Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guy44
Gay people can only marry in 3 states, New York, Massachusets, and now California I think. It should be everywhere in the United States.
|
AFAIK it's not legal in NY. However, vermont does allow civil unions.
Quote:
|
Secondly, no, marriage is not just for children, and there is no reason why gay couples can't or don't raise children. They do. Sometimes, they are impregnated through invitro (sp?), like Melissa Etheridge, or sometimes a woman is impregnated the old fashioned way, or a gay couple adopts, or whatnot.
|
Did you read the opinion of the presiding judge in Florida? It supported the government's position that states use marriage to promote the rearing of children by both biological parents. Gay couples are allowed to raise children, but it's a biological impossibility for a gay couple to be the biological parents of a child.
Quote:
|
Thirdly, marriage comes with many benefits, such as special tax status, visiting rights, etc.
|
And those aren't there to support coupling, it's to support child-rearing.
Quote:
As for the research you asked for, here is a rundown of Kinsey's scale that he first created in 1948: http://members.tde.com/ben/kleingrid.html
Here is a recent article discussing some of the theories of the biological basis for homosexuality:
http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/...rrelations.htm
Though there is no definite identification of a "gay gene," or any such thing, that does not mean that homosexuality isn't at least in part biological. However, what it emphatically is NOT is a choice.
|
I didn't read the Kinsey piece yet (I have heard some valid criticism of his research), but the other seemed to support my position more than yours.
Quote:
And I ask you again: when was it that you made the choice not to be gay? What factors went into your decision? Have you regretted it? What does the thought of engaging in gay sex make you feel? If you wanted to, could you just become gay and go have sex with a man on a whim?
I don't really want your answers to these very personal questions. I'm just pointing out that the "choice" argument is inane.
|
The choice vs. biology argument is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage, as I have said repeatedly and have yet to be refuted. But the choice argument is NOT "inane". Even the evidence YOU provided doesn't rule it out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
If homosexuality is a choice, there is a hell of a lot of sadistic motherfuckers out there who enjoy being persecuted, screamed at, slurred and otherwise held down by society.
Ooh yeah, and beaten to death and dragged behind a pickup. That's always a fun time for people who pretend they're gay.
|
Held down by society? Give me a break. How are gays held down? Nobody will realize if you are gay or not unless you publicize it, and at least in a workplace environment I don't see the purpose of publicizing your sex life, straight or gay. And I have yet to see how gays are discriminated against in colleges either.
And you only list negatives (which for some people might even be positives). If you are gay, you are now instantly special. You gain a minority status that you can turn on and off. Someone doesn't like you? It's cause they are a homophobe. Didn't get a job? Homophobia. And you even get ready made groups to tell you how great and special you are (GLAAD comes to mind).
Quote:
No, the more we compare it, the more people will realize they are the same.
I believe it was Kent State where some black Students were ordered to be admitted by a judge... against state laws. There are some very famous pictures available from the event.
And, newsflash. America is being persuaded. Several years before miscegenation began to be legalized, america was polling about 90% against it.
We're not that far off now. A majority are in favor of civil unions and gay marriage polls in the 20-30% range.
And, I believe in the 60's, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Malcolm X were classified as 'whiners' by people like you. They 'whined' about how they were being depressed and had no equal rights under the law etc.
Anyone who doesn't see the parallel in progression and applicability under civil rights is blinded by their prejudices against homosexuals
|
No, anyone who tries to parallel the struggle of women and blacks to that of gays is spitting on the legacy of the people who participated in those struggles. Sure, some people don't like homosexuals. Some people don't like swingers. Some people don't like athletes. Some people don't like gamers. That doesn't mean these people are discriminated against. Some people just don't like the looks of other people. But that doesn't mean any of those groups are discriminated against. Where are gays discriminated against? Are they having trouble getting employed? What about college admissions? Are a disproportionate number of them in poverty? Can they not vote? Can they not marry? Can they not hold public office? Can they not apply for government programs?
There is no valid comparison between "gay rights" and civil rights. Besides being the current humanitarian fad.