Yet Another Homosexual Marriage Thread

Well it seems now that most of the upcoming presidential candidacy hopefuls for the democrats tend to be in favor of "Civil Unions" for homosexuals, but not going quite so far as to say they support giving them the right to legal marriage. As weird as it is for me to admit it, I have to say that I agree with Al Sharpton's view on this issue:

So, essentially the best that we can expect from presidential candidates in the upcoming election is a sort of "separate but equal" mentality. I just guess that I'm glad that these positions are getting voiced now, that they are out in the open where people can see how flimsy and archaic they really are.

This issue seems to be getting hotter, especially with the supreme court's recent ruling on Lawrence & Garner V. Texas. In local news, a couple here in my home state of Arizona has recently filed a suit to have the state's prohibition of homosexual marriages removed.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0716gaymarriage.html

The state's law is pretty straight forward, we've got a piece of legislation listing prohibited marriages, and marriage between peoples of the same sex happens to be one of the items on the list. Of course the situation is a bit more complicated than that. Even if the lawsuit is successful it's not as if homosexuals In Arizona are going to be allowed to marry, the Defense of Marriage Act still makes it illegal for any homosexual couple in America to marry, but it is still a small step forward.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why? It's religious freedom. My religion says that homosexuals can never be married. Therefore, I have the freedom of religion/speech to say that homosexuals are not married. I do not have the right to stop other people from calling themselves married but just because someone does not support some stance does not make them a racist/discriminator.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't have a very good grasp of the situation, do you? Why in gods name would I be talking about political figures and their stance on the matter if I was all gung ho about getting the catholic church, or any other, for that matter, to perform wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples? This is about political freedom, and equal rights. I hope you understand that even if Homosexual marriages are legalized in the United States, that it wouldn't mean that every religion in the united states must perform ceremonies. Don't worry, no matter what happens you can still lock yourself in your little bubble of ignorance and hatred and never come out for all I care, no one has proposed doing anything about that just yet.

I’m curious to see how the US will treat homosexual couples who were married in Canada and then move to the states. Or better yet, how they treat Americans who go to Canada to obtain a marriage license (should Canada ultimately allow that sort of thing) and then come back. I think it’ll be pretty fun to watch everyone go apeshit if America decides that it just won’t recognize homosexual marriage licenses issued in Canada.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most of the people who disagree with homosexual marriages are either chrisitan, muslim or Jewish.

The argument that was given by Sharpten was basically anybody who disagrees with myself commits discrimination. It's moronic. We have free speech in this country and freedom from slander. If someone disagrees with a position that appears somewhat irrational, it does not give you the right to call them bigot. See this is no different than the pig companies complaining about Jews not buying pigs. So now your going to call Jewish people discriminatiing. No of course not.

 

(this is my first time I've responded to this topic so I am er... all bright and shiny looking)

Okinrus is right. Religion is inextricably mixed into the issue, whether you want it or not, because no matter how little you think it has to do with the right to get married, other people disagree and you are not the only one whose opinion has an influence. Just saying "You are stupid!!" won't work, you'll have to get a logical argument and address the other side's concerns.

Enlighten me: I am all for letting people do whatever stupid #### they want to, and I would assume other people are the same (tobacco, alcohol, sex, etc.). So why the debate over homosexual marriages?

 

I believe that at its root, homosexuallity is a psychological
disorder in most cases. They should be recieving counciling, support groups etc. In other cases it is clearly wrong and sinful and many parents don't want there kids exposed to it. The goverment should not support something that the majority of people believe is wrong or at best abnormal behavior. However the activist are trying to ask why we think it's sinful. Morality doesn't have to require a rational explanation. You don't find rational explanations of why stealing is a crime in the goverments code of laws. Why should it be any different for homosexuality? So if the majority believe it's wrong, then let the majority win.

 

Ohh, this could be fun.....

Firstly, what majority of Americans? Do you have poll figures to show they think homosexuality is wrong and evil? And what gvt support is it getting? Why should heterosexual marriages get support and not homosexual ones?

Phsychological disorder? Would you be offended if i suggested that religious beliefs are the same? And pointed out that you can have religious experiences by taking drugs or fasting for days on end? I know one or two homoseexuals, and its not a disorder, its a wiring of the brain differently. The most likely explanation is it happens in the womb, when the parts of their brains that deal with attraction to the opposite sex get switched, eg by too much testosterone for a girl.
How exaclty are children exposed to homosexuality? Is telling them that it exists going to pollute them and make them turn homosexual themselves? There is no evidence that you can be converted to homosexuality. Many people try it at some point or another, but they dont all stay with it.

I thought the USA was all about individual rights? So by all means prevent homosexual sex in public etc, but in private, when people can only imagine what is going on? ( and i bet they have fun doing so)

 

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939243/posts?page=7

I don't get offended. Homosexuality was a phsychological disorder until gay rights activists pushed against it. There was no medical evidence that proved that it wasn't a phsychological disorder.

Yes, I don't take drugs and never fast for more than a day.

This has not been proven anywhere. In fact I'd say there evidence that discounts it. Many homosexuals have been abused and molested sexually when they were young.

No, testosterone has nothing to do with it. Otherwise it would be an easy fix. Also if it was genetic, then I think it would have been pulled out of the gene pool earlier. I will have to look up some of this stuft though.

I don't know. I believe that it's possible. Much of the bisexual movement can only be reasonably described as media hype. Unless if you can figure away that a person's brain can be wired both ways. All desire and imagery can reinforce pychological bonds in the brain.

What exactly are you saying here? There is no evidence that you can be converted to heterosexuality except for a few converts. Do you mean that no one has control of whoever they have sex with?

 

Just shows how moronic Abrahamic religions are. They seem to think people's bedroom activities are their business.

 

Whatever happend to the saying


Live and let Live

Gay or not, they are still human, and shame on you for dehumanizing them.

Good for you that you believe in god but respect what you can't see by respecting those you can.

 

I could go on about condoms, abortion, porno. I destest all of these things. If I see that something will perhaps endorse one these things then I will disagree with it. And yes I do love homosexuals, just not the sin.

When did I say that homosexuals were inferior?

If you haven't noticed, a good portion of the american public have mental disorders. There are people born with personality disorders, ATD etc. The "gay gene" has not been found to exists despite people searching for it. It would appear that most homosexuals would not pass along the "gay gene", because they would not be in a normal relationship.

Homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide and many have AIDS. They obviously need some kind of counciling.

I'm sure that it happens. Otherwise you would not find all those kids calling each other "gay".

Unproven.

Maybe. Still is a disorder. No most people do not decide to have schizophrenia or the many other disorders.

A desease does not have to be communicable. Evidence backs up the claim that children who are abused sexually will in most cases be unable to have a healthy relationship.

 

I honestly can't see how this matters. It certainly shows that people tend to discriminate against homosexuals based upon religious grounds, and that's certainly an interesting tidbit, but I don't see how it factors into the issue in any worthwile manner.

This isn't the case at all. Sharpton is saying that if the government affords one group of people certain rights, which are supposed to be universal, but then deny other people those rights based on completely arbitrary grounds, then it is discriminatory, and he's right.

This is a free country, but you don't have the freedom to oppress me and deny me my rights just because knowing that I'm free, too, makes you uncomfortable.

 

Actually, no it is not. The problem is just that some religious people feel that this is the case, and that somehow they have a right to have a say in this issue. Let me make this clear for you: No one is challenging the right of religious organizations to hate homosexuals and exclude them from any part of their organizations, and I am no exception!

What we are talking about here is making the government grant a legal marriage status to homosexual couples who seek it, in the same manner that it grants a marriage license to a heterosexual couple. We want this so that homosexuals can have the same legal protection and other associated benefits with this legal status which is already given to heterosexuals. As I said before, it's about equal rights, and giving eople what, by our current system, should rightly be due to them.

I assume that by this statement you are trying to say that religious organizations have a say in the matter, and that I should respect that. If so, please tell me how it came to be that religious organizations have the right to play with the government, and turn it into a tool for carrying out their own theologically motivated oppression. At what point did the Church gain the right to dictate anyone’s life without their consent? Why should your disapproval of my choice of a partner have any effect on how far our relationship is allowed to go? Why should I get short changed by an organization set up to protect my rights (the government) just because someone else wants to throw a hissy fit?

We debate about it because of the obvious conflict at hand. People want their rights, others stand in the way of those rights, conflict ensues. Welcome to the world of social psychology.

 

Well luckily the APA disagrees with you. Tell me, what evidence do you have to suggest that homosexuality is a mental disorder? Also, what cradentials do you have to make such a diagnosis?

Well I'm glad that you're not shy about showing your irrational biggotry, it makes arguing with you feel a whole lot easier. Tell me, how is homosexualilty inherently wrong or evil? And don't just tell me that it's because God said so; unless your God is a madman then he isn't above reason and logic, WHY does he dissaprove of it in your opinion? As for many parents not wanting their children exposed to it, I'd have to say that that's hardly supporting evidence for anything, and there are plenty of parrents who don't mind their children having an accurate picture of the world, and not minding if they are "exposed to it" (and by that I certainly don't mean to imply firsthand sexual experience by the children).

I can think of a government that thought exactly the same way. Nazi Germany felt quite the same about the Jews, so they came up with their clever "final solution". How do you think the "Homosexual question" should be solved?

If we simply give the government license to oppress certain people based purely on irrational public opinion then we've done nothing but turn our great democracy into mob rule. The constitution was set up specifically to prevent this sort of thing. Should the government deny people their rights just because many people say it should be so? Or should they stay out of the business of denying rights without very good rational basis for it?

So as long as the completely arbitrary rules of a government fit your own particular biases and standards you're fat and happy? That's a dangerous path, friend, you open yourself up to all kinds of injustice. In this world that you've created for us, what if atheists were to take over, and demand that religion be made illegal simply because they don't like the idea of being held accountable to the morality of a higher being? Would you be so gung-ho about saying that a government doesn't need a reason to do anything?

Taking such actions without having an official reason behind them is simply nothing but madness. It's asking for a totalitarian regime that is above reproach. Government shouldn't be like a religion, it's something that has to be accountable for the well being of the governed.

 

It has never been proven that it is a disease. Your idea that many homosexuals were sexually molested as children is ridiculous, where are your figures for this? What about all of those homosexuals who had normal and happy childhoods? I could cite myself as an example of that.

Further, what exactly makes homosexuality a mental disorder? How is it that most homosexuals can be healthy normal functioning and productive human beings?

Bisexual movement? Media hype? Ok I'll bite: What the hell are you talking about?

Yeah, anyway guess what bisexuals exist to, I know that a lot of homophobes and heterosexists like to ignore or forget about 'em, but it's yet another sexual orientation which is out there. Some people just happen to be drawn to members of both the opposite and same sex, deal with it.

I think that what he is saying is that you don't have a hell of a lot of control over your sexual orientation. To illustrate this point, I would like to challenge you to sit in the comfort of your own home, maybe watch some TV or a movie, listen to some music or read a book or something, and just for a half hour or so, allow yourself to be attracted to members of the same sex. Go ahead, do it, just for a half hour of your life just be a homosexual, you don't even have to actually commit any physical act during that time, just get a little hot and bothered over Brad Pitt or something. If homosexuality is something that people can supposedly turn on and off, it should be easy, right?

 

It was quite clearly implied when you continually state that they are evil sinful, that their sexuality is a mental disorder, and that their rights should be limited, and the government should treat them like shit. I'm sorry if I'm reading a bit into it, but the message seems quite clear from where I'm sitting, as well.

The suicide rate among homosexual teens is indeed a higher percentage than among heterosexuals. This is due in large to people who hold views like your own, and aren't shy about calling them abominations and inherently immoral.

Also, I'd imagine that heterosexuals with AIDS or any other life threatening disease could make use of some counseling just as much as a homosexual with the disease. Being that there are an overwhelmingly large number of heterosexuals with the disease, I don't think it's fair to classify this as a homosexual problem.

So, being that homosexuals seem to be quite capable of having healthy and long lasting relationships, are you then trying to quietly state that your previous statement about homosexuality being a disease was ill conceived?

 

It was quite clearly implied when you continually state that they are evil sinful, that their sexuality is a mental disorder, and that their rights should be limited, and the government should treat them like shit. I'm sorry if I'm reading a bit into it, but the message seems quite clear from where I'm sitting, as well.

 

Everyone is sinful. No, I haven't said that anyone is evil.

And when did having a mental disorder make you not a person?

The civil union gives them all the rights that a marriage does.

I haven't called anyone an abomination. I do consider all sin an abomination. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, everyone with AID's should get counciling.

I did not classify it. All I'm saying is that homosexuals should get counciling etc. Imagine how many lives that would have saved in the 1970s. The goverment basically let homosexuals get killed by not educating them.

Healthy is subjective.

 

1) darwinism: survival of those who copulate. since homosexual couples are unable to concieve, their genes will not be passed down. therefore, they are out of the gene pool. what okinrus said makes sense in light of that.

2) there are two theories that attempt to explain what causes homosexuality. nurture and nature. nature states that you're born with it. nurture says that it's a product of the environment in which the children undergo gender construction. re-read 1. that throws nature out. logically, if it was due to inborn nature, the genes would have cycled out. this leaves nurture. basically, studies show that homosexuality has grown as the lines between the sexes has blurred giving way to more feminine men and masculine women. in turn, this confuses children and causes their gender (perception of the sexual self) to be skewed.


that's all i'm interested in saying.