Jump to content

Gay Marriage


Recommended Posts

Great post SirRiff. I agree completely, as I think many of us do, but are unable to put into words so eloquently.

thank you udawg, its good to know that although my genetics degree seems incapable of making me lots of money, its always usefull to discuss this stuff on the internet.

wait....thats depressing....someone hug me....

RB:

I would like to take your biological argument further to allude from the “The Gay Gene” thread that I am resolute in making such a statement that everyone was born with perhaps even the slightest “possibility” of being homosexual.

Well accordingly since we could not totally rule out the non-existence of a gay gene.

It is very clear to me how the pretentious humans have selectively advance only the heterosexual notion and assign privileges and make social a culture whilst always the minority that did advance a “possibility” is pigeon-hole into oblivion

i'm not sure what you are saying here. that its silly to assume that everyone could be a little gay? what exactly are you extracting from the genetics thread and my biology argument above. please restate, there are so many sources you are drawing from i dont follow them all

I would also like to point out that just because it's a gene, and "uncontrollable," it is right. Just because Kleptomaniacs cannot control their stealing, doesn't mean what they do is right, or should be acknowledged in anyway

i think there should be a NOT in there right?

well that comparison is invalid, because the argument for or against social behavior does NOT NEED to rest on the philosophy of what you can and cant control (although that is a valid part of teh debate)

a child molester is a danger to society REGARDLESS of whether his danger is genetic or environmental. regardless of whether he chooses or has no control over his action. the behavior is judged by society in terms of its interaction with society. harming children is obviously dangerout to society, thus childmolesters should be treated with hostilty regardless of the actually root cause of the behavior (which is near imposible to determine)

homosexuals on the other hand, actually pose no danger to society in thier behavior that is different from heterosexuals. there is no sane argument to be made that with all the rape, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and abortions that occur between heterosexuals that there is any significent additional dangers from the homosexual subpopulation. thus, we can even ignore the root cause of gayness, and just on the impact on society, reasonably determine that it is not worth societies resources to try to alter a behavior that is not harmfull to society above and beyond what we already accept as tolerable and normal. there just isnt any reason to differentiate homosexuality from heterosexuality if gayness posses no additional harm to society. and it doesnt.

once we get poverty and murder cleaned up, maybe then we could scrutinize people sexual behavior a bit more (not that we should or that its our concern) but if you look at our society and the problems that we face on an everyday basis, consenting adults in the privacy of thier own home isnt even a blip on the radar screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

that its silly to assume that everyone could be a little gay?

NO I am making an inference that all people could be gay based on:

-your math, and

-your rat example and

-plant example and

-your hypothesis gene variation link to the environment

and also we cannot say for sure that any one person is 100% free of a gay gene

trouble I have is the encouragement to the dominance to heterosexual development but when the dominance to homosexual emerges we cannot deal with it and really wish to be silent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course gays aren't gay by choice. You think homosexuality is trendy? Well, maybe it is now :( but that's still not the reason.

My theory is that it's a mental disorder of some sort. Millions of Americans live with all different varieties of mental disorders from depression to OCD to schizophrenia. Homosexuality is just one more, however it's been morphed into a cultural issue instead a clinical one. I believe that if it were approached as a disease instead of an "alternative lifestyle", it could probably be treated effectively, like other mental disorders. That's not to say that those that suffer from diseases aren't good, decent people.

But it is not likely that will ever happen so,... no marriages for gays, but civil unions with equal benifits under the law. Marriage is for men and women, children, families, not for Adam and Steve to feel validated by society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush, yes the majority of those who oppose gay marriage might be Christians, and yes they might appear to be filled with hatred. That is unfortunate. Christianity innately preaches tolerance and even love for everyone. One of the sayings in Christianity is to hate the sin, but love the sinner, which I think is perfectly reasonable. However, many Christians can deviate from this type of thinking. I for one, have nothing against the homosexual and would not refrain from even getting to know some. However, I will always disapprove of a homosexuality.

It is hard for me to say that homosexuality is a mental disease. Lust and the need to have sex are natural things. Homosexuality is the same, but perhaps in the wrong way. However, I also agree that though their practices might be detestable, they are not different people in any way.

One liberal contention that I've noticed is that government should not have the right to define marriage, and nobody really can for that matter. Yet at the same time, homosexuals want legal recognition of being a couple and the benefits that come along with that as well. How interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard for me to say that homosexuality is a mental disease
Transexuality is defined as a mental disorder. Seems to me that the differences between that and Homosexuality are so insignificant that one can't help wonder why they are viewed and treated so differently.

How do you explain Homosexuality? It provides no natural advantage, in fact it is directly irreconcilable with the prime function of nature, which is to procreate.

The only logical conclusion is that Homosexuality is an aberration of nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It provides no natural advantage

I heard a radio lecture once, where a professor talked about the advantage of having a homosexual in the tribe. The idea was that a member of the tribe who was not able to mate would be independent and therefore be free to help the tribe with other tasks because he wouldn't have family obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you explain Homosexuality? It provides no natural advantage, in fact it is directly irreconcilable with the prime function of nature, which is to procreate.

The only logical conclusion is that Homosexuality is an aberration of nature.

once again i posted a very plausable and biologically based model of how the evolution of sexuality could produce homosexual behaviors in a small portion of the population.

just because a homosexual couple would not normally produce biological children by choice, DOES NOT mean that it must defy nature for gayness to exist. thats just not true.

i wrote it out in more detail elsewhere, but

the entire sexual behavior of all life is hardwired into our genes. else every generation would need to learn how to reproduce all over again and life could not continue. for modern humans, the complexity of sexual behavior has evolved not only to deal with biological instincts, but the added complexity of human society and our advanced consciousness.

thus because we have a huge complex set of genes that cover a spectrum of behaviors, the fact that a small proportion of humans inheret a combination of genes, and get exposed to a combinatio of stimuli that produce unusual sexual behaviors is not going against the laws of nation. nature governs populations, and in order for populations to succeed over many generations systems that may be needed may produce unexpected results.

humans would not have been as successful in the past without the same complex sexuality that produces gays in the present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a radio lecture once
That's an interesting point Hardner but I don't see Homosexuals acting in this capacity in our culture, or any culture I can think of for that matter.

Was this behavior actually observed, or just theorized?

I think that's why they stopped classifying homosexuality as a disease
I don't think it was ever classified at all, rather it was ignored and not typically spoken of.
some people who were homosexual didn't "suffer" at all
Living in a culture that celebrates homosexuality undoubtably makes it easier but I know that many gays suffer psychological trauma associated with their lifestyle. I'm convinced there's a lot of gays out there that, givin the chance, would choose to be normal as opposed to abnormal.
thus because we have a huge complex set of genes that cover a spectrum of behaviors, the fact that a small proportion of humans inheret a combination of genes, and get exposed to a combinatio of stimuli that produce unusual sexual behaviors is not going against the laws of nation.
Genetics may instill some behavioral predispositions, but in higher mammals, behavior is largely learned. And I don't think that homosexuality is a learned trait, as you can't teach someone to be gay.

I find it much more likely that Homonsexuality is a biological anomoly. Perhaps like other diseases, it acts as a form of population control. I don't know, but it is certainly abnormal.

Again, why is transexuality consider a mental disorder and homosexuality is not when it's almost impossible to differentiate between the two conditions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics may instill some behavioral predispositions, but in higher mammals, behavior is largely learned. And I don't think that homosexuality is a learned trait, as you can't teach someone to be gay.

the core aspects of sexual behavior are not just learned, they are hardwired. lots of fluff that goes along with gender/sex are learned obviously, we have a bery complex society.

but the fact taht the hornomes kicking in at puberty chances everything is just one sign of how biology primes us to find certain things sexually desirable. the ratio of womens waist to hip ratio for example is one aspect of measuring partners that seems to be conserved accross almost all cultures.

the entire "purpose" of evolution is to pass along the necessary and needed information that best benefits the next generation. nothing can be more important then the core issues of sexuality. that is the basic attraction, basic sexual identity and mating behavior.

I find it much more likely that Homonsexuality is a biological anomoly. Perhaps like other diseases, it acts as a form of population control. I don't know, but it is certainly abnormal.

from a biological perspective that possibility has no support at all. not even a theory as to how this abnormal behavior would be supported if its not genetic or so harmfull to teh species.

in every generation of society, people dismiss what is clearly normal and natural as abnormal and unnatural simply because they dont like it. these same "theories" of biology have been used against every social change since the beginning of time. and the arguments about being unnatural usually including nothing about biology, which is the definition of natural. so we are left with "they are weird, i am not weird, therfor i am natural and they are not". not much of an argument.

and just to enlighten everyone who cites biology in thier arguments...a disease is...

an impairment of the normal state of an organism that interrupts or modifies its vital functions.

a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning

if gayness is a disease, so is choosing not to have children, or taking risks with your life, or being a bigot, or beating your wife, or being a criminal, or doing drugs, or cheating on your wife and on and on. hell by that definition everyone is diseased.

by any definition a lesbian can live a long productive life just like anybody else. she is not diseased because of the gender of the person she chooses to pair bond with.

once we are all dead, the next generation will care very little about gays i suspect, qualify of life is more important then what your boss does in his own private life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being homosexual does not affect the day-to-day life of those "afflicted" with it, nor does it shorten the lifespan, nor does it have any detrimental effects at all. I'm not a doctor, or a microbiologist or anything, but I'm pretty sure that the definition of a disease is something that has an adverse effect on the body or on the mind.

By this definition, transexualism should not be considered a disease. This seems like more of a political statement by the scientists or doctors involved than it does a medical or scientific statement.

Even without getting involved in the argument about why and how homosexuality exists, I think we can safely say that it is not a disease. Mental disorder, perhaps. But it has no adverse effects on the body or mind, so it can't be a disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in every generation of society, people dismiss what is clearly normal and natural as abnormal and unnatural simply because they dont like it.

I neither like nor dislike homosexuality. I simply can't understand why anyone would think that having an attraction to a member of same gender is anything but an abnormal impulse, whatever the cause. The plumming just doesn't work.

an impairment of the normal state of an organism that interrupts or modifies its vital functions.
I think homosexuality fits that description. Don't you think reproductive behavior is a vital function?

Why do schizophrenics hear voices that aren't there?

Why do transsexuals feel they possess the wrong gender?

Why are homosexuals uncontrollably attracted to individuals of the same gender?

People are born with ambiguous genitalia. Does it seem that unreasonable to you that people could be born with or develop ambiguous gender identity problems.

by any definition a lesbian can live a long productive life just like anybody else.

True, but so can a hetero female who suffers from sterility, for example, however sterility is still disorder.

she is not diseased because of the gender of the person she chooses to pair bond with.
Homosexuals can't choose who they're attracted to, it is clearly an uncontrollable impulse. Do you choose to have attraction toward females?

Look, I'm not trying to be a hate monger here or tell you that "Jesus says so" or whatever. I'm just looking at it from the most logical standpoint I can, and what I see is that perhaps some of you have been afflicted by political correctness.

I'm saying that a person shouldn't be discriminated against just because they have an illness, but we also can't grand nonsensical requests such as two men or two women who want to get married. I think it makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good points, righturnonred. Homosexuality does in fact appear to be a mental disease, and one that's uncontrollable, supposedly. No one can really tell another to change their sexual preferences because it is a biological inclination. However, marriage is ridiculous. Like you said, it mocks it.

Like I have stated before, homosexuality opens many other doors that shouldn't be. Transexuality is considered a mental disorder and cannot be significantly differentiated from homosexuality. But should they be allowed to marry? What if people start switching genders and demanding the right to marry? This might be bizarre, but what if three people want to get married, all to each other as a group and want legal benefits for that? Folks, allowing homosexuals to marry could easily turn into chaos, disorder, and atrophy of the norm. Marriage is a beautiful thing, done correctly. Why must we taint and distort it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, my point is proven. I wasn't aware that Mormons could practice polygamy in the U.S. however, which is the main country concerned. Those who practice polygamy might start demanding rights of married people. If we allow homosexuals to get the same rights of heterosexually married people, why can't those who practice polygamy get the same rights? They're "married," right? This is why an amendment to the marriage act must be ratified, to prevent confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, marriage is ridiculous. Like you said, it mocks it.

djpark121, you dont think the %50 divorce rate mocks marraige? the high rates of infidelity? the small yet alarming % of children that after paternity tests are found to not have been fathered by the previosly assumed husband? the emotionless commercialization of marriage to mean nothing more then an expensive dress up party for women which has been sold to them since little girls.

it is INSANE to believe that modern marriage as a social institution is anything but a an industry driven, hyper-romanticized, failed relic of past times to which women childlessly embelish for self esteem (like cosmetics) and to which men accept because of lesser alternatives.

marriage is what people like to believe is "eternal" and "ever lasting" yet the reality is that nobody is really ready to sacrifice as all the vows claim.

sirriff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Folks, gay marriages are not marriages. What they really are is a way for gay couples to get the same social and economical benefits married people do.

Those bastards! Where do they get the idea that all men are created equal? Oh, wait...

Men were not made to have sexual intercourse with men, and likewise for women. Just like humans are not supposed to have the same type of intercourse with animals, or other species, homosexuality is the same- very wrong and twisted.

And 40 years ago it was "unnatural", "wrong and twisted" for person's with differnt coloured skin to marry. Times change.

For homosexuals to hijack this heterosexual institution is immoral and undermining.

I've said it before: heteros have done a excellent job of undermining marriage on their own, thank you very much. I'm not sure how more people wanting to get married could hurt it.

They cannot be given the same rights for something which they are not innately a part of. This is not prejudice, it is logic.

What the hell are you talking about? Rights aren't for governments or the public to hand out as they see fit. They're universal and unalienable.

I don't know if you liberals saw the SuperBowl halftime show, but I'm assuming all of you disapproved and were extremely uncomfortable with the exotic scenes that went on.

Omigod! A nipple! It's the end of the world! :rolleyes:

While i am in no way a homophobe....(as many of you would like to label myself) i do hate the lifestyle, not the person.

And yet...

I have a problem with gay people being gay
It's insulting when homosexuals try to hijack the institution of marriage to get financial benefits.

Just like when them uppity women hijacked the vote and them Negros hijacked their freedom from slavery, eh?

This is why an amendment to the marriage act must be ratified, to prevent confusion.

So sawwy, but an amendment to the constitution outlawing gay marriage woukld trample over quite a number of existing amendments such as:

Article IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And for those of you with a sense of humour:

Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, gay marriages are not marriages. What they really are is a way for gay couples to get the same social and economical benefits married people do.

Those bastards! Where do they get the idea that all men are created equal? Oh, wait...

So I guess we're not going to get the answer...where exactly ARE these inequalities that they want eliminated by being able to get married?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess we're not going to get the answer...where exactly ARE these inequalities that they want eliminated by being able to get married?

Look, it was a previous popster to indicated SSM was some sort of scheme by gay people to get the same financial benefits as hetero married couple. if you want to know what they are, ask him. To me, though, it's irrelevant: the only thing that does is that we have, in our so-called egalitarian society, a segment of the population that is being denied the same rights as others by virtue of something hat's beyond thei control (sexual orientation). That must be corrected, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have, in our so-called egalitarian society, a segment of the population that is being denied the same rights as others by virtue of something hat's beyond thei control (sexual orientation).

Oh, right. So you're in favour of 40-year-olds and 8-year-olds marrying as well, I suppose. After all, they can't control their sexual orientation, and why should we deny them their rights because of it? Oh, and let's not forget Mormons and Muslims with multiple wives. Hey, that's actually pretty discriminatory. We should let any guy with the stamina to get several women at once marry them all. But where to set the limit? How about several thousand? Harems are back in! You can have wives you've never even met!

What about the ultra-narcissistic who are in love with themselves? Why be so narrow-minded as to require marriage to be between two people? Why can't a man marry himself? He loves himself dearly, of course, and can have a sexual relationship with himself (or so I've heard on this board). He can't have kids or anything, but then, neither can two men, so never mind about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, right. So you're in favour of 40-year-olds and 8-year-olds marrying as well, I suppose. After all, they can't control their sexual orientation, and why should we deny them their rights because of it? Oh, and let's not forget Mormons and Muslims with multiple wives. Hey, that's actually pretty discriminatory. We should let any guy with the stamina to get several women at once marry them all. But where to set the limit? How about several thousand? Harems are back in! You can have wives you've never even met!

Do you ever run out of straw for these little men you keep building? The "slipppery slope" argument simply doesn't wash. We're talking about choices available between consenting adults, which rules out your pedophila argument. As for polygamy: if all parties are of legal age and conset to the arraingment, sure, why not allow that too? Big frigging deal.

I'd like to pose the following to all the anti-SSMers here: how, exactly, will gay marriage undermine or damage the integrity of heterosexual unions?

Also, if gays are allowed civil unions, which most folks here seem okay with, what is the diffrence between such an arrangment and a marriage? What do you think people will say: "Oh did you hear that Bill and Dave just got civil union'd? I wanted to go to the ceremony, but didn't have time to buy a civil unioning gift."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Consenting adults" is meaningless when the meaning of "adult" keeps changing. First it was 21, then 18, now it's 14, unless you're gay, in which case it's 18, except in Ontario and Quebec, where it's 14 again.

What your argument boiled down to was that people shouldn't be "discriminated against" because of sexual orientation. I showed you that it's nonsense. You implied agreement in your reply, because you felt the need to confirm that you weren't arguing in favour of pedophiliac relationships and had to qualify your earlier statement to reflect that, in the process disproving that earlier statement.

Do you want to change tack now? Oh wait, my mistake: you already did. Smart move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess we're not going to get the answer...where exactly ARE these inequalities that they want eliminated by being able to get married?

Look, it was a previous popster to indicated SSM was some sort of scheme by gay people to get the same financial benefits as hetero married couple. if you want to know what they are, ask him. To me, though, it's irrelevant: the only thing that does is that we have, in our so-called egalitarian society, a segment of the population that is being denied the same rights as others by virtue of something hat's beyond thei control (sexual orientation). That must be corrected, period.

But they are not being denied a damned thing.

They can throw a big party, have a minister officiate & have contracts drawn up legitimizing their shared assets etc etc...

The only thing that seems to be missing is their ability to use the same word "marraige" as straight people.

Well...hell...no straight person will say they're "gay" today like they did in the "gay nineties".

What's wrong with different words? Can't they come up with some word themselves for their commitment ceremony in order not to confuse the issue for everyone else? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consenting adults" is meaningless when the meaning of "adult" keeps changing. First it was 21, then 18, now it's 14, unless you're gay, in which case it's 18, except in Ontario and Quebec, where it's 14 again.

What your argument boiled down to was that people shouldn't be "discriminated against" because of sexual orientation. I showed you that it's nonsense. You implied agreement in your reply, because you felt the need to confirm that you weren't arguing in favour of pedophiliac relationships and had to qualify your earlier statement to reflect that, in the process disproving that earlier statement.

Do you want to change tack now? Oh wait, my mistake: you already did. Smart move.

Hold on there. Before you get carried away with slapping yourself on the back for your briliant rhetorical gymnastics, let's not forget you didn't show a damn thing.

I'm certainly not interested in going around the same circles where you maintain that pedophiles and homosexuals are the same thing, because I've no interest in digging up arguments I've used on deaf ears a million times before. But keep building little straw men out of pedophiles and polygamists. Just remember it isn't exactly the work of genius you imagine it to be.

What's wrong with different words? Can't they come up with some word themselves for their commitment ceremony in order not to confuse the issue for everyone else? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Why should they have to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...