.



Yeah we do. Last I checked we prevented others from having slaves and stabbing each other.



I'm quoting this to highlight the fact that your poor grammar is severely hindering your ability to make a point. What, praytell, is my "right to the constitution"?



Actually, there are a lot of questions about that, some of which I detailed in the OP of the other thread from which the above quote came.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

good points, yet i think it all depends on: A, what your beliefs are (christian, etc,) and B, If you choose to be homosexual, its your life.
I think it is ,like i've mentioned before in a different post, the same situation as abortion. All about choice.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by PurifiedWater

All about choice.

Bullshit

[sgkoneko]

Originally Posted by PurifiedWater

good points, yet i think it all depends on: A, what your beliefs are (christian, etc,) and B, If you choose to be homosexual, its your life.
I think it is ,like i've mentioned before in a different post, the same situation as abortion. All about choice.

I have to agree with Killroy. You can't choose who you are attracted to. That's part of the make up of deep personality traits that are genetic. You can't just say.."You know what... I think I want to date the same sex this week."

[Kilroy_x]

Genetic... or otherwise biologically determined, but yes, not something you can will yourself out of.

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Genetic... or otherwise biologically determined, but yes, not something you can will yourself out of.

Not willingly, at least, definitely. There's been many a reported case proving that homosexuality can be "beaten", more or less, out of an individual by driving Christianity deep into their skulls repeatedly with a Spiritual Sledgehammer. I don't have any links ATM, but I have read articles and even a study done that addresses this matter. I don't really think this method is exactly fair....because, I mean, it's forcing the individuals to feel guilty about what they are, or by what they think they are. And that's just unfair.

[devonin]

It's rather akin to the fact that my left-handed father had his arm tied behind his back in school as a child, to try and force him to become right handed. Even if it works, you can't possibly justify it as an acceptable practice

[Kamunt]

Holy crap, that's horrible!! And this was all in Canada? Wow...didn't know that brand of BS was sold in Canada, too... I agree completely, too, it's just not right to do something like that to someone.

[Kilroy_x]

Sexual repression doesn't particularly change sexual orientation. Now, it might provide strong incentive for someone to fake opposite sex attraction, or even to get married and have kids, but generally there isn't any actual change in desire that occurs. The fact that Christianity is involved doesn't change the nature of what's going on. The one conceivable way I could think of for someone to change sexual orientation by sexual repression is if it warps their sexuality sufficiently. Fetishism and such are likely often products of warped sexuality. If someone could use the hyper sexuality that often results from repression in the right way, they might be able to make themselves sexually indiscriminate, although that's still a far cry from straight.

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The one conceivable way I could think of for someone to change sexual orientation by sexual repression is if it warps their sexuality sufficiently. Fetishism and such are likely often products of warped sexuality. If someone could use the hyper sexuality that often results from repression in the right way, they might be able to make themselves sexually indiscriminate, although that's still a far cry from straight.

I'm sorry, but "warped sexuality"? "Hyper sexuality"? Those are two new terms to me. I think I could hazard an accurate guess about warped sexuality, but hyper sexuality has me stumped. The only other term I can think of that's even remotely close (which isn't very close at all) is "super-male syndrome", I believe it's called? Caused by a male receiving a Y and Y chromosome instead of an X and Y, I believe. Not very close, obviously. By "sexually indiscriminate", however, I'm assuming you're referring to either bisexuality or asexuality, correct? Perhaps even pansexuality? I'm going with my first choice, bisexuality, for that one, but any of the three seem to make sense.

[psychopete]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

Not willingly, at least, definitely. There's been many a reported case proving that homosexuality can be "beaten", more or less, out of an individual by driving Christianity deep into their skulls repeatedly with a Spiritual Sledgehammer. I don't have any links ATM, but I have read articles and even a study done that addresses this matter. I don't really think this method is exactly fair....because, I mean, it's forcing the individuals to feel guilty about what they are, or by what they think they are. And that's just unfair.

Really? What about the unsuccessful attempts by parents to 'beat the gay' out of their kid?

I'm an example of one of those unsuccessful attempts. It never made me guilty of who I am, since my parents have their own views, and I have my own. Beating me isn't going to change who I am, but then again, they thought it would, basically saying, "If you continue to be weird, you'll get it worse." (Weird in their eyes included being more interested in music than in sports and not being straight) So, as you would expect, because I'm not their definition of normal, I got beaten a lot. What good that did them.

But in the end, that's not what this thread is about.

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by psychopete

Really? What about the unsuccessful attempts by parents to 'beat the gay' out of their kid?

I'm an example of one of those unsuccessful attempts. It never made me guilty of who I am, since my parents have their own views, and I have my own. Beating me isn't going to change who I am, but then again, they thought it would, basically saying, "If you continue to be weird, you'll get it worse." (Weird in their eyes included being more interested in music than in sports and not being straight) So, as you would expect, because I'm not their definition of normal, I got beaten a lot. What good that did them.

But in the end, that's not what this thread is about.

:shocked: Umm....wow. That's freaking awful, seriously. I hate to pry, but what did you mean by "got beaten a lot"? Did child services or something rescue you? I hope so, that's freaking terrible. But anyways...I was speaking in terms of religion and making the homosexual individuals feel guilty about themselves, not ACTUALLY getting beaten... That's why I keyed "beaten" instead of just beaten.

[psychopete]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

:shocked: Umm....wow. That's freaking awful, seriously. I hate to pry, but what did you mean by "got beaten a lot"? Did child services or something rescue you? I hope so, that's freaking terrible. But anyways...I was speaking in terms of religion and making the homosexual individuals feel guilty about themselves, not ACTUALLY getting beaten... That's why I keyed "beaten" instead of just beaten.

I was taken in by a good friend, and when I was leaving, I called the police on my parents. They're in jail now.

And their ideas about homosexuality are based on them being overly religious (they considered me a heretic when I stopped going to church, when I was EIGHT).

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by psychopete

I was taken in by a good friend, and when I was leaving, I called the police on my parents. They're in jail now.

And their ideas about homosexuality are based on them being overly religious (they considered me a heretic when I stopped going to church, when I was EIGHT).

Holy Jesus Christ Superstar. Thank GOD, I don't know what I would've done if you were still living under those conditions. Not like I could actually have done anything, but still.... That "heretic" thing seems....ugh, I'm not gonna even talk about that anymore. But it's with psychotic parents like pete's that make homosexuals afraid to be who they truly are. There's probably a good tens of thousands of parents out there, probably far more than that, that REALLY need to be locked up. I'm glad you got out of there OK, pete, I can't even pretend to know what that must feel like.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

I'm sorry, but "warped sexuality"? "Hyper sexuality"? Those are two new terms to me. I think I could hazard an accurate guess about warped sexuality, but hyper sexuality has me stumped.

It's not exactly a scientific term, but it is a term. There may be good reason to question whether there's a normative level of sexuality, but this term assumes there is at least subjective basis for evaluating the level of a persons sexuality comparative to other people.

By "sexually indiscriminate", however, I'm assuming you're referring to either bisexuality or asexuality, correct?

Not particularly. There are plenty of alternate explanations for the occurrence of both of these. However, I also think that in at least certain very rare instances, it's possible for a person to attain these statuses.

Perhaps even pansexuality?

This would be closer.

I'm going with my first choice, bisexuality, for that one, but any of the three seem to make sense.

Conceivably. One of the major problems in interpreting human behavior is that there are diversities in causes while there are singularities in perception, and vice versa. Perception also being a product of culture (and culture being a product of interactions between individuals, and the properties of individuals being determined by biology, etc.), it's not entirely unreasonable for a skeptic to suggest traditional analytic methods are completely useless in quantifying or otherwise effectively understanding human behavior.

So, being the amazing hypocrite that I am I continue to make such statements despite the inherent self-contradiction in actually believing them. In that spirit, I would also blindly conjecture that all three things have the potential to be either inherited biologically or acquired through what would undoubtedly :cough: be a highly complex series of biological events, although perhaps resulting in only similar rather than identical biological functions at the outset.

In conclusion, this is most certainly not a scientific or even solid conclusion.

[Dc-xBluex]

Personally, i wouldnt want gay marriages to be legal. Its bad enough that small children may see a couple of the same sex,and perhaps are confused as to the whole thing, triggering some sort of curiosity. I've nothing against gay people, theyre all people. I just think it opens the door to youth exploration which i believe is totally uncalled for.

[devonin]

It is totally uncalled for to expose children to different aspects of humanity?

There is a very large body of evidence suggesting that sexual orientation is genetic, or if nothing else -can- be genetic. Which means that children are -born- with a propensity to hetero- or homo-sexuality.

How, in that case, can you possibly say that bringing the concepts to their attention is "uncalled for" -especially- if you are acknowledging in the same breath that homosexuality is acceptable to you and that homosexuals have all the same rights as a person?