Any colored man can drink at a water fountain, just not a white's only water fountain...

If you can't see the similarities than it is obvious why you can't see the flaws in your argument. At one point, an argument very similar to yours was employed to "protect" marriage from a "redefinition" involving interracial marriage. Fortunately, the traditionalist argument was tossed aside, and as you may have noticed, society didn't crumble.

Marriage has no carved in stone definition. In fact, there are many churches who wholeheartedly support gay marriage. You may claim that it is not in a church's place to "redefine" marriage, but i imagine it would be difficult to do so with a straight face, seeing as how the idea of a traditional marriage has very strong roots in religion.

Simply stating that it is not relevant does not make it not relevant. Stating that it is apples to oranges does not make it apples to oranges. Stating that your point remains does not mean you have a point to begin with.

You are quite impossible to discuss subjects with - you follow one of three paths once you have made a statement:

1- Ignore any responses and make alternate arguments. A deludge of unconnected arguments does not strengthen your position when you refuse to discuss any of your arguments beyond simplistic talking points.

2- In the exceedingly rare instances where you actually respond to a counter argument, you simply dismiss the counter argument with a flick of the wrist (as demonstrated above). Pretending to discuss a counter argument is ultimately the same thing as ignoring the counter argument. With the same result of a lack of strength in your overall position.

3- Repeat yourself as if no one understood your argument to begin with. Like this:
Yeah - you mentioned that already. It wasn't very compelling the first time, but a few people here were courteous enough to discuss it with you. And you ignored them.

Now I truly am done with this discussion, seeing as how you have designed it to go no where. Hopefully, in the future, you will think through your position in greater detail so that you can avoid falling victim to one of the 3 unproductive methods you seem to prefer.

1. True, interracial marriage was illegal at one point. Thankfully, we moved past that. However, interrracial marriage still involved a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Will our society crumble? I don't know. Two men cannot concieve a baby, nor can two women. A growing population is essential for any nation.

2. Wrong. Marriage does have a carved in stone definiton. It was reaffirmed in 1998 un the DOM act, signed gleefully into law by Pres Clinton. Now that brings me back to my question: What is the magic number of "two"? Why not allow polygamy and incestual marriages?

NCB, are you saying that you believe that allowing same-sex marriages will reduce the population?


First of all, DOMA only applies to Federal law. Secondly, that does not make it right. I think Clinton was an asshole for not vetoeing this.

The allegory to race is apt, NCB - the point is, there is a type of marriage (same-sex now, interracial then) that bigots thought was distatasteful and harmful to society, so they tried to ban it. I think those that fought bans on interracial marriage were heroes, and I think those fighting bans on same-sex marriage are heroes.

Please don't insult our intelligence by arguing that supporting same-sex marriage is the same thing as supporting polygamy or incestrual marriage. It isn't, and just because you think there is some link there doesn't mean there is. I'm just supporting same-sex marriage, and though I don't pretend to speak for everyone on this board, I think others supporting same-sex marriage do too. I'd also like to point out that, should the internet have existed in the 1950s, those arguing against interracial marriage would have asked, "why stop at blacks marrying whites? Why not dogs or polygamy?"

And let me ask you a question: why the magic formula of "one man, one woman?" What is so magical about that, as opposed to "two men" or "two women?"

Why do you cling to the notion of "one man and one woman" as somehow having any significance at all? If the race of the participants is arbitrary, how is it that gender isn't?

If you have any credible information linking homosexuality and population decline by all means share it. Otherwise this is a red herring.

Well, if the legal one is all that matters, and a court of law, acting within its jurisdiction decides that that legal definition is invalid, than i guess you'd have no problem with gay marriage, correct?

I would imagine, though, under those circumstances you'd fall back to your traditionalist definition of marriage, which probably conveniently ignores recent history where marriage was as much about an exchange of property as anything else.

I don't care. I believe in the idea of trusting consenting adults, do you?

One man, one woman has been part of our tradition for centuries.

Now, how about answering my question. I understand why y'all don't want to answer the why is two magical question. I just want y'all to say it.

:p ;)

No, NCB, you don't get it. I'm not arguing for the complete opening of marriage to any definition possible. If I did, we could get into arguments about bestiality and incest and polygamy. But I'm simply not arguing over any of those things. My argument is STRICTLY limited to same-sex marriage.

I think tradition is overrated. For example, until the last century or so, all of a person's wealth transferred to their eldest son by default. Jews such as myself weren't allowed in Ivy League schools. Blacks were slaves, and then for a century were officially second class citizens. The Spanish Inquisition lasted centuries. None of the "traditions" are anything I would ever want to support.

Just as all those above were wrong, denying same-sex couples the right to marry is wrong. And I gladly, gladly, with a smile on my face, break with tradition when tradition is in the wrong.

And I feel sorry for those who cling to tradition for nothing more than tradition's sake while the rest of the world moves past them. It must get lonely.

Ok, I understand that you're not arguing for polygamy and such. So why do you want to limit homosexual marriage to just a union between two homosexuals?

You know, once upon a time it was tradition in MY family for the youngest caveman to beat the sabre toothed tiger six times then eat his heart. You know, to absorb his essence and all.

Yeah you laugh, but it worked up till we killed all the sabretooth tigers.

I wonder if we could use housecats now? To keep the tradition alive?

I jest, I jest. But realistically, tradition is nothing more than:

Its what the old people in my family use to justify that horrid homemade cranberry sauce on Thanksgiving, and the nay team need something a smidge more substansive than that to justify repressing an entire segment of the Canadian population.

Why are you clinging to the notion of "two people"?

You got me here. I don;t have any proof right now, but I do remember an article discussing the natural population decline in Scandanavia after the redefination of marriage.


Great!! So you would trust the idea of more than two consenting adults (related or not) "marrying", right?

NCB, I don't want to "limit homosexual marriage to just a union between two homosexuals," I want to allow marriage to include same-sex couples.

If you can't figure out the difference between the two, well, I can't make it any plainer. Sorry.

And, aside from the ludicrous argument that allowing same-sex marriages opens the door to things like polygamy, your tradition fetish, and a wholly unsubstantiated argument that same-sex marriage reduces population growth, you have provided no reason NOT to allow same-sex marriage. Just pointing that out.

You do realize that i don't, right?

Well, pardon me if i refuse to argue with you about something you lack any real reason to believe is even true.

That's what i said.

I do now. At least you're consistent in your argument

1. You're dodging the question and we both know why. If you come out and say that it's the way marriage has always been (between two people that is), you're arguing against your own argument. With that said.....

2. I can turnit right around on you and aside from the whole "gay is the new 60's negro" argument (I use negro not as a racist term, but rather to illustrate more precisely your argument), you have not given one goos reason for gay marriage

Before seeing if you should change marriage laws, you should look at what is the reason for the government institution of marriage. Marriage has been around a long time, but there wasn't always government regulation and benefits for being married. It was a ceremony for the economic benefit of two people (and maybe their respective families). It was presided over by some religious officer. Much of what marriage currently entails is new (relatively speaking).

So what reason would government have for intervening in marriage at all? Unlike what some people would like to think, marriage has nothing to do with the happiness of the participants. That can be a side effect, but the government really has no care about that. Government social programs (and laws to enforce social desires) are for keeping society as a whole stable. The government has decided that the best way to promote stable society is to try to provide stable homes for citizens to grow up in. The easiest way for this to be done is by giving certain incentives for married couples, it being assumed that a child is best raised by it's parents in a stable home. This is also a primary reason for the ban on polygamy-it is assumed that having multiple people in a home will not provide the same healthy environment as a couple. The government cares not how much two men love each other. It cares if that couple can produce children, which it's a biological impossibility for a gay couple to do. There is a fundamental difference between homo and hetero couples-one can produce offspring. And thats all the government cares about. Think I'm talking out my ass? Rulings against gay marriage in Florida and Louisiana fuel debate

And as an aside, if you argue for gay marriage and against polygamy, you ARE a hypocrite. Both have to do with choices by concenting adults.

And as another aside, race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. Race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. Race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. Race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. They aren't the same from a legal basis, nor a biological one. Here's once more for good measure-race and sexual orientation aren't the same thing. I know minority rights is SO 1960's, but just because "gay rights" is the new pet cause doesn't mean it's the same as those that came before it.

OK, here: I believe that gay people should have every right that straight people get. Therefore, they should be allowed to be married.

This isn't fundamentally a marriage issue, it is a gay rights issue.

I'm not going to argue for or against polygamy, bestiality, etc. because that isn't the issue at hand.

Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.
Race and sexual orientation ARE the same thing.

They are both biological aspects of a person that they could not change no matter how hard they try. Therefore, they should be treated the same.

"Traditional western values" change over time...I mean at one point people argued over whether women had souls are not :p

what, what's wrong with polygamy between consenting adults? Not my cup of tea personally but if they are all in love...together...hmm actually now you've got me interested.
The incest thing brings up some health issues that make it a bit more sticky, but in principle, not my cup of tea, but if their both consenting adults, and in love, why stop them?


and about the population decline thing, I highly doubt that it has anything to do with legalizing same sex marriage, it probably has more to do with the usual trend of mature, developed nations, trend towards marrying later, and having fewer kids. A very good example of population decline from this is Japan. Europe has been trending towards a population decline for awhile.

There are many gay married people-one prominent one is the former New Jersey governor McGreevey.

Yes they are, the issue is the redefiniton of marriage to fit newly mainstreamed forms of sexuality.

Wrong. Your statement has no basis for fact. I mentioned McGreevey before. Up until recently he lived a perfectly heterosexual life. If it was something immutable, you wouldn't have people "coming out of the closet", there would have never been a closet. I can't all of the sudden decide, "You know, I'm not gonna be black". You CAN decide not to have sex with people of the same gender. Therein lies the difference-sexual orientation is based on actions, race isn't. No matter how much rap you listen to (or any other stereotypical black behavior), if you aren't black you won't become black. But if someone starts having relationships with members of the same sex, BAM you're gay.

And as I said before, it's really irrelevant. It's a definiton of marriage issue, not a "gay rights" issue.

alansmithee
you can be homosexual without having sex with people of the same gender. Most of the homosexuals I know, described just kinda knowing that they found the same sex much more attractive. Alot of times they try to live the "normal" life because they think how they feel is wrong. At least that is what I have noticed with a few of my friends.

My God, alansmithee, you really don't get it. At all. You really think that homosexuality is the act of engaging in gay sex.

Unbelievable.

Let me engage with your logic for a moment. If I understand you correctly, "gay = engages in sex with members of the same sex." I assume that, therefore, "straight = engages in sex with members of the opposite sex."

Now, what if you are a virgin? What does that make you? You aren't engaging in sex with men or women. When you were a virgin, did you consider yourself "straight?" If so, how could you? You weren't engaging in sex with someone of the opposite gender?

My guess, and obviously I don't know yet what you considered or consider yourself, but my guess is that you considered yourself straight. The thought of having sex with guys didn't really do anything for you. However, thinking about women...well, that got your libido going. I know it has for me.

So you probably labeled yourself straight, as I did. Even before you ever had sex with anyone.

Therefore, you might understand why I can't quite see how one's sexual orientation is entirely defined by who they are actively sleeping with.

Sexual orientation is something you are born with. My lesbian friends discovered, well before they slept with anyone, that the thought of men did nothing for their libidos, but the thought of sleeping with women did. Vice-versa for my gay friends. It wasn't a matter of who they were having sex with, but a biological factor that defined for them their sexual orientation.

So don't tell me that homosexuality can't be a biological determinate because nobody would ever "come out of the closet." Coming out of the closet is when a gay person reveals to others that they are not straight. Not because they recently made a choice to become gay, or because they just had sex with someone of the same gender. It is because often, a gay person faces discrimination and abuse for simply being themselves. That is why there is the proverbial closet. That is why, because society punishes them so simply for being gay, many make an attempt attempt to have sex with members of the opposite sex and even get married, despite their true feelings. It is assumed that is what Governor McCreevy did.

You are right that I cannot just decide - bam - I don't want to be white anymore. But neither can homosexuals decide - bam - I don't want to be gay anymore. It isn't a choice.

Let me ask you, alansmithee - when was it that you decided that you would rather be straight than gay (or gay than straight, I don't know)? What went into that decision? How long did you think it over? When were you sure?

My guess is that you just always knew, same as me, same as my homosexual friends.

And I'm not even getting into scales of sexual orientation, the mere concept of which may just blow your mind.

The only thing that matters about homosexuality and marriage is if offsping can be produced. You have put forth no argument whatsoever showing a reason why my argument is false or illogical in respect to the gay marriage issue. The government doesn't give a rat's ass who or what you may or may not be attracted to.

And by saying having sex was simplifying. To clarify, without taking some action, nobody will know your sexual orientation. If you are secretly attracted to men your whole life but never act on it, nobody will know you were "gay". Because as far as society is concerned, you weren't. Sexual orientation presupposes some act on your part. Race does not. Sexual orientation can be affected by your upbringing, social pressures, and other psychological aspects. Race can not.

And for those of us without the telepathy to determine other people's "true feelings", we have to rely on their actions. When someone come out who has been married for numerous years, it seems hard to believe they always felt that way. I certainly couldn't hide my race for years, then suddenly say "i'm black". Again, it's the whole action thing, and i'm not inclined to assume someone's actions to be genetically predetermined.

As for the concept of "scales of sexual orientation", i'm quite sure it would "blow my mind". I find many forms of ridiculousness to be mind-blowing.

What do you want me to say? How can I argue with someone who believes that homosexuality is a choice? How can I argue with someone who turns their back on 50 years of scientific research, all the way back to Kinsey's first studies of human sexual behavior? How can I argue with someone who tells me that my gay friends simply chose to be gay? It's pointless.

All I can do is ask questions: why does "sexual orientation presuppose some act on your part?" What is a gay person who has not yet had sex?

Could you show any evidence of this "50 years of scientific research"? I have asked before for any evidence showing how sexual orientation is not choice, and nobody has ever given any evidence.

And even assuming you are right and it's not a choice, you still haven't shown how that has any relevance to marriage law. Gay people CAN marry. Gay people HAVE married. Where is the problem? As I stated above, marriage is something the government deems useful for the raising of children, not for people's enjoyment.

Gay people can only marry in 3 states, New York, Massachusets, and now California I think. It should be everywhere in the United States.

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.

Thirdly, marriage comes with many benefits, such as special tax status, visiting rights, etc.

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.

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.

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.

You mean masochistic. :)

Guys, while I appreciate all the fine work you are doing in carrying on this debate, you are wasting your time. There comes a point where you have to recognize that a person is beyond the reach of logic or reason on a certain issue and you simply have to throw up your hands. This is not a discussion any more. This is a skirmish, and soon it will turn into a war, and it would be better to just cut it short now and let everyone keep on thinking the way that they do, because nothing is going to change.

My bad, thanks for the correction.

I just hope people like this never end up with homosexual children.
I'd hate to think of the mental anguish they would be inflicted with.
Much like the un-Christ like way Pharisee Alan Keyes kicked out his daughter for faking the Gay Disease.

True, but I still hold out hope for some. This issue is bound to turn up again sometime soon.

I'm sure the anti-miscegenationists held out hope as well.

The cool thing about my position is, I am confident that the side of good will once again prevail over the ideological heirs of anti-miscegenation, anti-voting rights, anti-womens rights, slavery advocates etc. The ideology of holding people who are not like you down.

It's a matter of time, society will continue to move forward and good will win. Until then it is sad that peoples rights to live happily are being quashed. But it will all change. It's inevitable like the tide.

Just think of how much more acceptable homosexuality and homosexual rights are today compared to what they were 50 years ago. The difference between then and now is astounding compared to the distance we still need to cover to get full legal rights.

The more y'all compare this to black rights and women's rights, the more you will alienate the gen pub. Though it probably doesn't matter because the homosexual mafia won't try to persuade the public, but rather, they'll take it to some judge in the SF or South Beach and have that judge make the law for them.

Either way, until y'all get your Susan B anthony or your MLK, you will be doomed to fail. If history shows anything, Americans don't like to be pushed around and told what to accept. Persuade, build public opinion, and you'll win. Whine about equal rights and the depression in the gay community because Bill and Bob can't get married and you'll continue to lose.

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

You'll notice I deliberately avoided taking any sides in my request that you all stop arguing. My statement did not attack either side. Nonetheless, I officially award you a one-up to your e-penis for such a clever quip.

AFAIK it's not legal in NY. However, vermont does allow civil unions.

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.

And those aren't there to support coupling, it's to support child-rearing.

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.

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.

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).

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.

:lol:

Thanks, I need all the help I can get.

:D

Alan, I assume you will be signing my petition to restrict all impotent, menopausal, and naturally, surgically and chemically sterile people from getting married. Right?

What I find funny about this entire thread is how Manx laid out quite perfectly how NCB has been improperly conducting himself in debate, and not a single reply back as to explain.

I really and truly think this thread should be locked.

Every member who supports gay rights and still has enough sanity to try to engage in debate with people who do nothing but claim "your arguments are false, I am right, there is nothing you can say that could ever possibly change my mind or give a shred of credit to your argument" has much more patience then I could ever fathom.

I just hope someday we can live in a world that is more tolerant, and people of all sexual orientations can enjoy the same rights and benefits that us heterosexual people enjoy. After all, homosexuality isn't a choice (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm), and as long as you discriminate against something that is outside of human control entirely, that's no different then racism.

Peace

I conducted improperly in this thread? Think again. In case you haven't noticed, I'm outnumbered in this thread. I've tried to reply to everyone, but sometimes I just can't. Also, Manx, et al (with the exception of filthertron) have never answered my question about where the magic in the #2 lies. It's easy to come in at the tail end of a discussion and pass judgement, but in doing so, you run the risk of making statements that are way off mark.



Intresting that you preach tolerance, yet you show little tolerance towards people with dissenting views. Perhaps you should rethink your definition of tolerance

By the way, NCB, I was wondering if the "homosexual mafia" is the same as those damn nigger-lovers, the Freedom Riders. Wanting equal rights...how dare they!

(And because I know nobody on this board underreacts, no, I'm not accusing anyone of being racist.)

Nice switchback on the tolerance thing. Trying to dilute tolerance by arguing tolerance for the intolerant.

Kinda like Jews in Auschwitz having tolerance for the Nazi's wish to cook them in furnaces.

Yeah, that's the same thing as not allowing homosexuals to redefine marriage.

A lot of mental anguish can be on an individual if they aren't allowed to get into the hospital to see their partner before they die.

Or if all their property and children reverts to the state or a partners relatives rather than being passed onto a survivor... leaving the survivor alone and destitute.

So homosexual marriage is the only cure for that? What about straight life partners that don't get hitched? Imagine their mental anguish. So perhaps, there are other ways to work around this. And besides, when was the last time in this day and age that a homosexual partner was denied access to see thier dying partner?

One word: Will

Why do you protect that word so? 'Marriage' has been redefined repeatedly through history to fit to the cultures wants and needs.

Marriage as you know it, and want to limit it to has only been around for about 5 centuries.


http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4426.html

NCB wrote:

My question is, why deny them the right to marry? Maybe you are right - marriage won't fix every problem, right every wrong. But it can help.

And yes, homosexual partners often are denied basic rights like seeing their partner in a hospital:


Even if they eventually do get to see each other, it is rediculous to force them to jump through extra hoops during these emergencies.

Link.

I totally agree with you. But is homosexual "marriage" the only solution? If the homosexual lobby's only concern is health care issues and transfer of estate property, it seems to me that they could make moves to help streamline that process.

But why not marriage? A civil union only covers some legal bits, albeit important ones. But marriage is also a statement of love, an emotionally significant act. Why are you so opposed to allowing everyone to enjoy that?

1. The burden is on the pro homosexual "marriage" crowd, not the other way around.

2. I'm against it for a number of reason, one being that the homosexual lobby will not want to stop there. Soon, they'll be teaching homosexual sex in elemantry sex ed classes. Frankly, that's not the kind of soceity I want my children to grow up in. And I'm not alone.

Why is that not the society you want your children to grow up in?

How can you pretend to know the agenda of the homosexual lobby? Do tell. Can you tell me what the curriculum will be? Even if that were the case, you'd have a hard time coming up with any kind of rational argument as to why that would be bad.


Do me a favor and tell me why you cling to the notion of one man one woman marriage?

This is the first progression i've seen by NCB in this thread on how he really feels about homosexuality.

NCB, you are a bigot. Just because you're uncomfortable with the idea (read: scared), does not mean it is wrong. Homosexuals deserve to be accorded the same rights and freedoms the rest of us do. Love is not bound by gender, color, or ideals. There is no reason a homosexual man can't love and care for another man, like a heterosexual man would care for a woman. I see now why you can't accept gay marriage. It would mean that a gay man's marriage would be just as valid and special as yours. You would be the same. Equal.

Being homosexual is not a choice, and you can't assume it is just because you can't see it on the outside, like the color of your skin. Black people couldn't "come out of the closet", because they had no way to hide their skin colour to avoid prejudice. They couldn't pretend to themselves they weren't black.

If homosexuality had primarily an environmental cause, we would see distribution patterns based on favorable environmental conditions for homosexuality. Similar family environments producing homosexuals. Something in the air, or water, or food. But there isn't. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the statistical distribution of homosexuals based on their birthplace.

Bailey and Pillard (1991) conducted a study on the occurrence of homosexuality among brothers.
52% of identical twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual. Your chance of being homosexual, based just on the fact that your twin brother shares your genes, is greater than 1/2. This clearly speaks of a genetic predisposition for homosexuality.

You start it, ill sign it in a second. Those couples shouldn't be subsidized any more than gay couples.

If you are basing a redefinion on what people want, it's been clear through numerous polls and ballot initiatives that the people DON'T want gay marriage.


Just because you think it's the best thing since sliced bread doesn't make it right, either. And homosexuals HAVE the same rights and freedoms as the rest
of the population. Show one example where they don't. And what does love have to do with marriage? If gays are so shallow that they can only express love with government endorsement, maybe they should reexamine the culture.

Again, where is the evidence it isn't partially a choice? It has nothing do do with seeing it on the outside. If i'm born deaf, I can't go years pretending to hear. And also, you can't just look at someone and say for certain if they are deaf.

I think both hetero or homosexual ceromonies of sharing life together, commonly called marriage should exist for both regardless of any interference, mainly from church then state to a degree.

Then if you've been married once, you were in a marriage. Marry again, you're in a civil union. This should apply for both straight and gay. Since marriage has been so cheapened (by the 50% heterosexual divorce rate), the word 'marriage' really shouldn't even be an issue.

As for those so tender of heart that they feel their "marriage" is now meaningless cuz gay's might be able to be treated equally and fairly, well then they really need a hobby or to get out,or something.

The "choice" a homosexual has is whether to act on his attraction or not. They don't have a choice on the attraction itself. You don't need evidence to figure this out. It's obvious. I would agree that the environment of a person predisposed to homosexuality could influence the intensity of attraction they feel towards the same sex, but choice has nothing to do with it.

I believe homosexuality is on a spectrum- Almost everybody has bisexual tendancies, repressed or not. A person coined as a homosexual is just on the other end of the string; they have a strong attraction to the same sex and very little to the opposite sex. I also think if there was a choice involved, there would be a lot more homosexuals in the world. Or rather, bisexuals. People would get out a relationship, pissed off at the opposite sex, and choose to start a same sex relationship to see if it's better.

(again) If it's really a choice, how do you choose to be gay?


And the whole point of this thread is that since gay men and women cannot get married, and recieve the same benefits that this social contract gives to heterosexuals, they are being discriminated against. They do not have the right to get married. Why are we stopping them from being able to marry? Is the difference of sexual orientation so fundamentally different from what you think as "normal" humanity that they should not be accorded the same rights as you?

And that's where you are wrong. They CAN get married. No state says that homosexuals cannot get married. Many homosexuals are married. There is no discrimination.

So what you are against is the legal rights that are afforded with it.

1. Here we go. "Bigot"; "Intolerant"; words that are commonly used when either the thinking gets too hard or a constructive argument cannot be formulated. Hell, I'm surprised you didn't throw in "redneck". That would be some funny shit, considering I'm a first generation Latino.

2. The reason I threw that example out is becasue it's already happening in Canada. Three months or so ago (barely 6 months after Canada redefined marriage), a school district in BC became the first to come up with a sex ed curriculm that would be taught side by side with the traditional sex ed curric.

Is that a good thing, considering that adolescents begin dealing with their ever changing bodies and raging hormones, to have the govt treat homosexuality as a norm? Afterall, the natural order of things is hetherosexuality. Think about it.

Slice it and dice it anyway you will, but the theory that it's not a choice is just that: a theory. There is no hard proof either way. In fact, the dark, dirty little secret is how many homosexuals first strayed into homosexuality through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.

Now you can refer to your "studies", but I'll pit my studies versus yours, and we'll see just who could out vague the other.

Yes it is a good thing. Why? Because it is normal. There are many animals who engage in homosexual sex. it's a norm. It's natural!
Monkeys, Rams, Bulls, gorillas, penguins, cats, dogs, guineapigs, whales, wharthogs, bats
There are over 450 different animals who we have repeated documentation of homosexual behavior.

For more information see:
Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D.
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

It's natural. So, yes we should be teaching about homosexual sex in the same way we discuss heterosexual sex in school. Why? Because it's natural and not wrong We don't want to leave the gay kids with the impression that what they feel is wrong.
They are about 11% of the population.

If homosesxuality is normal, why isn't that nature's default tendency? Why is it that nature prefers to biologically program us to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be black or white?
Life is all shades of color.
There is no default.

That sounds real good and would make a great John Lennon song, but unfortunately it's inaccurate.

Life's sole purpose is to reproduce. Last I checked, two men or two women cannot procreate.

Tell that to the 450 other species that like to have homosexual sex.

Life's purpose is survival, reproduction is a byproduct of that.
Survival can be achieved in several ways.
A happy, stress free individual lives longer. Lots of sex can reduce your stress.
A species that doesn't overpopulate it's habitat stays stable longer. Homosexual sex fulfils the need to hump, but results in no babies.


Really, explain away the hundreds of other species that can go gay. Why would this develop so widespread in nature if it's wrong?

SB, we're the only species that has sex for pleasure. Dogs, wombats, mice, ect....do not. Animals do not "like" homosexual sex. It seems to me that the answer to why is obvious. It's just that you don't like it.

In fact, knowing what we know about 450 species having homsexual sex (and knowing that they do not engage in sex for pleasure), you can make a pretty strong argument that homosexuality is a genetic thing. A genetic malfunction in nature, but genetic nonetheless.

Now, that's not my argument. I still feel that homosexuality amongst humans is a choice or a behavioral mechanism that is onset by abuse/rape/molestation or whatever. However, the fact remains that there is no conclusive proof either way. I may be wrong, you may be right. Or vice-versa.

Bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are strongly partial to a group defined by sexual orientation, your so-called "normal" group, and you are intolerant of those who differ, the non-"normal" group.So, better safe than sorry: just in case you're right, we must discriminate against gays.

You have a long list of justifications for your need to discriminate, but in the end, you have no idea if you're right. And so by default, you discriminate. Otherwise .... something catastrophic will happen?

That's not the "normal", default behavior of a human being. Your behavior is a sociological by-product of your environment. Maybe brought about by latent homosexual feelings to which you have been programmed to feel shame, maybe brought about by sexual abuse when you were younger - I can't possibly know - but I do know it's not normal.

Wrong, again.

Dolphins have sex for pleasure, bonobos (a chimp) do as well.
what we know about these species that distinguishes them from other animals is that they also have sex when the female is not at a point in her gestation cycle suitable for successful impregnation.

Those are just two others that we know of for a fact because of the gestation cycle. Others most assuredly do, we just can't PROVE IT.

OK, assuming your above assement is true, how does that help explain homosexuality in other animals? Since animals have sex for pleasure and they make the choie to engage in it, does that mean that the same animals choose to have homosexual sex?

Just like homosexual male humans choose to have homosexual sex with other males.

And just like you and I choose to have heterosexual sex with women.

It's wired in our brains. I can't imagine having sex with a man, neither can you. it's wired for us just like homosexuality is wired for others.

http://www.cartoonbank.com/assets/1/69362_m.gif

I thought this thread was in dire need of a little humor . . . . .

Seriously, I think it might be useful to try to unfathom the unstated assumptions that the two sides have in this debate, which are in conflict and are preventing any kind of meaningful resolution.

The core question is whether marriage should be redefined. Now think about what I just wrote. Why is this such a heated question? Who cares how a word is defined? Seriously. Who cares? It’s just a word.

This is really what it all boils down to. It’s not an issue about any specific legal rights. I haven’t seen any anti-gay-marriage people object to any specific legal rights that “marriage” would confer on gay couples. They’re all in favor of gays visiting each other in hospitals, sharing health insurance, sharing estates, etc. None of that is a problem.

What they object to all boils down to a single English word, and that is “marriage”.

Why?

Here’s why (IMO): many of us have a personal relationship with or understanding of God. That relationship is the core, defining, unifying principle of our lives, out of which the totality of our ethical, political, spiritual life flows. And for many of us, the idea of marriage is closely intertwined with the idea of God. God sanctions our marriage, blesses it, makes it spiritually right and legitimate, gives it purpose and meaning far beyond just two individuals. So “marriage” is a lot more than that list of legal rights. It is a spiritual entity in and of itself.

So why then is gay marriage bad under this view of marriage? It is bad because God does not sanction it. In God’s eyes, homosexuality is a sin. It is depraved. So it is inconceivable that two same-sex people could enter this sanctified state of union. It is almost blasphemy merely to suggest it.

So that’s the unstated assumption, namely: gayness is depraved, sinful behavior that can never be sanctified.

No argument is ever going to refute this, because it is a primitive assumption of the anti-gay-marriage position.

Is there a gay gene? So what. There are genes that cause criminal behavior too, does that mean being a criminal is OK?

Miscegenetion? Irrelevant. Being black is not depraved. Being gay is depraved.

Gay animals? Irrelevant. Animals can't get married either.

It looks to me that this is essentially the reason this debate goes around and around in circles. The unstated assumptions are in conflict, and they never get touched. This is a theological debate, where the theology is well concealed.

I don't see any other conclusion, given that the legal rights question is never an issue. It's all about "redefining" that one word.

For the record: Paul Martin is a great human being.

OOOOOOOOOOOH we needed that joke...... Like a breath of fresh air

:lol:


Nice one, Raven! We all needed that!!

You can't win this argument by completely oversimplifying biology. First of all, you can't pretend to speak on behalf of nature. Second of all, everything that a human has ever done has been the direct result of nature at its finest. Whether homosexuality is normal or not really depends on how you choose to define "normal". I assure that homosexuality is just as "normal" as your average successful* marriage.

Perhaps you could tell me how homosexuality isn't "normal".

*successful meaning not ending in divorce(that other threat to marriage which no one cares about)