TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- California's top court legalizes gay marriage
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

now all they need to do now is legalize MJ and we are set...

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson That's fine if you think marriage is between a man and a women. But you are discriminative, hearless, blind, and close minded when you take your views and make everyone else adhere to them. There's a difference between prejudice attitude, i.e. holding your "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" belief, and discriminatory behavior, i.e. passing a measure to ensure that your prejudice attitude is followed by everyone else whether or not they agree with you. I think you are perfectly entitled to your prejudice views. But you are not entitled to make laws that tell people what sex they are allowed to marry.

no, I agree... But maybe you could drop the whole heterosexuals are out to get you attitude. Pls. I have had homosexual friends, acquaintances, and have not had a prejudice attitude. There are many outstanding people who are homosexual etc... I am not going to go on, but I really try to be respectful!

Besides, the domestic partnership laws here in CA were a real step forward and gave homosexuals equal footing (as I understood) w/ married couples from a legal standpoint.

I guess, I am torn. I really think that the family is an integral part of any society. But on a more personal scale, I think that the job of raising kids should be performed by a father and mother. That being said, I don't think that homosexuals are any less capable of raising a great kid and furthermore, there are some pretty crappy parents out there, who do a piss poor job of raising their kids regardless. But, marriage has always been based on MORE than the relationship between the couple. It is more than legal rights, commitment, and sexual fidelity. If that is all you see, than you are being quite selfish. It's about having, raising, and providing for your offspring. There really is something special about having your own kids, seeing the essence of you and your spouse in your children. It really is a miracle. I think marriage is more about your offspring than it is about your relationship w/ your spouse.

Does that make a heterosexual couple better than a homosexual couple? Not necessarily, but I would venture to guess that there is different type of relationship that could only be made by sharing the experience of childbirth. It's all about our future, which is our posterity. Any way you slice it, homosexual couples will never be able to have the same experience. Adoption, etc... is just not the same.

To me, that is what makes 'marriage' special. If homosexuals want the same legal rights as married couples, then give by all means go out and fight for them! I wouldn't like to discriminate in such a way! But, a homosexual union and heterosexual marriage just aren't the same, and never will be.

Ok, again, before you flame me, let me just say that I really do respect and hope for the equal rights between the two, but they really are quite different!

Jake, I haven't said a single negative thing about any orientation of people and now you're labeling me as a gay basher? I simply have called YOU out on this thread because your attitude is flamboyant. I have lived with parents in the legal field, and currently work in a law firm handling all sorts of trial material. If you don't think what I have to say is valid at all then simply don't pay attention to me, I'll still post up my opinion for the other readers here.

First off, I don't see any reason to look down on anyone for their preferences much as your argument for racial discrimination in marriage pointed out.

The fact I brought up with marriage being about child birth isn't based on the ability to have functioning reproductive organs, that's ridiculous. It is about being generally classified as having the genitalia to do so. Your argument states that same sex couples count as natural families because they have the ability to adopt or circumvent the natural insemination process. Adoption and artificial insemination are wonderful options for same sex couples, however, they are the only option for 2 people of the same sex to start a family.

I'm simply pointing out legal facts about the issue that haven't been taken into consideration in the thread yet. Another example: What about male soldiers taking advantage of the gay marriage law in order to shorten their brother's tour of duty? From knowledge off the top of my head, being married shortens the post-active reserve period by 2 years for a US soldier (in our current situation, many ARE re-called into duty during this normally 4 year long period). Every single soldier I know would pull a Chuck-and-Larry in two seconds, simply because they're not paid enough for the danger oriented job they do.

What seems clear to me is that your arguments are based on opinion oriented statements. You've fought back by taking obscure viewpoints on my statements that could be considered connotations at best.


_________________________________________________


Anyways, back to nerdgrl416 - please don't take anything I'm saying as a personal attack, I'm just offering another perspective.

"I really don't think that gay marriage will lead to swingers/polygamist demanding the right to marry. Marriage has always been between two people."

Considering it has always been between a man and a women, I don't know how long this argument would stand? 10 years ago, this could have been reworded for the belief that gays would never ask for the right to marriage. In relation to the comment that you're born gay - it's still considered by psychology that it's a personal choice. Just as being heterosexual is a personal choice. Being black, a man, or woman, are physical aspects that define people. I'll dig through my notes and see if I can pull anything up that has to deal with research of identical twins separated at birth and their similarities and differences. I know I have them somewhere!




In general, I'm a very team oriented type of person and I don't believe in anybody being left behind. Especially in a situation like this. I don't support this legal effort because it is so biased in favor of one classification, and lacks of any real gender or sexual reform that should happen BEFORE this takes place. On top of that, there are too many legal ramifications caused by jumping the gun on the situation like they are in the superior court. I wish there was a way to do this that would benefit only the people necessary, but the way things are constructed now... it is far too complicated to go through with something like this. Abolishing all marital benefits across the board and just handing out a title or certificate is a much better option at this point. Everyone could be happily labeled as a pair, and no one could abuse the benefits. Too bad this would never fly.

quote:

Originally posted by naeblis no, I agree... But maybe you could drop the whole heterosexuals are out to get you attitude.

Anyone who votes against gay marriage is discriminating against gays. Plain and simple. You don't have to THINK you are oppressing gays, but the act of denying them marriage physically prevents them from their civil rights: that's called discrimination. I'm not overreacting. I'm pointing out discrimination.

quote:

Besides, the domestic partnership laws here in CA were a real step forward and gave homosexuals equal footing (as I understood) w/ married couples from a legal standpoint.

Maybe we should create really cool drinking fountains for gays to drink from. It won't have ALL the nutrients that straight water fountains have but it's the step in the right direction right? Separate but slightly less equal.

quote:

I guess, I am torn. I really think that the family is an integral part of any society. But on a more personal scale, I think that the job of raising kids should be performed by a father and mother.

Your perfectly entitled to that belief. And thank you for voicing it. But don't go passing measures to reinforce that belief because a law restricting homosexual marriage doesn't protect anything but your personal biased view, and it harms other people who want to get married to the same sex. I think Madonna's new CD is shit and wouldn't recommend it. But I wouldn't support a measure to ban people from buying it.

quote:

That being said, I don't think that homosexuals are any less capable of raising a great kid and furthermore, there are some pretty crappy parents out there, who do a piss poor job of raising their kids regardless. But, marriage has always been based on MORE than the relationship between the couple. It is more than legal rights, commitment, and sexual fidelity. If that is all you see, than you are being quite selfish. It's about having, raising, and providing for your offspring.

Are you saying gay people never have offspring and that heterosexuals always have offspring, but never get married just for legal rights, commitment, and sexual fidelity? If stereotyping homosexual vs heterosexual marriages is all you see, then you are being quite stupid. Yes it is about having, raising, and providing for your offspring and homosexuals can do that too.

quote:

There really is something special about having your own kids, seeing the essence of you and your spouse in your children. It really is a miracle.

So have your babies and let homosexuals have their children through adoption, artificial insemination, or whatever means they chose to raise offspring. Children are miracles to them too.

quote:

I think marriage is more about your offspring than it is about your relationship w/ your spouse.

Then ban all marriages that don't produce children. Oh and ban divorce while your at it. Apparently half of the heterosexuals out there can't even keep their marriage. Some tradition.

quote:

Does that make a heterosexual couple better than a homosexual couple? Not necessarily, but I would venture to guess that there is different type of relationship that could only be made by sharing the experience of childbirth. It's all about our future, which is our posterity. Any way you slice it, homosexual couples will never be able to have the same experience. Adoption, etc... is just not the same.

Two homosexuals can share the experience of childbirth. Do you think Lesbians are incapable of getting pregnant? Do you know realize that you can take the DNA out of an egg and insert DNA from a sperm in it and create a baby from two males? Anyway you slice it, homosexual couples can have similar or the exact experience you have. They can even have a "donor" where the guy gets his fag-hag pregnant.

It's all about our future...? What future? How many more billions of people? Maybe our future needs more homosexual marriages in order to curb the human population from consuming all the Earth's resources. China already has the "only one child per family" rule thanks to so much promotion of the se hetereosexual relationships that have over populated the country.

quote:

To me, that is what makes 'marriage' special. If homosexuals want the same legal rights as married couples, then give by all means go out and fight for them! I wouldn't like to discriminate in such a way! But, a homosexual union and heterosexual marriage just aren't the same, and never will be.

Of course they are not the same. One is gay the other is straight....so what's your point?

quote:

Ok, again, before you flame me, let me just say that I really do respect and hope for the equal rights between the two, but they really are quite different!

*in an apologetic racist voice* I mean I do respect black people and hope for them to drink in the same water fountain as whites, but they really are quite different. lol...

Consider yourself flamed.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 Jake, I haven't said a single negative thing about any orientation of people and now you're labeling me as a gay basher?

No, I'm just labeling you as a discriminator. You haven't hit anyone yet.

quote:

I simply have called YOU out on this thread because your attitude is flamboyant.

Uhhhhhhh I'm more masculine than you (trust me). So I would not label anything I say as flamboyant. Anyway, calling my "attitude" "flamboyant" has no relevance to the actual argument itself so whatevs moving on...

quote:

I have lived with parents in the legal field, and currently work in a law firm handling all sorts of trial material. If you don't think what I have to say is valid at all then simply don't pay attention to me, I'll still post up my opinion for the other readers here.

You have every right to post your opinion. I'm not stopping you. I'm just arguing against you. Got a problem with that?

quote:

The fact I brought up with marriage being about child birth isn't based on the ability to have functioning reproductive organs, that's ridiculous. It is about being generally classified as having the genitalia to do so. Your argument states that same sex couples count as natural families because they have the ability to adopt or circumvent the natural insemination process. Adoption and artificial insemination are wonderful options for same sex couples, however, they are the only option for 2 people of the same sex to start a family.

Ok so homosexuals may not get preggors the natural way. Is that the reason why they shouldn't get married? Because it's not the way YOU want them to make babies? Answer please.

quote:

I'm simply pointing out legal facts about the issue that haven't been taken into consideration in the thread yet. Another example: What about male soldiers taking advantage of the gay marriage law in order to shorten their brother's tour of duty? From knowledge off the top of my head, being married shortens the post-active reserve period by 2 years for a US soldier (in our current situation, many ARE re-called into duty during this normally 4 year long period).

That's another slippery-slope argument. There's plenty of heterosexual people that "marry" just for benefits. Likewise a soldier could very well marry some random chick that he doesn't love and want to make babies with just so he could leave early. Maybe we should ban straight marriages then? After all, this is the scenario you used to justify against gay marriages so why not use it to justify against straight marriages? Please explain the flaw in your argument.

From knowledge off the top of my head, being gay shortens the post-active reserve period by infinity for a US soldier so you don't have to worry about dudes marrying each other in order to leave.

quote:

Every single soldier I know would pull a Chuck-and-Larry in two seconds, simply because they're not paid enough for the danger oriented job they do.

They can do that now. All they have to do is say they're gay and they get kicked out. Duh.

quote:

What seems clear to me is that your arguments are based on opinion oriented statements.

No, I think your arguments are based on fallacies, all of which I've pointed out now.

quote:

You've fought back by taking obscure viewpoints on my statements that could be considered connotations at best.

Don't use a generalization in a poor attempt to devalue all of my arguments in one sweeping sentence. Be a man, grow a dick, and address my points and rebuttles. I've addressed all yours clearly.

Jebus fuckin waffles, you turned this thread from a civil debate into beating the PreviousPoster with a stick.

Enough, no matter what you think the fact is half or more of this country is not ready to accept the fact that religion has brainwashed/not to mention has been this countries foundation since inception...

I think all of our arguements are nein at this point. We'll have to wait and see. California is a pretty liberal/ballsy state.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 The issue of discrimination I'm presenting is that it alters the current definition of marriage, based on child birth and reproduction, and changes it to be focused on satisfaction in a relationship (among any sex combination). My point is that, if you are going to classify marriage based on happiness, and throw out the requirement of gender, how can you keep the limitation on the number of people involved in a marriage without that being classified as discrimination. Don't overlook the population of swingers and group sex oriented people. This article estimates that there are over 3 million in the United States: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ow/1797746.cms. (simply the quickest reference I could find. There are a LOT of people in the category. Possibly even more than the gay community.) This is in relation to the current representation of about 1-2% of average national population that represents themself as gay, from multiple print sources I've read who repost their data around the internet. Here is something out of the Seattle Times that can show why this issue is so prevalent in California, and why it is so highly supported in California. California is VERY gay friendly. Back in relation to the swingers - whats to say they they won't sound the battle cry if the gay legislation passes? This could later turn into a nightmare for US customs and immigration having to deal with birthright or existing citizens marrying obscene amounts of foreigners. I don't have any sort of problem with gay people, and I don't think I need to defend myself in relation to that. The fact that the supreme court is letting this happen is going to lead to a legal nightmare.

Just read this post...........


Are you serious? Please fuck off.

quote:

Originally posted by |Thrax| Jebus fuckin waffles, you turned this thread from a civil debate into beating the PreviousPoster with a stick. Enough, no matter what you think the fact is half or more of this country is not ready to accept the fact that religion has brainwashed/not to mention has been this countries foundation since inception... I think all of our arguements are nein at this point. We'll have to wait and see. California is a pretty liberal/ballsy state.

Why has religion "brainwashed"

Its their belief and as valid as yours. (Now i thinkt hey are a bunch of idiots but valid in their mind non-the less.

what i mean by that is; America was founded by Liberal puritan Christian fundamentalists.
Therefor; marriage is still viewed as somewhat sacred, people hate when you step on their shoes.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 The fact I brought up with marriage being about child birth isn't based on the ability to have functioning reproductive organs, that's ridiculous. It is about being generally classified as having the genitalia to do so.

You're nuts. Marriage isn't about childbirth. Unmarried people have children all the time. Plenty of married people don't have kids.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 Your argument states that same sex couples count as natural families because they have the ability to adopt or circumvent the natural insemination process. Adoption and artificial insemination are wonderful options for same sex couples, however, they are the only option for 2 people of the same sex to start a family.

So fucking what.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 I'm simply pointing out legal facts

Legal facts? Bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 about the issue that haven't been taken into consideration in the thread yet. Another example: What about male soldiers taking advantage of the gay marriage law in order to shorten their brother's tour of duty? From knowledge off the top of my head, being married shortens the post-active reserve period by 2 years for a US soldier (in our current situation, many ARE re-called into duty during this normally 4 year long period). Every single soldier I know would pull a Chuck-and-Larry in two seconds, simply because they're not paid enough for the danger oriented job they do.

They can do this now by marrying a women.

But it's really retarded to deny someone rights just because a few might take advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 Considering it has always been between a man and a women, I don't know how long this argument would stand? 10 years ago, this could have been reworded for the belief that gays would never ask for the right to marriage. In relation to the comment that you're born gay

Do you know any gay people? Ask them if they made a choice.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 - it's still considered by psychology that it's a personal choice.

Cite?

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 Just as being heterosexual is a personal choice.

Bullshit. Did you make the choice?

As far as the slippery slope arguments go, the same arguments could've been made regarding interracial marriage fifty years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by |Thrax| Jebus fuckin waffles, you turned this thread from a civil debate into beating the PreviousPoster with a gay stick.

Fixed.

I would keep poise but the arguments and lack of logic from these people are is so ridiculous I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that they're actually intelligent enough read and write.

quote:

Enough, no matter what you think the fact is half or more of this country is not ready to accept the fact that religion has brainwashed/not to mention has been this countries foundation since inception...

So you're saying I can't argue against them? Go away if you don't want to participate in the discussion. You are not fun.

quote:

Originally posted by |Thrax| what i mean by that is; America was founded by Liberal puritan Christian fundamentalists. Therefor; marriage is still viewed as somewhat sacred, people hate when you step on their shoes.

Thrax, this is a good point and it's very true. Every time there is an event that challenges traditional puritan Christian fundamentalist view, they cling on to their tradition as long as they can, even if it takes drastic measures such as creating Jim Crow laws or amending to the constitution a ban against gay marriage (to protect .....um......I have no idea).

I already put my word in on page 1 pal, I didn't say I was not contributing.

You need a JUMP to conclusions mat.

I'm not prejudice about the right to marry either way, looks like you are, So, thanks for making it clear you are in no position to compromise. Sticking to your guns is a good thing in life.

quote:

Originally posted by |Thrax| I already put my word in on page 1 pal, I didn't say I was not contributing. You need a JUMP to conclusions mat.

LOL...You need a JUMP out of this thread mat. And I'm not your pal, budday.

quote:

I'm not prejudice about the right to marry either way, looks like you are, So, thanks for making it clear you are in no position to compromise.

What are you talking about? I'm not prejudice against any type of 2-way marriage. Point out somewhere when I said I was....and wasn't just mocking with a counter-argument with a similar scenario.

What compromise is there? Gay marriage or not. And I haven't read any good reason to support "not." I've argued logically against those arguments and still get chastised? I guess I have no choice but to argue c0r style with you now: Go open up a can of kill yourself.

Whoa, prejudice was not the word I was looking for. I fail.

I agree with you, and I agree with the right to marry, regardless of orientation etc.
You feel strongly on your case and I support you.

and it is completely ridiculous to think that Gay marriage would lead to a path of polygamy and/or further marriage shenanigans. point proven on that one too.

I am jumping out of this thread.

Jesus hates you all. Nah I'm kidding. Good for them. I hope one day I can be legally married to my hand and claim it as a dependent for a tax break. Both hands would be amazing. Coming 2075.

Sharing a health plan with your pet. 2055.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Thrax, this is a good point and it's very true. Every time there is an event that challenges traditional puritan Christian fundamentalist view, they cling on to their tradition as long as they can, even if it takes drastic measures such as creating Jim Crow laws or amending to the constitution a ban against gay marriage (to protect .....um......I have no idea).

ya, because christians hate blacks, gays and jews.

Jake, you're being offensive.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with my views. I really am not trying to offend you, but you are being overly defensive to people's opinions. First, I think we both need to acknowledge how hard it is to truly understand both sides of the disagreement. Because I do not have any same gender attraction, I will never truly understand! Likewise, I think that it can be challenging for homosexuals to really understand a heterosexual relationship, and a heterosexual view of marriage, because they haven't experienced it.

It really is a challenge for a lot of people, acceptance has not come easy for anyone who is different. I am not trying to say that those rights and the pursuit of happiness shouldn't be fought for, but please try to be patient! I think a major cause of the problem is that people are not willing to try and understand. It really is something that is so fundamentally different!

I think what mobius9 is trying to say is that up until now, marriage has been solely based on the uniting of a man and women. Marriage is and should be primarily focused on raising a family! Without families, none of us would even exist! The family is the most basic unit of any society, and while most don't come from the 'ideal' family, it nonetheless serves as the best place to raise children. Of course, there are many who cannot have children, or for whatever reason, will not be able to have that experience. However, in general, I think that the point of marriage is highly focused on the family.

The issue here, is that the definition of marriage is being questioned. If it is no longer the unity of man and woman, what is it then? I know we're not talking about polygamy, or swingers, etc... but I think that many people wonder if it will eventually bring into question these groups who want to be married. Why should anyone be discriminated against? Why are we going in to a polygamist compound, removing the children from their cultish mothers, and viewing their differences as a bunch of brainwashed broads getting pwnd by their crazy cultish spouses? I don't want to open a whole new can of worms with that, because there are obvious reasons why it can be harmful, but if it makes them happy, why are there laws in place that restrict them from their pursuit of happiness?

Which also begs the question of why do other groups of people want to be "married"? If it is not to create a family, then why do we want to be married? Is it just love, commitment, a symbol of unity between the couple? Certainly I think it is possible for any couple regardless of sexual orientation, to make those commitments without being 'married'. It's true the separation between parenthood and marriage is increasing. Just as sex is not even really associated with procreation any more. Gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating marital decline.

I think that you should have the same rights as any other married person, but marriage between a man+woman, and man+man (or woman+woman) is different. It just is, and there is no other way to look at it. It is not the same. That doesn't mean that the law should grant rights to one, and not the other! In fact, I agree and do say that it's discriminating! In a lot of the states that don't grant the same rights to legally united heterosexuals as same-gender couples, we need to fight for tolerance and understanding! However, a uniting of two homosexuals is not marriage. I think that the term marriage should continue to described the legal marital relationship between a man+woman, but the same rights and privileges of should be extended to same-gender couples.

Even then, if you are provided the same rights as any other married couple, you can't forcefully subject everyone to accept what you're doing as 'right'.

quote:

Originally posted by naeblis I think what mobius9 is trying to say is that up until now, marriage has been solely based on the uniting of a man and women. Marriage is and should be primarily focused on raising a family! Without families, none of us would even exist! The family is the most basic unit of any society, and while most don't come from the 'ideal' family, it nonetheless serves as the best place to raise children. Of course, there are many who cannot have children, or for whatever reason, will not be able to have that experience. However, in general, I think that the point of marriage is highly focused on the family.

Taking a step back from all this, one must realize that marriage is a concept created and institutionalized by the human species. The University of Oslo recently ran an exhibition called "Against Nature? - an exhibition on animal homosexuality," and I've copied the University's introduction to the exhibit below.

Homosexuality was observed in over 1,500 different species of animals (including humans, surely). Now I've never seen a gorilla, giraffe or penguin recite marriage vows and neither have I seen any elephants in tuxes and white wedding gowns (well, not literally!)

Yet most of these species do quite well in reproducing and sustaining their existence without the institution of marriage being present. Some may argue that humans are a higher form of intelligence than the other 1,500 species of animals on this earth and therefore have the capacity to make rules that favor one race, orientation, etc. over another. But, especially with the advent of global warming, I would challenge anyone to look a polar bear in the face with this argument!

===================
INTRODUCTION

On Thursday October 12 2006 The Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, opened the first-ever museum exhibition dedicated to gay animals.

Today we know that homosexuality is a common and widespread phenomenon in the animal world. Not only short-lived sexual relationships, but even long-lasting partnerships; partnerships that may last a lifetime.

The exhibit displays a small selection of the more than 1500 species where homosexuality has been observed. This fascinating story of the animals' secret life is told by means of models, photos, texts and specimens. The visitor will be confronted with all sorts of creatures from tiny insects to enormous spermwhales.

How can we know that an animal is homosexual? How can homosexual behaviour be consistent with what we have learned about evolution and darwinism?

Sadly, most museums have no traditions for airing difficult, unspoken, and possibly controversial questions. Homosexuality is certainly such a question. We feel confident that a greater understanding of how extensive and common this behaviour is among animals, will help to de-mystify homosexuality among people. - At least, we hope to reject the all too well known argument that homosexual behaviour is a crime against nature.

The exhibition has received financial supported from the Norwegian Archive, Library and Museum Authority (www.abm-utvikling.no/).

The exhibit will run to August 19 2007.
==================

Those of us living here on this earth have many opportunities to live in harmony with each other or create institutions, religions, casts, cults, and whatever else that can be used as a basis to destroy us, either through acts of war or through expression. The words, thoughts and actions written on these very pages have already changed history. I'm kinda proud to be part of it!

quote:

Originally posted by naeblis ya, because christians hate blacks, gays and jews.

They sure have either in the past or present and have used laws to reinforce their prejudice views. Finally you said something that's valid!

quote:

Jake, you're being offensive. I'm sorry that you don't agree with my views. I really am not trying to offend you, but you are being overly defensive to people's opinions. First, I think we both need to acknowledge how hard it is to truly understand both sides of the disagreement. Because I do not have any same gender attraction, I will never truly understand! Likewise, I think that it can be challenging for homosexuals to really understand a heterosexual relationship, and a heterosexual view of marriage, because they haven't experienced it.

You don't have to understand the other side, just let them do what they want to do. I wouldn't try to ban straight marriage just because it doesn't seem right to me.

quote:

It really is a challenge for a lot of people, acceptance has not come easy for anyone who is different. I am not trying to say that those rights and the pursuit of happiness shouldn't be fought for, but please try to be patient! I think a major cause of the problem is that people are not willing to try and understand. It really is something that is so fundamentally different!

Right and let's be patient and wait until the last of the KKK members in Northern Idaho die off until we give black people all their rights. We wouldn't want to offend those who are prejudice at the expensive of granting another minority group their basic civil rights. That would be absurd.

quote:

I think what mobius9 is trying to say is that up until now, marriage has been solely based on the uniting of a man and women. Marriage is and should be primarily focused on raising a family! Without families, none of us would even exist!

Gay marriages produce families. And the existence of a gay marriage does not lead to the world not existing. That argument is flawed. We don't live in 10,000 B.C. where we need to constantly populate to overcome disease, hunger, and getting eaten by tigers. In fact I think we need to curb the population and homosexuality is the perfect answer to population control.

quote:

The family is the most basic unit of any society, and while most don't come from the 'ideal' family, it nonetheless serves as the best place to raise children.

So why would you oppose a measure to legalize gay marriage when MOST straight people don't even adhere to this "tradition"? It looks like we should just ban straight marriage since straight people are obviously abusing the tradition.

quote:

Of course, there are many who cannot have children, or for whatever reason, will not be able to have that experience. However, in general, I think that the point of marriage is highly focused on the family.

So you would support a man and a women getting married even if they never want children, but you would not support a woman and a woman getting married even if they have 3 children and stay in a healthy relationship? Where's your head at? (*plays basement jaxx in the background*)

quote:

The issue here, is that the definition of marriage is being questioned. If it is no longer the unity of man and woman, what is it then? I know we're not talking about polygamy, or swingers, etc... but I think that many people wonder if it will eventually bring into question these groups who want to be married. Why should anyone be discriminated against? Why are we going in to a polygamist compound, removing the children from their cultish mothers, and viewing their differences as a bunch of brainwashed broads getting pwnd by their crazy cultish spouses? I don't want to open a whole new can of worms with that, because there are obvious reasons why it can be harmful, but if it makes them happy, why are there laws in place that restrict them from their pursuit of happiness?

The issue is only gay marriage. Site one lawyer who, while advocating gay marriage, also simultaneously advocated 3-way marriages? Stop talking about polygamy. That's an ENTIRE different subject because it involves MORE than 2 people. Gay marriages don't Case closed.

quote:

Which also begs the question of why do other groups of people want to be "married"? If it is not to create a family, then why do we want to be married? Is it just love, commitment, a symbol of unity between the couple? Certainly I think it is possible for any couple regardless of sexual orientation, to make those commitments without being 'married'. It's true the separation between parenthood and marriage is increasing. Just as sex is not even really associated with procreation any more. Gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating marital decline.

(1)
Straight people have out-of-wedlock babies because THEY ARE NOT MARRIED, not because gay people are married. The U.S. has an incline of out-of-wedlock babies. Where's your "it's the gay's fault" excuse there? Gay's can't marry in the U.S.

(2)
In the U.S. divorce rates have been increasing over the past decades due to STRAIGHT PEOPLE DIVORCING.

I think the best conclusion would be to reinforce gay marriage because nearly EVERY child is PLANNED by gay people because they can't accidentally get pregnant from having sex with each other. So that means they WANT to have children and plan on rearing that child. On the contrary, straight people have MANY births due to just having sex out of wedlock. So if you want to reinforce your traditional view that marriage is for rearing children, then you need to pass a law that forces straight people to marry every time they happen to have a baby.

quote:

I think that you should have the same rights as any other married person, but marriage between a man+woman, and man+man (or woman+woman) is different. It just is, and there is no other way to look at it. It is not the same. That doesn't mean that the law should grant rights to one, and not the other! In fact, I agree and do say that it's discriminating! In a lot of the states that don't grant the same rights to legally united heterosexuals as same-gender couples, we need to fight for tolerance and understanding! However, a uniting of two homosexuals is not marriage. I think that the term marriage should continue to described the legal marital relationship between a man+woman, but the same rights and privileges of should be extended to same-gender couples.

I see your point. It's just about semantics.

I think we should call all attractive gay guys "hot" and all attractive straight guys "idiot." This is just because I think we need a separate word to describe them. Both words will mean the same thing, but I'm just not comfortable using the word "hot" to describe an attractive straight person because I use that word to describe gay attractive people already. So please people, start calling attractive straight guys "idiot" so that I can feel comfortable with my traditional view.

No but seriously would you be okay if the U.S. were to grant gays "Civil Unions" where they get all the legal benefits that "marriages" grant? I'd be fine with Civil Unions. If it boils down to your refusal to use a word to describe something that your not comfortable with, then I'd rather give gay people their rights and just not the word.

quote:

Even then, if you are provided the same rights as any other married couple, you can't forcefully subject everyone to accept what you're doing as 'right'.

if I chose to marry another dude, why would I give a fuck if you thought what I was doing wasn't right? I'm not forcing my belief on you. I'm not passing any measures to ban your marriage.

And LOL @ Thrax. You retard I love you.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Ok so homosexuals may not get preggors the natural way. Is that the reason why they shouldn't get married? Because it's not the way YOU want them to make babies? Answer please.

It has nothing to do with how I want anyone to have babies. I'm not so sure I understand how I'm supposed to respond here... If I have to restate my definition of marriage it is simply because a man and a women can develop a child. As in2musik did state, in one of the most intelligent posts in this thread, animals engage in homosexual acts in nature without it impacting their population. This is absolutely fine and I personally don't see any problem with any type of un-hurtful sexual act. Unfortunately, animals do not have the the institution of marriage. The fact that we are considering changing the marriage law so that homosexual couples can emulate a natural part of a heterosexual couple's life does not make sense in relation to the institution that marriage is. Marriage has been about baby making the old fashioned way since it began, since before artificial insemination was even available. Claiming that artificial insemination now makes lesbian couples able to conceive naturally is groundless.

I just can't see how you can take a child made by a man and a woman, then raise it by either two men or two women, and claim that has significant meaning to override the legal definition of marriage. Artificial or not, it is a man's body combining with a women's. By definition, at least one parent in a same sex parent relationship is an adoptive parent. This is why it conflicts with the view of child birth I have portrayed. There will never be a situation where both partners in a same sex relationship are the biological parents.

In further address to this, it has only been very recently that it has been an issue with people even marrying without children. A statistic from Rutgers reinforces how rapidly this is changing. Perhaps there should be a loss of benefit after a certain birth giving age. - http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publica...EXTSOOU2006.htm

"A growing percentage of women today are not having any children. In 2004, almost one out of five women in their early forties was childless. In 1976, it was one out of ten."

Whatever your opinion is, if genealogy made it impossible for say, Whites to reproduce with Africans, or possible for females to reproduce with other females, I have no idea how I would feel on the whole subject. I am not some belief persistent babbling idiot that you seem to be, Jake. If it makes your opinion of my bias any less, I am not a religious individual at all, and have no concern what opinion Christianity or any other religion takes on the matter.

Please see the bottom of the post for more info on why I'm lead to consider homosexuality as a preference led by nurture. Also as in2musik's article pointed out, Darwinism does not make sense regarding the reproduction of homosexual animals and passing their "gay" hereditary trait along. If anything, it merely proves that it is a recessive gene passed on by heterosexual individuals. This is another reason why I believe it is nurture rather than nature. Animals have both psychological aspects too, their being in "nature" does not have to deal with the "nature" fact of genealogy. Being gay or straight is not a definite thing such as gender is. You can't call someone who is born with criminal tendencies a criminal.

quote:

From knowledge off the top of my head, being gay shortens the post-active reserve period by infinity for a US soldier so you don't have to worry about dudes marrying each other in order to leave.

This is partly true. The way the military decides on whether the discharge will be honorable or dishonorable is very discriminatory, unfortunately.

"Though it�s not widely known, a clause in the military�s policy on discharging gays allows commanders discretion on what form of discharge to give a gay servicemember." - http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?...87&archive=true

Adding marriage to the equation is very uncertain and complicated, however you add a good point. The don't ask don't tell policy does not apply while you are on reserve as far as I can tell. All I could find was in reference to Steve May - "Nor does current law contemplate punishing soldiers for statements made as civilians or while in inactive reserves" - http://www.sldn.org/templates/press...on=5&record=235

Enacting in a gay marriage could add a potential conflict with being called back into active duty, since it could violate the don't ask don't tell policy just by wearing the wedding ring. I have no idea how the military would recreate their law in order to compensate with this. The two scenarios I think we should consider are: Military removes all further reserve requirement and issues honorable discharges for gay married couples, or the military issues dishonorable discharges for

quote:

No, I think your arguments are based on fallacies, all of which I've pointed out now.

Not with much, if any factual evidence whatsoever! Keep in mind Jake, most of the scenarios I'm pointing out are possibilities, and not necessarily things I am suggesting are going to happen.

In relation to my other argument, would it be far fetched to consider ANY other large sexual group from requesting similar improvements of their rights? I am surprised you all are blowing polygamists off the board for this, considering their sheer number.

quote:

Don't use a generalization in a poor attempt to devalue all of my arguments in one sweeping sentence. Be a man, grow a dick, and address my points and rebuttles. I've addressed all yours clearly.

Clearly by doing things such as challenging my masculinity and gender? Those are issues that I forgot about short after the fourth grade. I was really hoping you would be more mature than this. I'm glad you're starting to post some sort of statistics, but I'm still seeing you try to argue out of opinion and analogies that don't really make sense. Keep working on it.


back at nrdgrl (and slightly also at yonkeroo, who called bullshit on me here), in relation to genetics (the genetically identical twin stuff I was talking about): First off, I am in agreement that genetics do have an effect on likeliness of being a gay individual. It is not true though that you are born gay.

"Sexual orientation is under genetic influence, though not solely, according to studies by Michael Bailey, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University. In one study he found that if one identical twin is gay, the other is also gay 50 percent of the time. However, when Bailey analyzed a sample of 5,000 twins from the Australian twin registry, the genetic impact was less. In identical male twins, if one was gay the likelihood of his twin being gay was 20 percent; in fraternal twins the likelihood was almost zero. In women, there was little evidence of heritability for homosexuality."

Another thing the article mentions is that genetics have a direct effect on "openness to experience."

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/neimark/TWIN1.HTM

There is not much research that is unbiased in relation directly to hereditary sexual preferences such as being gay. I guess an example, possible a book you might be interested in is actually titled "Born Gay" - http://www.narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html. As you can see from the link I posted, the entire field is not met without controversy. I take twin research as nearly the most valid because it is viewed from a more statistical and neutral point rather than a persuasive one.

quote:

Originally posted by in2muzikk Those of us living here on this earth have many opportunities to live in harmony with each other or create institutions, religions, casts, cults, and whatever else that can be used as a basis to destroy us, either through acts of war or through expression. The words, thoughts and actions written on these very pages have already changed history. I'm kinda proud to be part of it!

Very well stated in2muzikk. I think some of the homophobia we're seeing here is because a few can't bring themselves to admit that for them, it's not about the correct ehtics of a fairly deliberated Judicial Review, it's about their "disgust" for people who are different from themselves.

Whether, gay, straight, bi, intersexed, lesbian, or any other two consenting adults want to do, I'm sure a lot of people can be disgusted by some of the sexual extremes of others. The good news is that "disgust" is born of the imagination, and no one has to force themselves to imagine or think about what consenting adults do in bed. Each of us either have power over our thoughts and feelings, or we're blaming them on others. I think most of us in this forum chose power over blame.

For those who think they can't control their negative thoughts about physical attraction, and everyone else, try something more safe, and imagine positive things about whoever or whatever you want: http://www.masturbateproudly.com

Equality in marriage for all consenting adult *couples* is about the larger issue of human rights, as it was when a majority of people were (and perhaps still are) against the judicial overturning of the majority laws against interracial marriage. This is not a "gay verses straight" issue as much as it is an opportunity to tell the world that we stand against bigotry, fight against intolerance and chose education above blind hatred. Permission is given to quote any of the following, and I'm not ashamed if you use my name, Chris Aable to quote any of this. You can also modify it any way you wish and make it your own, provided it is reposted in the spirit for which it is intended: Freedom and Equality.

Note: I use the term non-heterosexual as a respectful short-cut to encapsulate many important groups who this will give greater freedom and equality to: Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender, intersexed (those born or "made by the all-creator" with both male and female organs) - Who do the religious extremists suggest they have the right to marry?

If I were to write any article on the pro-human rights decision by the California Supreme Court, I would begin by noting that three of the four Justices who joined the majority decision in favor of this Constitutional equality are considered "conservative" and were appointed by Republican governors. I would do this because, as self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Dinesh D'Souza prove, those who subscribe to religious extremism and who habitually obfuscate, will be the ones yelling the loudest and longest about "activist judges supporting gay marriage" and "marriage is for procreation".

The California Supreme Court worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books. It heard expert testimony from all sides, studied the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts and other countries, and *weighed the evidence fairly*. Something that the "tyranny of the majority" either does not have the time or the will to do. Many so-called "Chrsitians" will not display either the intellectual honesty nor time to do likewise before bashing the same Supreme Court who ruled in the 1950s that bashing interracial marriages was unconstitutional.

If Dinesh D'Souza, a physically dark person of a "different race" had been dating Ann Coulter in the South during the 50s he probably would have been lynched by white church-going Christians, as many others were for decades. A majority of them didn't want whites dating "people of color". In fact the so-called "Christian" white majority wanted people like Dinesh to sit in the back of the bus until the so-called "activist" judges ruled that the "law of the land" (segregation) was unconstitutional.

If individuals in "cultural minority groups" have a problem with the comparison of their struggles with the struggles of millions of non-heterosexual minorities, then they should look deeply into their own discrimination and prejudice, because in the true sense of a fair, civilized society people would be viewed as humans first, second and third, as individuals, as families and as friends.

The good news is that most people can learn and grow, and change their subscriptions when they finally realize that they may have been subscribing to erroneous magazines all along. On the Oprah Winfrey show I once witnessed a self-proclaimed "KKK grand dragon" change her bigotry and renounce her organization when presented with the realities from a black person who's personal life had nothing to to with her own.

An equally important issue for me is how America will be viewed now and in the future by the rest of the civilized world. How this country will be seen by those seeking to escape the tyranny from the emotional prejudices of majorities. If this country, often called the "greatest in the world", would *not* offer the homage of equality and tolerance to all consenting adults, then what message would that send to leaders of tyranny the world over, where gay people are often tortured, imprisoned and beaten to death?

The soul of tolerance is looking at us through the eyes of the world, and tolerance cannot like what it sees when reading the intolerance from Dinesh and his supporters, who take away their own focus from more important, Christ-affirming priorities - helping the weak, the poor and the powerless. Instead, millions who subscribe to extremism will spend millions of collective hours doing quite the opposite - collectively bashing non-heterosexuals and their Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Part of that "pursuit of happiness" means being viewed or at least treated fairly as societal *equals* based on individual talents and character, not who they happen to love or want to be with.

Those who subscribe to religious extremism will defile the very god they pretend to believe in, and behave like anything but Christ-like as they bare false witness to support their prejudices. Here is but ten of a long list of mass hypocrisies, as extremisms focuses not on its own redemption, but bashing other people with negative stereotypes while trying to bash minority rights into the ground:


1.) The Judicial branch worked exactly as it was supposed to when discriminatory laws are put on the books between two consenting adults. The court protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority, just as it protected interracial marriage from the will of the majority in the 1950s. Most people I know who subscribe to religious extremism were against interracial marriage, citing the bible as cover for their hatred. Yet, most so-called "Christians" I know can't even remember half of the Ten Commandments, none of which mentions homosexuality, but one of which states that we should "NOT work on the Sabbath". If we're going to deny two consenting adults the equal right to marry based on an ancient book of fairy tales, then we may as well deny rights for the millions of people who "WORK on the Sabbath" - and the ones who employee them by buying at their work - fast food places, skating rinks, ball games, theaters, malls, etc.

2.) In a democracy that respects equality, the national and state constitutions are designed to protect minorities such as non-heterosexuals from the ignorance and emotional prejudices of the majority. When the majority tries to ram their religious and/or anti non-heterosexual beliefs down the throats of the world to support their pet prejudices, the Supreme Court has to listen to rational debate. The Supreme Court protects both minority religions and minorities of all types including the minority sexual orientations. The Supreme Court is essentially "we the people" being a branch of government to keep the legislature in check when it attempts to make prejudicial, unconstitutional laws.

3.) The California Supreme Court heard hours of rational argument and evidence and deliberated on the testimonies for months after considering both pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage sides. The anti-gay-marriage proponents were asked over and over to give a compelling arguments that would show that gay marriage somehow injures anyone or injures marriage as we know it. They could not come up with a compelling arguments even though several "experts" were given the opportunity. For those of us who watch CSPAN when it comes to important human-rights legislation, all we heard was their prejudices and their unfounded homophobia.

4.) The bible mentions "gluttony" far more as an "abomination" than it does homosexuality. How many gluttonous Christians do we know? Some would say Jerry Falwell was "gluttonous". According to his doctors, Falwell's excess weight led to an early death from congestive heart failure at age seventy-three. That's not exactly "death age" these days. My relatively fit grandparents and Great-Aunts either lived pass ninety or are currently alive and well in their nineties. Falwell, ignoring his calling to be Christlike and "judge not less you be judged" is the same person who called non-heterosexual Ellen DeGeneres, "Ellen Degenerate". Falwell is just one of millions during this decade who subscribed to religious extremism until the end of their lives, often ending because of obesity. Isn't their body their god's temple as mentioned in their bible?

5.) There are even intersexed people found in all cultures - people BORN with BOTH male and female organs - who do the lying Christians suggest *they* have the right marry? God, who allegedly is the "all-knowing all-creator" by definition, "created" different sexual orientations as found in millions of people in all cultures throughout history.

6.) Marriage is not just for "pro-creation". The notion that non-heterosexual marriage will somehow disrupt population growth is ridiculous. To the contrary, populations in areas where gay marriage is allowed have continued to grow unabated, with teenage pregnancy continuing to run riot. There are millions of couples who either cannot or will not have children in an already growing and overpopulated world where famine and clean water shortages amounting to 1.5 million deaths of children each year. Millions more cannot conceive after fifty years of age, but engage in active sex lives and even cheat on their spouses regardless of religiosity or political party. There are millions of more "known as "nuns" and "priests" who will also not have children.

7.) Alexander The Great was bisexual, but preferred men, and many famous army generals consider him to be the greatest general of all times. The Greek culture prospered for centuries until Christianity was adopted by the Romans and then we saw the ushering in of the dark ages, the inquisition and witch huntings. Many non-Christians, non-heterosexuals or those who were biologically different in any way, were burned at the stake or tortured and killed "in the name of god". Likewise the Christian/Catholic followers of Hitler, who mentioned himself as "God's provenance" and had written many pro-Christianity statements in Mein Kamf, engaged in mass wholesale murder of minorities. Fortunately, some people who subscribe to Christianity did not listen to Hitler at great risk to themselves, but unfortunately they were too few and too far between. More fortunately, most Christians I know think that the insecurities of the anti-gay-marriage advocates are as fallacious and distorted as Hitler's ever were. I've never read of a single account of Hitler himself directly killing a Jew nor a non-heterosexual with his bare hands, but he did so cowardly through his denouncements to all of his loyal followers, many of whom never renounced their religion and proceeded about their merry ways, before and after the war, to their church every week. We must also remember that it takes millions of man-hours from once-moral people to commit genocide against millions of others simply because they were "different".

8.) Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, life-long advocate of freedom and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Gay marriage between two consenting adults was not proven, and has never been proven, to be any more harmful or injurious to any other person than heterosexual marriage. If anything, the most injurious causes of heterosexual divorce come from heterosexuals themselves *One* of the causes of divorce is cheating, often listed as irreconcilable differences, "to save the couple from public embarrassment". With nearly a 50% divorce rate among "Christians" surely "faith" in their god is not *always* stronger than the immediate need for gratification and/or health considerations. If so-called "Christians" are serious about "defending" marriage, they would look at the *real* causes of the weakening of the institution instead of manufacturing excuses to support their biases, prejudices, hatred and "disgust" all of which are attributes born of intolerance, inexperience, and stereotyping while judging an entire group of millions in the minority, instead of educating themselves about the individuals within each group. Our Constitution was designed to protect all people from those who cannot protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority.

9.) Cheating and divorces continue decade after decade, no matter how many prayers have been uttered by preachers and priests, family and friends, to keep the blessed couples together. Studies conducted by Christian organizations found that the divorce rate is actually higher among Christian Fundamentalist than it is among atheists. Divorce rates are higher in the mid south, where non-heterosexuals are relatively closeted, than divorce rates in larger cities where non-heterosexuality is more open and more obvious. I'm not drawing a correlation here, but it does support the fact that the visibility of non-heterosexuals certainly does not harm heterosexual marriage. If a marriage is ever hurt by such exterior matters, then it couldn't have been a very strong marriage to begin with.

10.) Self-proclaimed "Christians" such as Bill O'Reilly used misleading and irrational fear-mongering by stating "gay marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals." It hasn't in five countries where it's legal, nor in Massachusetts, which was the basis for the California Supreme Court's decision -a conservative court that actually weighed the evidence. It is typical of those using fear-bating instead of facts to limit freedom and equality. This deserves further elaboration, because this is not about Bill O'Reilly. It's about the millions of his ilk, the angry white male Limbaugh-type self-proclaimed "dittoheads" and their hypocrisy and thoughtless talking points such as "activist judges" with Bill O'Reilly just being a more visible example.

Those who subscribe to religious extremism wonder often why their god hasn't listened to their prayers for the economy to improve or for the war to be won (ironic, as the bible states Jesus is the "prince of peace"). They might find it more patriotic and Christ-like to focus on much more important issues than their paranoid fear of what really "marriage" should be about. Every hour spent verbally bashing non-heterosexuals or trying to suppress their "right to the pursuit of equal happiness is an hour spent away from many more deadly-serious priorities. They seem to skirt their the calling of Christ (who never mentioned homosexuality) when they could be educating others by putting a focus on:

Human rights and prejudice. Which I hope I have done with this post, knowing I have a lot more to learn myself.

Teenage pregnancy, child abuse and sexual abuse, ironically made more visible by religious extremism in Texas.

National Security by focusing on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. - Nearly twice as many of our citizens have now died in Iraq than during 9-11.

Global Warming, which even a growing list of Republican Leaders are admitting does exist and can be fixed if we put effort into it.

Pollution

Overpopulation

Corrupt politicians

Corrupt corporations

Lack of universal Health Care

Bigotry and hate

Fascism & unscientific propaganda spread as "fact".

When you increase a person's constitutional right to happiness, you increase the world's happiness in total. Marriage may not be your idea of happiness, but for millions of other people the world over, it is. Here is a chance for California to be a shining example for equality and the tolerance of diversity instead of an example of intolerance and bigotry . Non-heterosexual marriage neither threatens marriage nor procreation. No matter how many get married, it will not stop us bisexuals and heterosexuals from making love like crazed weasels and reproducing like bunnies. Masturbate proudly, because if you don't, someone else will.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9 There is not much research that is unbiased in relation directly to hereditary sexual preferences such as being gay. I guess an example, possible a book you might be interested in is actually titled "Born Gay" - http://www.narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html. As you can see from the link I posted, the entire field is not met without controversy. I take twin research as nearly the most valid because it is viewed from a more statistical and neutral point rather than a persuasive one.

Researchers have also done studies showing that the brains of gay vs. straight people are developed differently. Look at this one, for example:

http://www.sciencentral.com/article...8392238&cat=1_1

"Roselli says the study suggests to him that at least some homosexuality is biologically caused. "This is a very primitive area of the brain and it controls basic autonomic, automatic functions such as the control of feeding, or blood pressure or temperature. It also controls some very complex emotions and behaviors like sexual behavior or sexual desire. It's not an area of the brain that we are conscious of, its perceptions are not perceptions that we are aware of."

Even if sexual orientation is purely 100% choice and you in fact woke up one day and decided to become straight, I really don't see that it changes things much. In the end, it's about providing everyone in the human race with the same civil liberties as others, not denying them based on societal or cultural norms, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by mobius9

It's one thing to voice our opinions. That's what's this forum is about. The thing about homosexuality being a preference is bullshit to me.
Do you know first hand that it's not true? If you ask a gay person if they wanted to be gay growing up, they would all tell you no.
No one wants to be different and risk not being accepted by family and friends. With all that said, that's my belief and you have yours but please don't challenge my beliefs. Let's agree to disagree and end this topic. This is ridiculous.

I'm stepping out.

The notion that marriage is for procreation flies in the face of individual liberty and freedom. Women are not baby factories, and neither are men.

It's interesting how millions of "conservatives" don't want us becoming over populated with "illegal aliens" and "welfare children" on one hand and yet insist that women be baby making machines on the other hand.

While it's very honorable to want to raise children, not all heterosexuals can or will, and there are plenty of honorable non-heterosexual doctors, social workers, etc., who *save* children.

Further, nearly 1.5 million children die from starvation and poor drinking water the world over each year. Clearly the world is overpopulated enough as it is. If the agenda is really about saving lives, sustaining populations and nurturing families, and *not* about bigotry, then before I had any children who I could selfishly call "my own", I would adopt those who need life the most.

That said, a minority sexual orientation will never curtail population growth. If anything, it might help *a little* with over-population, as it has in Cuba.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.