Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

WTF does Equal mean!? Not including benefits isn't equal. /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[ QUOTE ]
kungfusmurf said:

WTF does Equal mean!? Not including benefits isn't equal. /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

hes got a point =P

is there anything concrete that we can base our arguments on? one side believes one thing and the other believes another. it seems that nobody can prove another party wrong. its all based on one's faith and beliefs...

anyways, does the Bible directly state that the institution of marriage belongs only to a man and a woman and not members of the same sex? or is that the Churchs interpretation?

Edit:
...nevermind. i found the passage in the Bible.

Now I'm at conflict here... Should I believe in what the Bible says or what my morals say?

 

[ QUOTE ]
SilentEmpire said:
Our fundemental disagreement is that I don't believe people are born gay. I'm not gonna try to prove this otherwise because I can only speculate. I don't hate gays or anything and I have met very few of them in my life, and I'm sure that some of them are otherwise great people. If they want a certificate of union, fine, I just don't think they should get all the benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the way you state your point of view. Very cool, indeed.

I wish there was specific genetic research that said "this portion of the double helix indicates homosexuality." Since that hasn't happened yet, I can only base it on life experience and rational thought.

When I look at the stereotypical lesbian or effeminant male, I can actually see certain physical characteristics. The lesbian can have very masculine facial features - this wasn't any kind of choice or reaction to some kind of childhood trauma. Twins can be born joined at the head, why can't people be born gay? I don't want to accept that gays made a choice sometime in life to be gay. I didn't choose to be straight and I don't think you did either. I don't see a benefit in choosing to go against your own sexual orientation - I think that would cause tremendous stress and unhappiness. Plus, you might run into a lot of underserved hatred along the way.

I do appreciate your honesty in revealing that you haven't met many gays. I've met quite a few and it has made my opinion fairly easy to discern.

If you care to share it, how did you formulate your opinion that homosexuality is not genetic? I may disagree with it, but I won't insult you about it.

 

Born or bred, the fact is, homosexuality is not a choice. Who would choose to join a group that so many people hate?

What the does the bible have to do with whether or not the law should allow gay marriage? Whatever the bible says, it would be unconstitutional to let scripture determine the law. Should we make it illegal to eat pork because Muslims don't?

If you are unsure which side you are on in regards to this issue, think about who your comrades are. For gay marriage opponents you have a rural, more right-wing, fundamentalist, less educated group of allies. Also the places where opposition to gay marriage is highest are, not coincidentally, places with a greater preponderance of racists. Do you want to list these people as your comrades?

Gay marriage is going to happen. It is about social justice. Do you really want to be on the same side of history as those who opposed abolition, those who supported segregation, and those who fought against women's suffrage?

 

I see people all over the place citing "facts" here and "facts" there but I haven't seen a single person state the obvious.

George W. Bush loses a little tiny bit of his super powers each time two men or women embrace under the full sanction of God and country. Fellatio between two happily married gay men is like red kryptonite to our Presidentman. I'm not sure what is like green kryptonite but I think Condi Rice has a picture book with easy to understand diagrams and an audiotape that beeps when it's time to turn the page. We need Presidentman at full strength so that he may use his powrrrr to fight terurrrr.

 

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:Gay marriage is going to happen. It is about social justice. Do you really want to be on the same side of history as those who opposed abolition, those who supported segregation, and those who fought against women's suffrage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont forget they're also the same group that fought against allowing the dirty italians, germans, and irish into our country as well. Go further back in history; we have a history of hating even ourselves. It'd be nice if we could manage to break the cycle this one time.

 

You guys misread what I have said obviously. I do not have a problem with gay people, or the marriage of gay people. I was arguing with the fact that being gay is genetic. It is not genetic. Sexuality is a form of self -expression. You all jumped on the bandwagon to say I was wrong, but I never said that it was wrong, I was arguing that it was not genetic. Then you call me a nazi? Okay. Makes sense.

 

If i didn't know better you're probably gay since you've been jerking us around with your I didn't mean this or you guys misread my statements. Oh sorry we're not as smart or insightful as you are I assume.

Your future reponses from now on will = Blah blah blah blah blah.

/versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

There is so much supporting evidence that being gay has at least a LARGE genetic make up, if not completely for most people who are gay. There are some people who are gay by choice, but I believe they are very much in the minority among that population. How can you argue it is not genetic when we just completed the Human Genome sequence 3 years ago or so and we are just beginning to read it now?

 

I explained that I was debating that being gay was not genetic. I never bashed gay people. And KungFusmurf I would rather you not listen to me. Obviously...Instead of reading you make blatant assumptions.

And Shadowdean, thank you for actually bringing up a valid debate instead of a random personal attack. I appreciate that. After deep analyzing of the genetic theory I came to a conclusion.

In a nutshell the Human Genome project started in 1990 and was completed in 2003 when the first high quality sequence was completed. This project enables us to understand the structure, organization, and function of DNA in chromosomes. The main reason for this project was for disease analyzation but we soon realized the complexities of what our work would reap on this project. We know that behavior is pretty much species-specific, and from that statement we can say that when the species breed the outcome will be the same in the offspring. Often mental illness is also found to carry on to offspring in families. Saying that if there is a "gay gene" then that means that gene treatment could cure homo-sexuality. You can make your own judgments from there. I think it may be a mixture of both genetic and sexuality now that I thought of it profoundly, but with political and social ramifications it is virtually impossible to tell. They can prove that the Xq28 region contains a locus that influences individual variations in sexual orientation in men but not in women. I do not know what that means as far as environment also effecting this.

 

[ QUOTE ]
And Shadowdean, thank you for actually bringing up a valid debate instead of a random personal attack. I appreciate that. After deep analyzing of the genetic theory I came to a conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I still contend that you didn't deserve a valid debate. You began with a personal attack against plague and those that sided with him. Then you went on to say that 300 years ago homosexuality was practically non-existent with no basis of proof (ignoring historical (both royal and millitary) and biblical references) and again with no basis of proof you say that every single warrior ever living or that has lived is mentally deranged and that this derangement is probably the precursor to being inclined to same sex groupings.

Then you get bent out of shape when people take your assertions to task and demand proof of their statements (contending that facts don't exist so proof becomes useless) and quit the thread. Then you come back offering "deep" analysis.

I think you're either a troll or are in need of some serious meds although perhaps something natural like Relora to take down your stress hormones and up the seratonin would suffice.

GE

 

if hes a troll, hes done his job.

 

[ QUOTE ]
We know that behavior is pretty much species-specific, and from that statement we can say that when the species breed the outcome will be the same in the offspring. Often mental illness is also found to carry on to offspring in families. Saying that if there is a "gay gene" then that means that gene treatment could cure homo-sexuality. You can make your own judgments from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so no one thinks that homosexuality is specific to humans male Hyenas engage in same sex couplings when they are pups and later in their "middle ages". It was once thought that it was done early on in youth as a type of sexual training but since they've discovered the trait can continue on later in their lives they've had to re-think that theory.

As for genetics playing a role, I think its valid but not the only reason. There are new findings that show that women with ring fingers longer than their index fingers are more sexually aggresive and tend to have more open relationships; They aren't "easy" because their fingers measure a certain way but because they seem to have extra testosterone in their body which affects the length of their fingers and, perhaps, their neural pathways. The fingers thing may just be an indicator. Just as there are possible physical indicators for homosexuals; they may have deep genetic roots.

Genetics may play a part but perceptual/social grids are as much a guiding factor as DNA makeup. The theory that as we become a more succesful (life expectancy, leisure pursuits over survival, arts over wargames) species we have less use for such rigid gender expectations and roles and are actively evolving new ones may show that we may indeed be making a choice but that it may be made communally and slowly over time. Idea is that the species is evolving new social tools that better aid development and that the notion of man/woman couplings for procreation is not only dated and run its course but is being superseded by a superior form; I'm sure when the first monkey stood upright everyone else went a little nuts.

GE

 

Because I can think profoundly on a subject, offer it thought, then re-assess what I thought and then after more thought redirect my analysis, I need meds? It is called being open-minded. I did not personally attack Plague, I attacked what he said. I did not call >him< ignorant. If you say you never have re-directed thought and changed an analysis of yours, then by all means GodEater you are just perfect. Perfect... and still do not understand that verbs can be intransitive and transitive.

I do not have a problem with anyone on this thread., and yet everyone has a problem with me because I express my views. I do not think I need a psychological evaluation at all. Perhaps I should scrap my philosophy major so I can be more closed minded. As far as I see. I am not allowed to change my views and agree with someone as I am a flawed person if I see the fault of my ways.

 

[ QUOTE ]
did not personally attack Plague, I attacked what he said. I did not call >him< ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

personally, I don't make the distinction between calling the product of a person's thought (his writing) garbage and my calling you (based on the product of your thought) ignorant. You find one acceptable and the other a transgression.

I think they have similar weight but if it makes you feel any better I think your statement about homosexuality being a relative newcomer over the last three hundred years ignorant. Ignorant of history specifically but ignorant in the general sense as well since your blindness covers many areas.

GE

 

So you are saying that calling what someone says is calling the person ignorant? Alright, that is your opinion. Everyone thinks differently.

I stated my new analysis. Yes my first one was not as in depth so I changed it, would you rather me just leave the first one and not care? I don't get it. I didn't say it was non-existent. I said fairly non-existent compared to now. Of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything. Giving a few examples of famous heritage is not really saying it is as rampant as it is now.

 

[ QUOTE ]
BLooDBLaZe said:
I didn't say it was non-existent. I said fairly non-existent compared to now.

[/ QUOTE ]

What BLooDBLaZe actually said:

[ QUOTE ]
People should also be able to marry whomever they please. But if being gay is genetic then why the hell were gays almost non-existent a few hundred years ago? I am not on either side of the scope but I will provide valid arguments to represent the other side


[/ QUOTE ]

Hum... Fairly or Almost same difference i guess.

[ QUOTE ]
Giving a few examples of famous heritage is not really saying it is as rampant as it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

"rampant" Dude, you make it sound like being gay is a disease. And your statement right there proves my point about ppl in power having less restriction in expressing their preference.

Oh, Snappyboy we not trying to change your mind of how you view gay ppl, it's the way you're arguing your end which is losing more & more credability by the post. Lastly, you continue to change your words around to make yourself seem less of an idiot, good luck. And if that doesn't help you can always "BOW OUT."

 

I don't think Homosexuality is right or wrong, and I don't know if it is genetic or a choice. However, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, they should be allowed to do whatever they please. This country was founded on giving everyone, no matter their race, creed, religion, etc. a fair shot at equality. Therefore, homosexuals should be able to have the same rights that married heterosexual couples have. Marriage is 'technically' a religious convention, but then our government gives them Tax breaks? Seperation of Church and state is not even skin deep in this country.

The real reason that GWB is so scared is because a lot of his die-hard supporters are die hard christians, who hate homosexuality because they have been taught from the cradle that it's fundamentally wrong. Because it just is, and if we can't see that, I guess we're all going to burn in hell right?

Organized religion was a means of political power to control people, and it is still controlling people today, but in less subtle ways. It's like putting up signs that say Jews killed Jesus after watching 'The Passion of The Christ' (I just read this in the NYtimes today, the priest was quoted as saying "It is getting people to go back and look at their bibles...It's there to show what the real debate is about. Actually all of us are guilty in some way if we reject Christ.")

I think Christians, and every other religious group out there should be able to practice their beliefs in peace. It's only when they start harassing people, and causing hatred for other groups, that I think it's quite out of hand. I'm not trying to imply that all christians cause hatred, but there are a select few that force their beliefs on people. I don't think that's right.

Banning homosexual unions is just one more step to forcing religious beliefs on a nation that is supposed to be seperate from a church.

 

Smurf... That was just a stupid post. Rampant means to occur frequently. Whether or not my credibility stands with you, I care not. Calling me an idiot when your grammar is sub-par is called being hypocritical, buddy.

Changing my words around, KungFuSmurf? No. I totally re-assessed my thoughts completely and explained why I thought that genetically. There is evidence of genetically being homo-sexual, but not enough to say it isn't also psychological.

 

It doesn't matter how he nor anyone views gay people. We still allow people (ie. the KKK) to have extremely hateful views of entire races and to spread their word in hopes of recruiting new followers. This is their right. (I'm not saying your view is a hateful one, Blaze)
You may believe whatever you want and tell anyone you want without harm or penalty. However, this does not permit you to infringe on the civil rights of another human being. All citizens of the United States have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are lucky enough in this lonely and frightening world to find someone you can't imagine your life without, then you have every right to proclaim your love to the world and to receive the same benediction and avails as every other consenting adult bonding. By the same token, if you feel that every gay man or woman is a lurking demon just biding their time until they can unleash their child-lust and feast on the carcasses of their fallen prey, then you have my blessing to shout it from the top of the highest mountain. Any belief in between these two should also have a voice, however, at no time can any goverment preference be shown to any religious axiom. This is the unfortunate current state of affairs. Opposite-sex marriages are allowed goverment help, while same-sex relationships are ignored by the government because God supposedly forbids them (it has not been conclusively proven). Well, God supposedly forbids many things that we do not take to heart. For instance, swearing (specifically, the Lord's name), knowingly eating unhealthy and deteriorative foods (your body is a temple), and of course premarital sex. There are others, but the point is that simply because you have a personal disdain of something does not give just cause to restrict the lives of others and to use a religious text as a platform, which many of the followers, even some of those who would deny others their rights, do not obey to the exact letter.

This is a civil issue, not a religious one. Preference, nature/nurture, fear of eternal damnation mean nothing when considering the equal rights allotted to all individuals under a flag.

Answer me this: Do you believe that all people are created equal? Do you believe that all people are entitled to the same inalienable rights? Do you believe that gay people should be allowed to marry and to possess the same privileges as heterosexuals? If you cannot answer yes to all three questions, please put a bullet in your head. Newsflash: You are a bigot. Correction: Hopefully, you are a dead bigot.