Yet Another Homosexual Marriage Thread

Truthfully, I think you need to remove "from" and insert "to," Okinrus.

Heterosxeual realtionships make babies, and, thus, are fruitful, wholesome, and laudable. Homosexual ones don't.

Fix the trait that triggers and fosters a non-procreative sexual disposition. I declare, it doesn't make babies; we should fix it!

How do you know "most homosexuals" can lead healthy relationships?
It seems likely to me that their relationships would be brief and noncommital, seeing that the entire arrangement is non-generative.
Without the possbility of children, there is little material adhesive to perpetuate the bond, little need for fidelity or "true love" . . . or even, I daresay, marriage.


Seeing that all the bodily traits of a person are derived from their genes, homosexuality, to exist at the point of birth, would have to be genetic.
However, homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic, on account of the fact already presented by Mirage, the elimination of disadvantageous or unhelpful genes. Homosexuality would have been expunged by now(Unless it's a recessive gene, which isn't too sensible, as a gene that stagnates the reproduction of the species isn't practical anyhow.).

So, if one keeps Darwinism and practicality in mind, homosexuality cannot exist at birth; people cannot be born gay.

What else could it be but psychological?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

okay, here is my two cents.

i believe that becoming gay is a two fold thing. i believe that you are either born gay, or become gay by growing up by it. it's the nature vs. nurture idea that was allready brought up.

i'll start off with nurture. i like to think of it this way, lets say a young boy is being raised in a household where the father has a strong liking for baseball. do you not agree that, chances are, he will also grow up enjoying the game of baseball? it's not so much that the actual game appeals to him, but because he grew up in a household where baseball was a topic talked about a lot. but just because he grew up in a house like that, doesn't mean that he will become a baseball connoisseur. he may end up loathing the game. the same thing, i believe, can happen in a gay household. i think it happens in a much smaller level, because we are brought up to discriminate gays. growing up as a kid, you can talk about baseball anywhere; school, church, hanging out with friends, where ever. but you don't have as many oppurtunities when you are a kid to talk about homosexuality.

now, for the nature part. i think that this composes most of the gay population. i believe that it is proven that it is we are not "supposed" to be gay. for one thing it doesn't make sense. why would we be born into either a male or female sex, and want someone of the same sex? it is believed (maybe even proven) that we are predisposed to certain traits which out genes carry. one of the traits is want for our genes to produce offspring. if i'm not mistaken, it is called the Selfish Gene Theory, or at least that is what my professor and the text book i used called it. this theory states that our genes are designed to truly want one thing- to pass it's traits on to offspring. now obviously, gays cannot do this, so it seems to me that we are not "designed" (i use this term loosely, with no religious connotations) to be gay for the simple fact that we can't have children if we are gay.

to sum that up, if someone is born gay, i do believe it is a disorder. not a dibilatating one, for they can still be productive members of society, but never-the-less, not something that is "normal"



as for the issue of whether they should be granted marriage liscenses or not. yes, they should. not because i believe it to be okay, or good. but because i believe it is discrimination in the way the constitution is laid out.

that being said. i don't want anything to do with them. if any of my friends or children become gay, i will not disown them. but i don't want to know anything about their personal live as far as their sexuality. i want no details, i don't want them hanging out with me touting signs of gay pride and kissing in front of me (nor do i want a guy-girl couple kissing in front of me). afterall, i don't go around wearing signs saying PROUD TO BE HETEROSEXUAL! it's not their business to know if i am heterosexual, and so it is not my business to know if any of you are homosexual. leave that within the walls of your dwelling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That free republic poll looks ok, except for the comments underneath it. IM sure we could get embroiled in huge debates here about the rights of the majority over the minoty, in fact im sure theres some libertarians around whod fight you to the death on that one.

"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. "

And your saying there evidence that its a disorder, as oppposed to someone simply being different, the same way as people with red hair are different from blond haired people? Or perhaps its just the label, so again if we come back to my original comparison, I can say that religious belief is a disorder because its not founded in anything real.

"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."

yes it has. There are clear differences in size of bits of the brain relating to sexual attraction in men and women, and homosexuals have the parts similar to the opposite sex. There is more evidence of slightly different wiring, but i cant remember it all. How many homosexuals have been abused? YOu would perhaps accept there is a difference between someone conditioned to think of themselves as homosexual by abuse, and the people I know, whose brains are wired differently and have been brought up in perfectly normal circumstances, but have known since puberty that they were different.
And dont try to suggest that homosexuals abuse children, the fact is its "heterosexual" males that do the vast majority of it.

"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."

yes it does. Go look stuff up. Easy fix for whom, and what? Its not a matter of fixing them now with injections of testosterone, its a matter of an imbalance of a hormone at critical times in the womb, causing things that are sensiotive to such changes to grow differently. Call it an act of god if you like.

"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. "


Your right about desires and imagery reinforcing stuff in the brain, but its more than that. LIkely, the bisexual movement has been hyped, but not the homosexual one, there are solid stats on rates of homosexuality. But in the actual homosexuals etc I know, they feel different from the start, then work out its because they are homosexual.

"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?"

I was trying to say that I havnt heard about anyone being "converted" to homosexuality. As for the conversions to heterosexuality, id like to know more. Whats the recidivism rate? Or does it go to show the potential strenght of someones will? The same as those people who are celibate. But I do agree that people have control over who they have sex with. But the general object of their affections has been fixed already.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Heterosxeual realtionships make babies, and, thus, are fruitful, wholesome, and laudable. Homosexual ones don't"

But are still relationships, of working peopel who try to form a stable relationship about which to organise their lives. Sure, dont give them child support benefit, but why not encourage them to pledge support to each other, in the name of stable community relations.
You seem to be automatically conflating babies and wholesome and laudable here, when there is no direct conection except through presumably your religious beliefs.

"Fix the trait that triggers and fosters a non-procreative sexual disposition. I declare, it doesn't make babies; we should fix it!"

Fascist. So, someone doesnt come up to your standard, which is ability to breed, you want to make them capable. Do you want to force everyone to breed?



"How do you know "most homosexuals" can lead healthy relationships?
It seems likely to me that their relationships would be brief and noncommital, seeing that the entire arrangement is non-generative.
Without the possbility of children, there is little material adhesive to perpetuate the bond, little need for fidelity or "true love" . . . or even, I daresay, marriage."

HAHHAhahaha. IN the UK here, there are a lot of people pushing for homosexual marriage stuff, including many couples who have been together longer than many marriages today. like 30 or 40 years. So they arent commited? Can you not see that love and commitment do not, if they are good and true, require children to maintain the bond? Or do you have such a poor opinion of relationships that you dont htink they can last without outside pressure, like children? What a poor life you must have.
Or indeed, does this mean you think people should stay in loveless marriages "for the sake of the children"?

"Seeing that all the bodily traits of a person are derived from their genes, homosexuality, to exist at the point of birth, would have to be genetic. "

Their genes and interaction with environment. All the genes do is give a possible disposition towards something, which is then activated by the environment. Think of it like hayfever, you wouldnt get hayfever unless you were exposed to pollen, but you could easily be disposed to get hayfever but never do so because you havnt encountered any pollen.
Therefore you cant ever wipe out homosexuality even by sterilising all homosexuals. ( and a few of them do breed, whether by AI or silly flings or whatever) You'd have to chop out all the genes in the embryos and mothers which might affect the environment in the womb, and the fetuses reactions to it. There is no "homosexual gene" merely many interlocking systems that can under the right circumstances cause things to go differently. Therefore it is not phsychological.

 

as said above if you opress ANY group they will be more likly to be depressed and depression leads to suicide

look at ANY school yard and tell me those who are bullied arnt more likly to be depressed and suicidle

education and laws that protect not descriminate is the answer, tolerance not hatered

and as for the aids thing the goverments of that time should be looked at as having tried to comite GENOCIDE (or whatever the sexual version would be)

because of hatreds like YOURS they wiped out god knows how many people

and before you say that it proves homosexuality is an offence against god study eroup before the advent of moden medicen

look seriously at the black death

those people were VERY religiouse

they prayed and begged god to protect them

they died because they belived that it was a punishment and they felt that those who contracted the disese were "evil" people who deserved it

of corse we now know thats bull shit dont we okinrus?

well my religion says you should be killed and the world should obay my every whim

so everyone bow down before me cause my religion is more important than yours isnt it okinrus?

where is the proof that YOU arnt criminally insane?

i guess i should dismiss everything you have said as you are oviously a raving loon

for interest sake you DO know that 10% (i not sure of the EXACT %) of animals are naturally homsexual

hell there is a fly that if you increase the temp then it will go for the same sex and if you lower it it will be atracted to the oposite sex again

frogs if in a single sex enviroment will screw the other frogs

and we all know about dogs fasination with beastality and whatever it is you call screwing inaniment objects

what about the DOCUMENTED evidance of dolphin males blowing other male dolphins?

NO ONE knows why homosexuals are the way we are
my guess would be that its because god made us this way

when did YOUR opinion matter to anyone but you?

god i wish goofy was around, he and his wife love to watch porn and id just LOVE a doc to read that condoms are evil, so much for safe sex

in my religiouse belifes all people are equal and if they love there partener that should be celibrated not opressed

there are PLENTY of religions that peform gay marriges and i belive one of the things protected by the consitution of the US is freedom of religion

 

I don't have hatred for gays no more than I have hatred for people who steal.

I think this is misconception. They were normal people who were a little bit more religious than nowdays.

You have a right to support that view and try to push for being able to commit human sacrafices. But until it's law, you can do none of the sort.

If you want to create your laws on what animals do, then your never going to be able to live in a human society. So why don't we just not get married like animals?

I'm not aware of any such research.

No, it looks like they change sex not sexual attraction. Ok from this document it would appear that your sexual attraction is from nature. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1930658.stm

How far are willing to take this? Can I marry my dog or a TV?

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

That still does not answer if we should have homosexual marriage.

 

So if in these respects homosexuals don't differ from heterosexuals, then why bother making any differentiation?

The "separate but equal" idea never worked in the past, and frankly I don't see any reason to go back to it. Besides, by continuing to withhold the title of being "married" it is a state enforced policy of marginalizing homosexuals as a group. It's demeaning, and unjust.

So be a good Christian and give us the benefit of the doubt.

 

And is "making babies" the only purpose of a marriage? What about love and commitment? Don't the two people in the marriage have any involvement in the institution, or is tall just about baby? Marriage has never been purely about having children. Besides, homosexual marriages CAN support children, lesbian couples can make use of artificial insemination, and both gays and lesbians can adopt, seeing how as heterosexuals seem to be making so many babies that they have to throw many of them away. So if benefit to society through raising a child is the soul measure of value that you put on a marriage, even that ridiculous ideal doesn't discount homosexual marriages as being valuable.

Well, unfortunately for you and your philosophy of pure biological practicality, human beings have been, are, and will continue to act in ways which are not necessarily motivated purely by primal biological imperatives. We'll still hold onto stupid ideas like love and loyalty, and engage in activities which, get this, actually don't end up having any involvement in the production of more humans. I know this may shock you, but it's just the way things have always been, and there’s no sign of that changing any time soon, so get used to it.

Well unfortunately everyone in the world who has a fucking clue disagrees with you. Homosexuals DO have long term relationships, and, get this, many homosexuals DO go through religious wedding ceremonies, and carry on their lives as though they are a married couple (Legal endorsement or no) and very many of those homosexuals which by your line of thinking shouldn't even bother thinking about marriage, are actually out there fighting for that right, because it is indeed something which they want, and can make use of.

It's all well and good for you, in your little bubble, to say that you THINK that homosexual relationships should be brief, but this just shows how lazy and unobservant you are. Have you actually bothered to even see, in the real world, how these things happen?

Acctualy genetics don't determine all of a persons bodily traits. There are a large number of factors such as diet, climate, and many other environmental settings which can account for someone's physical features.

You have failed to show that there aren't any physical factors that contribute to a person being a homosexual, so this statement is false.

 

you missed the point. juxtapositioning this situation against darwinism, the theory by which all genetic research is pretty much based on and interpereted, we see that if homosexuality were to be a product of genes, it would have cycled out in the earliest stages of evolution. in a matter of fact, it woud have been among the first to go considering there was a very slim chance it ever got passed on.

have you seen jurassic park recently?

it seems like you are now the one lumping people into a category. how's it feel to be one of the bad guys now?

 

It's not my choice to give you the benefit of the doubt. Christians cannot endorse what they know is sinful however we still love homosexuals. It's just we cannot endorse the homosexual act. So to make comments that I'm spreading hatred or something is unfair.

The reason why marriage in the past has gotten special protection by the goverment is because it produces children. That means more children to serve in the army, factories, etc.

That show on the real world did years of damage to our brains. And the few shows with homosexuals in them such as Will and Grace seem to be supporting extra-marital affairs.

 

Don't give me that BS copout answer. Your religion is not a licence to endorse any screwed up belief. YES it is hatred, just because it is religion does not exclude it from this.

You know, you never gave me an answer on a question I asked you earlier. In your own opinion what is the reasoning behind God's condemnation of homosexuals? In your opinion, why is this a rational view?

That's not how America works, though. Our government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. In other words its more than just an administrative body who's only real purpose is self perpetuation; It's an organization which is supposed to work for he benefit, and betterment of the governed.

Aside from that, if a government was supporting and endorsing marriage because it produced more citizens for it to utilize, then that still would not discount homosexual marriages. As has already been mentioned in this thread there are a number of ways for homosexual couples to acquire and raise children. By all acounts homosexuals should be allowed the right of legal marriage.

You're going to have to turn to a better source for information than TV if you want to learn about a group of people. Try to think of what other conclusions you could draw about certain groups just from how they are portrayed on TV. Think maybe about Native Americans, African-Americans, devout Christians, or any other minority group, really.

 

God does not condemn homosexuals. He considers the homosexual act a sin though.

 

All right then. Lets see if I can't dodge your semantic games and get you to actually answer the question here.

Why do you think God made the decision that the homosexual act is wrong? I'm not asking why you think that God says it's wrong, I'm not contesting the fact that your scriptures show this opinion, but why does God hold this opinion?

 

God does not condemn someone unless they never repent of their sins. There are several reasons why God might see homosexuality dangerous to us.
1. Marriage was designed for a man and wife.
2. Usually the giving and recieving aspects of homosexuality are blurred.
3. A healthy relationship should not be lustful. The claim is made that not all homosexual relationships are not lustful but God has a right to say that you building your house out of straw and judge it wrong.
5. Medically dangerous because it often times envolves using physical body parts which were not designed to serve a sexual function.

[qoute]
That's not how America works, though. Our government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. In other words its more than just an administrative body who's only real purpose is self perpetuation; It's an organization which is supposed to work for he benefit, and betterment of the governed.
[/quote]
God is above America but anyways there is no contradiction here. You have the same rights that I do. I cannot marry a man and you cannot marry a man.

 

Actually homosexuals already have the same rights to marriage as the rest of us -- they have to marry members of the opposite sex just as we do. The marriage laws, after all, don't mention homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Laws usually operate differentially. The same economic laws that have allowed Bill Gates to become a multi-billionaire have not allowed ME to become one -- because I lack his talent, intelligence, ambition, and competitiveness.

That said, I think we're probably headed for government sponsored homosexual marriages. Then the marriage of any two consenting adults (incest, polygamy). Either that, or the privatization of marriage as recently advocated by Michael Kinsley.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/

 

this is the bottom line as i see it. separation of church and state. the government cannot be influenced by religions to deny equal rights to its citizens. the government must also respect all religions and make no laws against them; that means that if there are some religions that allow gay marriages, the government must recognize them. it is all very unconstitutional that gay marriages have been illegal all these years. but then, so much else that goes on is also unconstitutional.

 

Do you think the author's of the constitution had this in mind when they wrote it? Your relying to much on seperation of church and state. I don't want politians who are going to rely on a 200 year book to do what is right. They have to decide for themselves what is right. There are religions that endorse human sacrafice, animal sacrafice, and other perversions. Gay marriages are not illegal. They just are not reconized under the goverment as a marriage. The goverment goes by the definition of marriage which is between a man and a wife.

 

"Do you think the author's of the constitution had this in mind when they wrote it? Your relying to much on seperation of church and state. I don't want politians who are going to rely on a 200 year book to do what is right."

So where do you get your religion from? Most religious people rely on a 2,000 and more year old book for much of their inspiration etc. So a younger one must be better, right?


"They have to decide for themselves what is right."

Sounds fine to me.

"There are religions that endorse human sacrafice, animal sacrafice, and other perversions."

But the people practising them have decided thats whats right. Dont you understand your own contradictions?


"Gay marriages are not illegal. They just are not reconized under the goverment as a marriage. The goverment goes by the definition of marriage which is between a man and a wife."

And the gvt has to keep itself and its definition unchanging forever and ever, like, say the 200 year old document which you disparage so easily?

 

Okrinus. I have a simple request. Using verses from the Bible, show me that homosexuality is a sin. We will then see whether these verses are taken out of context, or if there are double standards involved.
What I am saying may seem a little unclear, but will become clear eventually. Just give the verses which justify a Christain's dislike for homosexuality.