Same-Sex Marriage

[Necroscape]

In this regard I guess I'm idealistic. I believe if two people love each other there should be nothing in the world to stop them from being together. I'm including marriage in "being together" since it's such a meaningful gesture.  

[a really strong box]

Well, I have no problem with a homosexual couple being a couple.
However, the bible (Christian) does not mention anything about being gay is wrong, however it does say that a man cannot marry a man, and vice versa.So, bascially, unless god talks to the pope, gays are just fine until the dine.

(Heh heh heh..)  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

I don't think same-sex marriage is in anyway immoral, nor unjust, nor unethical. It's between two human beings, and modern psychologists have proven that homosexual couples have the same type of relationships that heterosexuals do ^.^  

[Garrett31212]

As I've already explained, normal individuals are different than homosexuals. Lesbians tend to be masculine and gays tend to be effeminate. Whereas in most cases males are masculine and females are feminine, this is a automatic difference. They are not entirely the same.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Garrett31212

As I've already explained, normal individuals are different than homosexuals. Lesbians tend to be masculine and gays tend to be effeminate. Whereas in most cases males are masculine and females are feminine, this is a automatic difference. They are not entirely the same.

You're going by a stereotype on society. I guess we should also make it a requirement for guys to not like clothes, watch sports, and drive big gas guzzlers, and woman should stay at home and raise children. And, not every homosexual is effeminate, nor is every lesbian masculine, again a stereotype on the group as a whole. Aside from that you're judgments are correlating with your morals rather than the morals of the people who support, as I recall we have a first amendment right to our own churches that support our right to marriage, by imposing such doctrines you are excluding a church it's right to perform a marriage according to it's beliefs.  

[Garrett31212]

Yes, I know not every straight man is masculine and I know every straight woman is not feminine. I also know that every gay is not effeminate, nor is every lesbian masculine. However, most turn out that way in every single society so there must be more to it than societal influences.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Your flame against liberals was edited out. And, by the way, did it ever come to mind that it is not liberals that are "ignoring the truth" but rather maybe, conservatives may have the wrong opinion. I feel as if some people are just following tradition over reason. sweatdrop

Maybe if one took the time to think that maybe they cannot HELP BEING THIS WAY! I mean, honestly, if I had a choice, I would take being straight to being gay any day, if twere immoral. However, because they cannot help it, and the recommended help that NARTH and The Exodus has low turnout rates, and risks of going back (really easy) then I will take this path over that one. Maybe one should consider, again, that people have a right to choose their religion, and that religion does not have to be yours.

Think about what it might be like if you were homosexual. First, you're ostracized among your family, your own mother & father, they may claim to love you, but you can still see the shame that dwells in their eyes. Then, not only can you not get workers benefits from your spouse, but you cannot marry each other (and be recognized by the state.) After (a gay male) loses his virginity with another male, no longer can he give blood, because gay males are at a higher risk to have AIDS. Then, to top it off, every cartoon that shows slightly effeminate males, the conservative media jumps right on it, but when masculine females are shown, every turns their backs. So it becomes even worse for a gay male. Lastly, no matter what you do, even this 'conversion therapy,' the turnout for being straight is very very low, and you'll still have same-sex attractions, so you're literally just becoming bisexual, and then, it will be easy to just 'go down the same path.' I did not choose to be gay, I would not choose to be gay. Society has implemented it is a choice, however, it'd be really stupid of me to choose all this negativity that comes with this "choice." Homosexuality is part of who I am, it won't go away, it won't change, so why not enjoy the best of it while I'm alive.  

[SHl NO KAGE]

Gays are not being prevented from one another, they can be together right now if they wanted. Marriage is not necessarily synonymous with "being together."

That being said, I still think they should have equal rights. Whether or not I believe it is the right thing or wrong thing is not morally up to me to decide. They aren't hurting anything as far as the rest of the world goes. Some Christians believe it's not right to watch pornography, but since it's not a political issue, there's no controversy. That's the main thing for me, I want this to be settled and forgotten about as a political issue.

And that being said, I also don't think it's fair for most pro-gay people to claim that Christians discriminate against gays by simply voting against them. Also, Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with homosexuality, in the way that it is not directly a religious issue. If we were to force all U.S. citizens to attend one church, that would be against the Constitution, but we're not doing that.

My dad says things like "once they have their foot in the door, they'll start demanding more and more rights," or "if homosexuality becomes socially acceptable, things like bestiality will follow." I, however, find it unfair to deny them the first right, before they get their foot in. I mean, look at racism. We shouldn't have denied them the right to attend the same school just because further down the road they'd be demanding more rights than white people.

Erm... I try to be rational...  

[Garrett31212]

It has actually been brought up by some psychologists that homosexuality is possibly a gender identity disorder. Under this scenario, homosexuality is biological, but that doesn't mean it's correct.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Garrett31212

It has actually been brought up by some psychologists that homosexuality is possibly a gender identity disorder. Under this scenario, homosexuality is biological, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

Quote:

No, that arguement was settled in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association removed sexual orientation from the list of mental disorders. You're conflating it with gender identity disorders, which are involved in those who seek sex reassignment surgery. Most homosexuals are quite satisfied with there plumbing and the use they put it to.

Or, to put it another way, hey Mouse, do you like your p***s or do you want a v****a?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Garrett31212

It has actually been brought up by some psychologists that homosexuality is possibly a gender identity disorder. Under this scenario, homosexuality is biological, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

Let's see

Quote:

Gender identity disorder (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe persons who experience significant gender dysphoria (discontent with the biological sex they were born with).

I'm perfectly content with being a male [answering Lord Bitememan's question.] I don't want to be a girl... that would make me a transvestite/transsexual (I forget which one is the correct term,) and I have no such intentions of sexual replacement. Therefore, I do not have GID, and, btw, my Dad, who has your beliefs, sent me to a therapist who agrees that I do not have GID.  

[Garrett31212]

Then why are you a homosexual?

Let me outline all the possible causes:

Biological: It is widely supported by homosexuals that the reason they are homosexual is because of genetic reasons. Okay, so one. If so, you obviously didn't inherit it, because both of your biological parents are heterosexuals. So, if it sprouted up otherwise that might be an indicator of a gender indentity disorder or a mental disorder of some kind. However, you say that you are fine with being a male, but that is just you conciously.

Cultural: This is a possible explanation for why there are so many homosexuals now and not in the past. You've said that you cannot help being the way you are, but you also argue that because society has become more liberal that homosexuals are coming out of the closet. Both cannot be true. If homosexuals are feeling more comfortable coming out, then that means that in the past they did not "act the way they were" and pretended to be heterosexual, and that means you can help the way you are. And if you can't help the way you are, then that indicates that homosexuals did not exist on such a large level in the past and therefore the cause of homosexuality is cultural.

One way or another your arguement contradicts itself and therefore falls apart.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Quote:

Biological: It is widely supported by homosexuals that the reason they are homosexual is because of genetic reasons.

If you were a woman fighting for equality in the 1920s, would your opinion be biased because you were a woman?! If you were a black man fighting for rights, would you opinion be biased because your skin color?! How else can homosexuals put up a fight if everything they say is biased. If people didn't speak up that they were oppressed, and show theories, then what progress would our civil rights make? What progress would our science fields make?

No, I'm not just saying it because I'm a homosexual. I'm saying that it is either done during the development in the womb, or genetics. So, yes, it is nature in my opinion.

To turn this against you, notice how it's mostly heterosexuals (not homosexuals,) that believe homosexuality is not genetic. It works both ways. Either way, one is going to seem biased, but not always is it biased.

I'm sure there are PLENTY of straight people who believe this. You are making it seem as if homosexuals are the majority of the people who believe this. Believing that it's not very many heterosexuals would be the False Consensus Effect

Quote:

Okay, so one. If so, you obviously didn't inherit it, because both of your biological parents are heterosexuals.

Genes do not always come directly from your parents, many genes also skip a generation, or two. We also have to consider that sometimes homosexuals will stay in the closet and marry, as their aspirations to fit with society, and have a family are greater than that of their same-sex attractions.

Just because your parents (and sometimes grandparents) all have brown eyes does not mean you have to have brown eyes as well. Recessive Genetics my friend.

Then, we also must throw in genetic mutation. Animal species are only able to continue if they have genetic diversity, as that helps us be immune to many different viruses and diseases.

Prenatal chemicals are also released in the womb depending on which gender your child is, it is said that sometimes the mother (especially if at a young age, or if the child is not the first male,) that the chemicals necessary for male growth are not released properly.

Quote:

This is a possible explanation for why there are so many homosexuals now and not in the past.

Or, it's possible because Christianity was not necessarily forced among society, but pretty much it was implied that most were Christian, had to have anti-homosexual views. With our new age and advancements among civil rights and equality it's no wonder that people are more likely to feel safe in coming out.

How would you explain why there was little interracial marriage until the late 1900s?! I do recall society having interracial marriage as taboo in the US...

The Greek and Roman society was pretty homosexual. They were long before us. However, they did not have the same kind of homosexuality as us, they did not have relationships, just orgies and ***** class="quote">

Quote:

You've said that you cannot help being the way you are, but you also argue that because society has become more liberal that homosexuals are coming out of the closet. Both cannot be true. If homosexuals are feeling more comfortable coming out, then that means that in the past they did not "act the way they were" and pretended to be heterosexual, and that means you can help the way you are.

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

Then why are you a homosexual?

There's never been a definitive answer to that question. Like most personality development questions it stems back to the nature vs. nurture or both argument. There's strong cases that personality traits are inherited, and evidence that they are not. A sense of humor, for one thing, doesn't seem to be purely genetic, just look at John and Jim Belushi.

Quote:

It is widely supported by homosexuals that the reason they are homosexual is because of genetic reasons.

Because like most people, most homosexuals don't have a firm grounding in science. What they universally feel is that homosexuality isn't a choice, and popular understanding of matters dictates that something that isn't a choice is only explainable through biology. The actual scientific explanations of personality are much more complex. Sufficed to say, just because something may or may not be a choice doesn't mean that genetics is the sole answer.

Quote:

Okay, so one. If so, you obviously didn't inherit it, because both of your biological parents are heterosexuals.

Both your parents have brown hair and brown eyes so you can't possibly have blond hair and blue eyes, right? Oh wait, recessive genes. . .

Quote:

So, if it sprouted up otherwise that might be an indicator of a gender indentity disorder or a mental disorder of some kind.

No, since homosexuality and gender identity disorder are two totally different conditions. Sex reassignment surgery is widely available and homosexuals, as a statistical aggregate, have more disposable income than average Americans. If what you said was true there would be few to no barriers to en masse sex reassignment in the gay community. Hitherto, this has not been observed.

Quote:

This is a possible explanation for why there are so many homosexuals now and not in the past.

Empirically false. It's not that there are any more homosexuals now, it's that there's more openness about it. History is littered with homosexuals from the Greek general Alcibiades, to probably every other Roman Emperor, to Richard the Lion-Hearted, to King James (interestingly enough the man that commissioned the most popular version of the Bible in English was one of England's most flamboyantly gay monarchs), to Walt Whitman and Tennessee Williams. The difference between homosexuality now and then is that laws and authority structures served to suppress openly gay lifestyles. Most of the time the only ones who could practice something approaching an openly gay lifestyle were those who wielded tremendous legal and social powers, like royalty and the clergy themselves. From the Greek play writes to the Marquis de Sade people throughout history have been writing about men who preferred the sexual company of other men, and long before there was any broad social acceptance of the behavior.

Quote:

You've said that you cannot help being the way you are, but you also argue that because society has become more liberal that homosexuals are coming out of the closet. Both cannot be true.

Sure they can. It's actually your statement that draws false dichotomy in the matter. One has nothing to do with another. The inability to control one's sexuality has no correlation with societal acceptance of openness about that orientation.

Quote:

If homosexuals are feeling more comfortable coming out, then that means that in the past they did not "act the way they were" and pretended to be heterosexual, and that means you can help the way you are.

Again, only a cursory reading of the history of European royalty would have set you straight (no pun intended) on this matter. Richard and King James never sired heirs to the throne. Numerous other monarchs had few or no heirs because they couldn't achieve erections with women. Pretending to be heterosexual is not a proxy for actually being heterosexual. This isn't an ancient thing either. Look at contemporary history. Jim McGreevey and Michael Huffington were both married and pretending to be heterosexual. Both ended up cheating on their wives with men, coming out, and getting divorced.

Quote:

And if you can't help the way you are, then that indicates that homosexuals did not exist on such a large level in the past

That's a total non sequitur. The inability to control sexuality has no bearing whatsoever on preponderance of homosexuality in the past.

Quote:

One way or another your arguement contradicts itself and therefore falls apart.

There was nothing self-contradictory in his argument. That was just a proxy on your part not to debate it prima facie.  

[charmed taurus]

I think that same-sex marriage should be allowed. I'm not going to argue about it if someone thinks its wrong, for that's their belief. A guy in my government class last year said that there shouldn't be because God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. I don't think that at all. God accepts anyone. It doesn't matter to God if your GBLT. Love is said to be the strongest thing in the world, so why would we take the love away from (lets say a guy) to not be able to marry another guy? That would be unffair. I am for same-sex marriage!