Gay marriage: where do you stand?

[Mark of Zorro]

Again, prove any genetic disposition. You guys can say the same thing 3 times in one thread, but can't post any evidence of this?

Meanwhile, you cannot tell us what every human gene does, so you cannot exactly refute the possibility. We cannot provide direct evidence. But you are a fool to expect that.

Nobody has any concrete proof of why anyone is gay. Not you. Not us.

Your anecdotes about friends are certainly interesting, but not concrete proof either.

They have not gone back. So 'transition' would be accurate.

You have a PI tailing them 24\7?

I also have to question your firm belief that they enjoyed their straight sex life if you insist they are gay rather than bi.

 

[Tsuchi1]

Marriage is for a man and a woman. Having children naturally is something that only a man and a woman can do.
If gay people want to be together that's fine but not using the same union that was designed for a man and a woman.
There is to much of this everyone wanting to be equal. Well I'm sorry but marriage and procreation is not for people in same sex relationships.

 

[BrianLewis]

Gay teens in America commit suicide at four times the rate of straight teens, despite being 1/20 or so of the population. You think they choose the lifestyle. I think that opinion is willful ignorance.

You also won't answer how many gay friends you'd need before 'trying' gay, since anyone could do it, in your estimation. If it's not genetic, you should be able to acknowledge the possibility of being deeply and sincerely aroused by other men. I can't. That's one way I know it's built in. But you disagree. The only conclusion I can draw from that is...

I think it's quaint that you met some formerly gay people at church, and now you think you know gay people. But those people are probably deeply in denial, and not representative of the whole. Just a repressed minority, who have shamed themselves back into the closet.

I hope you never have gay children, for their sakes.

Wow, jumping to conclusions there. I have known gays only through work and friends. They all went clubbing with an 'initiate' older gay that would teach them the ropes. I can't say how many gays there were at the clubs since I never went. I have never been tempted to be gay because I consider it to be a social disorder, and not genetic diversity. If it were genetic, it would be reflected in the animal population in general. At least I attempt to use science when making a statement. Maybe knowing a bigger pool than 1 has given me more real life experience with the subject? I do appreciate your attempt to vilify church tho, nice one! However, work is hardly oppressive, and clubs are even less so.

Meanwhile, you cannot tell us what every human gene does, so you cannot exactly refute the possibility. We cannot provide direct evidence. But you are a fool to expect that.

Nobody has any concrete proof of why anyone is gay. Not you. Not us.

Your anecdotes about friends are certainly interesting, but not concrete proof either.

You are right about that. However, I am not the one who's entire argument is one of genes. If you guys state that in every posting, are you not expected to prove it, or are you just perpetuating what others say, with no evidence, like they did when the world was flat?

My evidence was personal experience at least, not assumptions.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

My evidence was personal experience at least, not assumptions.

Your evidence is not scientific and is in fact, full of assumptions. For example, the assumption that the stories you got from your friends are all true, in every detail, and they have never touched a woman since.

Mind you I am not disregarding your evidence. Just taking it with a grain of salt.

If you guys state that in every posting, are you not expected to prove it,

I would say it is proven as an element of the equation, just not DIRECTLY proven. Gosh, it seemed you understood that when you said:

You are right about that.

Indirect evidence pretty well proved the existence of the photon in the early 20th century, but no one can actually show you a photon directly.

Gregor Mendel proved the existence of genetic heredity, but he could not show you a gene.

I think there is enough indirect evidence to prove a genetic (but not hereditary) link to a predisposition toward being gay, although this is not true with all gays, just some.

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

Marriage is for a man and a woman. Having children naturally is something that only a man and a woman can do.
If gay people want to be together that's fine but not using the same union that was designed for a man and a woman.
There is to much of this everyone wanting to be equal. Well I'm sorry but marriage and procreation is not for people in same sex relationships.

Marriage=procreation period?

Reminds me of on the playground when we thought kissing meant marriage. Might be past time to expand your thinking?

Besides that, you seem to be wanting to deny rights based on the definition of a word. A WORD. A made-up WORD. If your opinion of what constitutes a real marriage is destroyed merely by others using the same word, well, that is pretty weak-minded.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't like the choices. I'm not "for" gay marriage; I'm perfectly content with my heterosexual marriage, and have no interest in marrying a man.

What I'm for is giving gay people the same rights as straight people, including the right to marry. Marriage is not primarily a religious institution in the US; atheists are perfectly free to marry. The primary status of marriage is a legal one. Legal advantages of marriage include not only tax issues, but also inheritance and a number of other matters under state and federal law.

BrianLewis, you don't seem all that familiar with the Bible. Or else, like most Christians, you want to pick and choose the parts you agree with. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality; but Jesus himself never did.

Jesus DID condemn divorce, yet most modern churches are perfectly happy to perform second, third, fourth, or fifth marriages. No church should be required to perform ANY marriage, but gay people should be entitled to marry in any church willing to marry them or any government office that performs marriages.

You're also wrong about gay behavior not being common in the animal kingdom. Most, if not all, mammals will engage in gay behavior. Examples include rodents (mice, rats, rabbits), sheep, bonobos, and other apes. Not all members of a species do it, but enough do to make it a common behavior.

Sex serves other purposes than reproduction, especially among group animals. Bonobos (one of our closest relatives), use bisexual behavior as a substitute for aggression and to ensure social bonding within the group. Same-sex sexual activities must provide some advantages or else it would not be selected for in the survival and evolution of species.

The best argument I've heard for homosexual attraction being innate is one I've heard from gay people I know: Given the social stigma, prejudice, and even legal discrimination against homosexuals, why would anyone CHOOSE to be one?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't like the choices. I'm not "for" gay marriage; I'm perfectly content with my heterosexual marriage, and have no interest in marrying a man.

Please vote. The poll is not about you. Its about the rights of anyone who wants to do it. You are for allowing people do have gay marriages, therefore you should vote for.

 

[Tsuchi1]

Weird analogy

Your evidence is not scientific and is in fact, full of assumptions. For example, the assumption that the stories you got from your friends are all true, in every detail, and they have never touched a woman since.

Mind you I am not disregarding your evidence. Just taking it with a grain of salt.



I would say it is proven as an element of the equation, just not DIRECTLY proven. Gosh, it seemed you understood that when you said:



Indirect evidence pretty well proved the existence of the photon in the early 20th century, but no one can actually show you a photon directly.

Gregor Mendel proved the existence of genetic heredity, but he could not show you a gene.

I think there is enough indirect evidence to prove a genetic (but not hereditary) link to a predisposition toward being gay, although this is not true with all gays, just some.

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------



Marriage=procreation period?

Reminds me of on the playground when we thought kissing meant marriage. Might be past time to expand your thinking?

Besides that, you seem to be wanting to deny rights based on the definition of a word. A WORD. A made-up WORD. If your opinion of what constitutes a real marriage is destroyed merely by others using the same word, well, that is pretty weak-minded.

Why do gay people want to have something that was designed fo heterosexual couples?
Kids and families are the result of marriages or heterosexual relationships, in what ever form they maybe.
Everyone want to have their cake and eat it. Next it will be single people wanting marry themself or the cat, dog a rise bush.

Create something that doesn't destroy what people believe in.
Don't just cry in your soup that life isn't fair.
If gay people want to enter into some kind of contract that's fine but it is far from a marriage and will never be equal to a heterosexual marriage so get original.

 

[Half-n-Half]

If it were genetic, it would be reflected in the animal population in general. At least I attempt to use science when making a statement.

As RolandtheHeadless already stated:
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do gay people want to have something that was designed fo heterosexual couples?
Kids and families are the result of marriages or heterosexual relationships, in what ever form they maybe.
Everyone want to have their cake and eat it. Next it will be single people wanting marry themself or the cat, dog a rise bush.

Create something that doesn't destroy what people believe in.
Don't just cry in your soup that life isn't fair.
If gay people want to enter into some kind of contract that's fine but it is far from a marriage and will never be equal to a heterosexual marriage so get original.

I sense from this post that you are against gay couples marrying in a church but you're not against them being legally married. Is that the case or did you mean something else?

 

[Tsuchi1]

As RolandtheHeadless already stated:
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm against ga


I sense from this post that you are against gay couples marrying in a church but you're not against them being legally married. Is that the case or did you mean something else?

I'm against gay marriage full stop. But I'm not anti gay.

If gay people want to enter some type of agreement to make them feel whole and not disadvantaged then I'm sure it can be done. We have Defacto relationships civil unions all there to deal with the legalities.
So I think that gay people are in need of something that fits them, not just a copy of something that doesn't, just so in the end all the gay people can say we are no different from the next couple. But they are, and can't be the same.

I really mean what I said about people wanting their cake and eating it.
What about a Man who wants to marry his car or pub? When will the appeasing every single group of people that feel hard done by in this world.

 

[nahadef]

What about a Man who wants to marry his car or pub? When will the appeasing every single group of people that feel hard done by in this world.

I don't know if you know this, but cars or pubs aren't human adults. Can a car sign a marriage license? Not that I've ever seen.

Anyway, loads of countries have gay marriage legal already, with zero damage to the fabric of society. Much the same way interracial marriages were protested, and now it seems backwards to make that sort of criticism.

 

[Tsuchi1]

I don't know if you know this, but cars or pubs aren't human adults. Can a car sign a marriage license? Not that I've ever seen.

Anyway, loads of countries have gay marriage legal already, with zero damage to the fabric of society. Much the same way interracial marriages were protested, and now it seems backwards to make that sort of criticism.

So the single man who is in love with hi car can't have what he wants. I'm ean pretty so cars will actually be able and quite capable of doing what you said they can't presently do.

Of single males and females that have robot lovers, will they too eventually be given the same rights? Why? Because if they kick up enough fuss some do good politician will take up their cause to give them those rights.

In the modern world, if you are green, have 3 legs or belong to any minority group of even less than 1% of the total poulation, you are almost sure to be represented or aforded the right over and above the rest of the population. This is pathetic!

 

[nahadef]

So the single man who is in love with hi car can't have what he wants. I'm ean pretty so cars will actually be able and quite capable of doing what you said they can't presently do.
Of single males and females that have robot lovers, will they too eventually be given the same rights? Why? Because if they kick up enough fuss some do good politician will take up their cause to give them those rights.
In the modern world, if you are green, have 3 legs or belong to any minority group of even less than 1% of the total poulation, you are almost sure to be represented or aforded the right over and above the rest of the population. This is pathetic!

What? Sorry, half of what you wrote doesn't make sense.

For that last part, I disagree, even if there were green people with three legs, I don't think they are afforded rights above the rest of the population. I think they usually don't. Occasionally, in recent years, a trend comes along that helps make them equal, such as Japan making most public walkways and intersection blind-friendly. But above others? No. At best, they are equal.

In terms of this actual topic, that's a ludicrous statement. Gays have spent decades being bashed, in all sorts of ways, culturally, physically, mentally. Now, they are beginning to be treated as equal citizens.

You calling equality for a small minority as being above others? Pathetic. And bullying on top of that. I guess you identify with the 99%. No wonder you have no sympathy for the minority.

 

[Tsuchi1]

It doesn't make sense because of the auto fill on my phone. anyway you didn't read my earlier posts about having a type of agreement for gay people. And also how far will it go where people want their rights asserted? That's the point I'm trying to make with my ridiculous situations. However watch this space because I won't be surprised if people will try to assert them however stupid they are, why? All in the name of "equality"

 

[nahadef]

It doesn't make sense because of the auto fill on my phone. anyway you didn't read my earlier posts about having a type of agreement for gay people. And also how far will it go where people want their rights asserted? That's the point I'm trying to make with my ridiculous situations. However watch this space because I won't be surprised if people will try to assert them however stupid they are, why? All in the name of "equality"

[

Well, maybe gay people want to pledge their mutual love to each other (as opposed to a one-sided love with a car) and be legally respected at the same time. You call it stupidity. I call it equality.

Separate but equal is simply discrimination. Majority rules is a bully rule. Congrats on being a big bully.

 

[Tsuchi1]

[

Well, maybe gay people want to pledge their mutual love to each other (as opposed to a one-sided love with a car) and be legally respected at the same time. You call it stupidity. I call it equality.

Separate but equal is simply discrimination. Majority rules is a bully rule. Congrats on being a big bully.

I expect name calling from Under fives. Gay people can do what they want but if its a marriage then it won't be the equality they are looking for because it is for heterosexual couples. You can't change that fact, how do they consummate the marriage? That's needed to make it a marriage. Living in a dream world I think. Time to get a grip don't you think?

 

[FinancialWar]

Where do you stand on government sanctioned and registered gay marriage, and all the legal rights that come with it? (wording is to reflect the fact that two people can get married in a ceremony, but the government may or may not recognize it).

Parting with my usual third option, I only ask yes or no in the poll because that is all a voting ballot would give you.

So where do you stand and why?

I am for, because I cannot find a single decent reason to be against the freedom of two people wanting to marry. And so, I don't need a single specific reason to be for it, because general liberty is quite enough.

Only legalise the male-male gay marriage.

More girls for the rest us.

 

[nahadef]

I expect name calling from Under fives. Gay people can do what they want but if its a marriage then it won't be the equality they are looking for because it is for heterosexual couples. You can't change that fact, how do they consummate the marriage? That's needed to make it a marriage. Living in a dream world I think. Time to get a grip don't you think?

It's funny you mention that, since I'm actually only four.

Anyway, what the Hell does consummating marriage have to do with it. I realise you have the definition of marriage pre-defined from the ancient past, but humans evolve. Culture evolves. In America, voting was a white-land owner thing to begin with. They were able to move beyond that. A number of people here have claimed marriage is for baby-makers, which is absolutely untrue. It is for couples. It has always been for two people to show they are in love with each other. You insist on focusing on the gender. Others insist on focusing on the love. Who needs to get a grip? I am about love. You are about genitals. I am honestly not interested in hearing how you view the transgendered.

Humans are intelligent. They are able to expand their understanding. You aren't interested in doing so. Have fun in the past.

Bully

 

[Half-n-Half]

Gay people can do what they want but if its a marriage then it won't be the equality they are looking for because it is for heterosexual couples. You can't change that fact[...]

If you go with the Church's definition then sure. But legally, why should that be the case?

[...]how do they consummate the marriage? That's needed to make it a marriage.

Gay people can't have sex?

 

[nahadef]

Gay people can't have sex?

I think he's stuck on the genitals part.

It's amazing, that people would think that a loveless marriage between two people of the opposite sex is more legitimate than a loving marriage between two people of the same sex. Because of the genitals.

It's sad that so many people define marriage as something without love, and merely on an aspect of biology.

 

[Hezam]

It looks like some people reached a level that they can't see the difference between the right and the wrong.

 

[Tsuchi1]

If you go with the Church's definition then sure. But legally, why should that be the case?


Gay people can't have sex?

Sure they can, but not the sex required to consummate the marriage which is technically a leagal requirement for a marriage.
So the reality is that all "same sex marriages" are unable to fulfill this simple legal requirement to make a marriage official.

This talk about love is disturbing. What about omiai? Are they in love when they marry? I doubt it.

Yes I agree that humans evolve so gay people need their own contract that fits what they can and can't do.
No bulling here just reality.

 

[nahadef]

It looks like some people reached a level that they can't see the difference between the right and the wrong.

Legislation based on someone's religious book? That's clearly wrong.

No bulling here just reality.

I think you really haven't looked into this issue enough, if you think you are telling us "reality." Canada has had legal gay marriage for nearly ten years, as have a number of European nations and a number of U.S. states. According to you, millions and millions of citizens in those places are not living in reality. Of course they are living in a place where gays are happier and can live more satisfying lives as can their families, but that is apparently not reality to you personally.

You want to tell people you've never met how they can and can't live even though they are hurting nobody with their relationship, all according to your narrow definitions of things. Bully.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Sure they can, but not the sex required to consummate the marriage which is technically a leagal requirement for a marriage.

Don't bore us with technical legalities that are otherwise being ignored completely, same as the laws against adultery and oral sex among heteros. When was the last time you were concerned about consummation between heteros?

You should seriously drop this two-faced crap right now as well as get your nose out of other people's bedrooms. I am surprised you don't make yourself sick with arguments like these. Further, as someone being thought of as the "sex guy" recently, I am telling you that you need to do something about your fixation with sex, and stop correlating it with marriage.

And that is not even to say that gay people all have gay sex. Last I heard, a large percentage were in fact celibate. They just prefer a same-sex partner.

So the reality is that all "same sex marriages" are unable to fulfill this simple legal requirement to make a marriage official.

Does the law specify penile/vaginal intercourse? Prove it.

This talk about love is disturbing. What about omiai? Are they in love when they marry? I doubt it.

I would not go there. Its up to your definition of love. You have apparently chosen the Hollywood definition.

Yes I agree that humans evolve so gay people need their own contract that fits what they can and can't do.
No bulling here just reality.

You are confused between what is reality and what is merely the way you expect things to be. The reality is that none of the rules we humans have made for ourselves are laws of nature. And if you believe God made some of our laws, that is your superstition to cherish, but not to try and force on others.

 

[Tsuchi1]

Don't bore us with technical legalities that are otherwise being ignored completely, same as the laws against adultery and oral sex among heteros. When was the last time you were concerned about consummation between heteros?

You should seriously drop this two-faced crap right now as well as get your nose out of other people's bedrooms. I am surprised you don't make yourself sick with arguments like these. Further, as someone being thought of as the "sex guy" recently, I am telling you that you need to do something about your fixation with sex, and stop correlating it with marriage.

And that is not even to say that gay people all have gay sex. Last I heard, a large percentage were in fact celibate. They just prefer a same-sex partner


Does the law specify penile/vaginal intercourse? Prove it.



I would not go there. Its up to your definition of love. You have apparently chosen the Hollywood definition.



You are confused between what is reality and what is merely the way you expect things to be. The reality is that none of the rules we humans have made for ourselves are laws of nature. And if you believe God made some of our laws, that is your superstition to cherish, but not to try and force on others.

You assume I'm religious, you assume that I'm the only one that thinks like this.
Marriage is for heterosexuals and gay people have something else which isn't a marriage.

You talk about me preaching, what are you doing?
If I don't follow your idea or opinion, I'm wrong.
Double standards?

 

[BrianLewis]

It looks like some people reached a level that they can't see the difference between the right and the wrong.

Nice. I guess that's what happens when they venerate human beings with all their flaws. It seems like a dog chasing it's own tail to me.

BrianLewis, you don't seem all that familiar with the Bible. Or else, like most Christians, you want to pick and choose the parts you agree with. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality; but Jesus himself never did.

Not bringing something up is hardly evidence of anything. Furthermore, '... to fulfill the law' is a pretty strong endorsement. Thanks for the personal remarks completely lacking any substance. You can find churches/temples/etc. doing just about anything. However, that hardly means they follow their original ideology.