Gay marriage

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Should gay marriage be legal?

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
gryffin13
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 1:47 am

Post by gryffin13 »

muy_thaiguy wrote:
ritz627 wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
Except by doing this, its sends a bad message - i.e. homosexuals are lesser beings than heterosexuals and therefore deserve lesser rights. You are putting them down by not allowing them to marry.

And as if there is any sanctity left in marriage nowadays anyway. The divorce rate is ridiculous. To quote an episode of family guy: why should we let to straight people who hate each other marry, and not homosexual people who love each other? If Jesus walked this earth today, I doubt that he would go out speaking against gay marriage before going around speaking out against capital punishment (since that was how he died and all), and an unjust war. But maybe I just interpreted the bible wrong. I thought it was all about helping others out, but maybe it was about how only straight people should marry too.
How's it implying that Civil Unions are bad? The term marriage is almost always associated with being done inside a church (not always, I know, but that is how it is viewed) and they are basically getting married, it's just called a Civil Union is all. Also, to stereotype that all marriages are thus, is a bit sad really. Many marriages still work out, and between people that love eachother. Also, as a rule, I don't take to much from shows like Family Guy and the newer Simpson's shows. The older ones were made to be funny, now it's just another politiacl outlet. And considering that being gay as of itself is determined a sin in the bible, I believe Jesus would have something to say about that.


A Civil Union is less than marriage, and the two are clearly not equal. If you can't see that, then I have nothing else to say to you than that you are ignorant.

AS for the reputation of marriage not being correct, here are the facts:

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

(http://www.divorcerate.org/)

While the quote was from family guy, that's not what you should take from it, take from it what it actually says. Again your ignorance is getting the best of you.

About the bible. What I'm saying is that the bible had many, many more important messages than "gays should not marry". Yet somehow, that's what people who are "morally correct" chose to take from it. There are more pressing religious issues in American that are being thrown aside here somehow. For instance: helping out others less fortunate than yourself - that was Jesus' main message. So don't you think he would care more about a higher minimum wage, welfare, and social security than gay marriage?
First off, care to tell me how a Civil Union is less then a marriage before calling me ignorant? Also, what I was saying is that you make it sound like that all heterosexual couples hate eachother when they are married, which is far from true. As for the divorce rates, could it have anything to do with people marrying at to young of an age and being rebelious in nature? Implying that straight people cannot love eachother (which is what that quote was doing) is ridiculous. Civil Unions, the way I see it, give the same basic rights as married couples, and should. Also, for your little Bible argument, here is a nice simple little saying.

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day (Socialism), teach a man to fish, he eats for life." Simple really, just saying that people need to learn to rely on themselves and not others to do things, which shows responsibility and maturity.


The reason civil unions are not equal is because of the title. You should understand the importance of the names since you don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but are instead relegated to civil unions.

Basically a gay person wants to get married and they are told, you aren't good enough for marriage. Here you can have a civil union. They are exactly the same.

If they were the same though, why not let them get marriages.

Separate is inherently unequal.
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

-Winston Churchill
User avatar
Fieryo
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Maine
Contact:

Post by Fieryo »

yes but sarcasm for the sake of rhetoric serves a purpose. bashing people because of their ideas makes us ignorant.

i stole that from a fortune cookie...sort of.
...where I'm from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it -- "history"
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Post by Snorri1234 »

muy_thaiguy wrote:First off, care to tell me how a Civil Union is less then a marriage before calling me ignorant?
At the moment, it is less. At the moment it cannot be something else actually, as civil unions aren't marriages according to the law. (Depending on where though.)
The problem is that marriage for the state is what you're arguing giving to gay couples. There is already a difference between civil and religious marriages, and all that gay people ask for is the civil variant. And it is unconstitutional (according to massachusetts) to give only heterosexual couples the option of marriage.

I understand your position on it being wrong on religious grounds, but honestly there is already a fine distinction between the two.
Also, what I was saying is that you make it sound like that all heterosexual couples hate eachother when they are married, which is far from true. As for the divorce rates, could it have anything to do with people marrying at to young of an age and being rebelious in nature? Implying that straight people cannot love eachother (which is what that quote was doing) is ridiculous. Civil Unions, the way I see it, give the same basic rights as married couples, and should.

The quote wasn't implying that. It was pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing hetero marriages like it doesn't matter but banning gay people from the same thing. Why ban a loving couple from marriage just because they're different when unloving couples can because they're not gay?

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day (Socialism), teach a man to fish, he eats for life." Simple really, just saying that people need to learn to rely on themselves and not others to do things, which shows responsibility and maturity.

Yeah, but currently the stance is more: "never teach a man to fish and let him figure it out on his own, not my problem" or "teach a man to fish and you can take his fishies every day." :lol:

But honestly I think Jesus wouldn't really care about gay marriage so much as all the poor people and mistreatment of others that is going on.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Dancing Mustard
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Post by Dancing Mustard »

Snorri1234 wrote:But honestly I think Jesus wouldn't really care about gay marriage so much as all the poor people and mistreatment of others that is going on.

I think he'd care about it quite a bit really; the Bible is pretty clear on him being openly bisexual (and possibly gay), and scholars agree that his marriage was one of societal convenience rather than one of love.

Jesus probably did care that gay marriage wasn't allowed back then, and he'd almost certainly be a serious advocate for it if he existed today.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
ritz627
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:17 pm
Gender: Male

Post by ritz627 »

muy_thaiguy wrote:
ritz627 wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
Except by doing this, its sends a bad message - i.e. homosexuals are lesser beings than heterosexuals and therefore deserve lesser rights. You are putting them down by not allowing them to marry.

And as if there is any sanctity left in marriage nowadays anyway. The divorce rate is ridiculous. To quote an episode of family guy: why should we let to straight people who hate each other marry, and not homosexual people who love each other? If Jesus walked this earth today, I doubt that he would go out speaking against gay marriage before going around speaking out against capital punishment (since that was how he died and all), and an unjust war. But maybe I just interpreted the bible wrong. I thought it was all about helping others out, but maybe it was about how only straight people should marry too.
How's it implying that Civil Unions are bad? The term marriage is almost always associated with being done inside a church (not always, I know, but that is how it is viewed) and they are basically getting married, it's just called a Civil Union is all. Also, to stereotype that all marriages are thus, is a bit sad really. Many marriages still work out, and between people that love eachother. Also, as a rule, I don't take to much from shows like Family Guy and the newer Simpson's shows. The older ones were made to be funny, now it's just another politiacl outlet. And considering that being gay as of itself is determined a sin in the bible, I believe Jesus would have something to say about that.


A Civil Union is less than marriage, and the two are clearly not equal. If you can't see that, then I have nothing else to say to you than that you are ignorant.

AS for the reputation of marriage not being correct, here are the facts:

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

(http://www.divorcerate.org/)

While the quote was from family guy, that's not what you should take from it, take from it what it actually says. Again your ignorance is getting the best of you.

About the bible. What I'm saying is that the bible had many, many more important messages than "gays should not marry". Yet somehow, that's what people who are "morally correct" chose to take from it. There are more pressing religious issues in American that are being thrown aside here somehow. For instance: helping out others less fortunate than yourself - that was Jesus' main message. So don't you think he would care more about a higher minimum wage, welfare, and social security than gay marriage?
First off, care to tell me how a Civil Union is less then a marriage before calling me ignorant? Also, what I was saying is that you make it sound like that all heterosexual couples hate eachother when they are married, which is far from true. As for the divorce rates, could it have anything to do with people marrying at to young of an age and being rebelious in nature? Implying that straight people cannot love eachother (which is what that quote was doing) is ridiculous. Civil Unions, the way I see it, give the same basic rights as married couples, and should. Also, for your little Bible argument, here is a nice simple little saying.

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day (Socialism), teach a man to fish, he eats for life." Simple really, just saying that people need to learn to rely on themselves and not others to do things, which shows responsibility and maturity.


Again, the title itself makes it less equal.

I am not saying that it is impossible for two straight people to love each other, I am saying that it often doesn't happen.

As for your last paragraph, I think your interpreting it a tad wrong. Haha, to say the least. Explain how a conservative form of government "teaches a man to fish". It more leaves a person to starve with no fish at all. Let me give you the definitions in their most basic form. Socialism - all for one and one for all. Capitalism - Everyman for himself. Which form of government is more likely to "teach a man to fish"? A higher minimum wage, welfare, etc. is not "giving a man a fish", but instead teaching them how to better construct a successful life by giving them the means to do so. I guess metaphorically a fishing rod, bait, a net, and a boat. So by this, Jesus - who lived by the philosophy of all for one and one for all, would most likely support welfare and social security, which helps others less fortunate then ourselves, and helps the elderly. As for a higher minimum wage, that's not even socialism, that is again - teaching others to live a quality life by giving them the means to do so. Jesus' main drive in life was not to prevent gays from marrying, but was to help others out. With this, it is hard to see why the main focus of so many religious people nowadays is gay marriage.
User avatar
Napoleon Ier
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Post by Napoleon Ier »

It never ceases to amaze how people choose to ignor the statistical evidence and the principles ofeconomics because of the ideology the see as "modern"...
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Dancing Mustard
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Post by Dancing Mustard »

It never ceases to amaze how people fail to present any statistical evidence or coherently explained principles of economics because they see their ideology as "moral"
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
ritz627
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:17 pm
Gender: Male

Post by ritz627 »

Napoleon Ier wrote:It never ceases to amaze how people choose to ignor the statistical evidence and the principles ofeconomics because of the ideology the see as "modern"...


Actually, countries such as Sweden and Noway have shown that socialism works, and works well. Lets not confuse socialism with communism now.

Capitalism: Sacrifices economic equity and economic security for economic freedom and economic growth

Socialism: Sacrifices economic freedom and economic growth for economic equity and economic security.

Socialism works. Of course it also means the people pay significantly higher taxes, and of course - humans being the selfish beings that we are - do not want to pay them. What they don't realize is the they also have far fewer expenses (college, health care, etc.) under the socialist system. Humans say they follow the teachings of Christ, but at the same time endorse a selfish and everyman for himself mentality under a capitalist system. Since Jesus was and all for one and one for all kind of guy, I think he would be more in favor of a economically equitable and secure society over economic freedom and growth.
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Post by Snorri1234 »

ritz627 wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:It never ceases to amaze how people choose to ignor the statistical evidence and the principles ofeconomics because of the ideology the see as "modern"...


Actually, countries such as Sweden and Noway have shown that socialism works, and works well. Lets not confuse socialism with communism now.

Capitalism: Sacrifices economic equity and economic security for economic freedom and economic growth

Socialism: Sacrifices economic freedom and economic growth for economic equity and economic security.

Socialism works. Of course it also means the people pay significantly higher taxes, and of course - humans being the selfish beings that we are - do not want to pay them. What they don't realize is the they also have far fewer expenses (college, health care, etc.) under the socialist system. Humans say they follow the teachings of Christ, but at the same time endorse a selfish and everyman for himself mentality under a capitalist system. Since Jesus was and all for one and one for all kind of guy, I think he would be more in favor of a economically equitable and secure society over economic freedom and growth.


Hey ritz, let's not turn this into another capitalism/socialism (as if the two are mutually exclusive) debate. We had that already. :lol:
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
muy_thaiguy
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: Back in Black
Contact:

Post by muy_thaiguy »

Again, the title itself makes it less equal.

I am not saying that it is impossible for two straight people to love each other, I am saying that it often doesn't happen.

As for your last paragraph, I think your interpreting it a tad wrong. Haha, to say the least. Explain how a conservative form of government "teaches a man to fish". It more leaves a person to starve with no fish at all. Let me give you the definitions in their most basic form. Socialism - all for one and one for all. Capitalism - Everyman for himself. Which form of government is more likely to "teach a man to fish"? A higher minimum wage, welfare, etc. is not "giving a man a fish", but instead teaching them how to better construct a successful life by giving them the means to do so. I guess metaphorically a fishing rod, bait, a net, and a boat. So by this, Jesus - who lived by the philosophy of all for one and one for all, would most likely support welfare and social security, which helps others less fortunate then ourselves, and helps the elderly. As for a higher minimum wage, that's not even socialism, that is again - teaching others to live a quality life by giving them the means to do so. Jesus' main drive in life was not to prevent gays from marrying, but was to help others out. With this, it is hard to see why the main focus of so many religious people nowadays is gay marriage.
First of all, the only difference is in the name. So long as they get the other things that a married couple does, I fail to see the difference. Also, if a man and woman only go through the courts and not through a religous ceremony, I'll call that a Civil Union as well.

So, going by what you are saying, heterosexual couples, because they get divorces, rarely, if ever, are in love? I'm sorry, but that just isn't true.

Who ever said the government should teach everyone to do everything? I know I didn't. Anyways, parents should teach their kids to be self-reliant, not the government. Jesus also preached to do things for yourself if you could, and to do things of your own free will. Not to be forced to by anyone else. And that phrase, as I guess I have to put it, says that when your boss or parent teaches you something, you'll be able to take care of yourself instead of relying on handouts. Frankly, I do not care what people do, so long as they do not try to force me to live by their standards. Thus, the importance of the individual.
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Kaplowitz
Posts: 3088
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 5:11 pm

Post by Kaplowitz »

i wish we had a presidential candidate on CC who was a forum regular.
Image
User avatar
muy_thaiguy
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: Back in Black
Contact:

Post by muy_thaiguy »

Kaplowitz wrote:i wish we had a presidential candidate on CC who was a forum regular.
8-[
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Post by Snorri1234 »

muy_thaiguy wrote:First of all, the only difference is in the name. So long as they get the other things that a married couple does, I fail to see the difference. Also, if a man and woman only go through the courts and not through a religous ceremony, I'll call that a Civil Union as well.

But the government doesn't. You can call it not a real marriage like you want but the government says it's a civil marriage and I feel they should extend that to homosexual couples.
So, going by what you are saying, heterosexual couples, because they get divorces, rarely, if ever, are in love? I'm sorry, but that just isn't true.

Not "in love". I've been in love about 2 times, but I don't think me marrying those girls would've been a good idea. People get married too easily nowadays. There's even a show on MTV about kids who aren't even 18 yet marrying.
But anyway, that's not important.

Who ever said the government should teach everyone to do everything? I know I didn't. Anyways, parents should teach their kids to be self-reliant, not the government.Jesus also preached to do things for yourself if you could, and to do things of your own free will. Not to be forced to by anyone else. And that phrase, as I guess I have to put it, says that when your boss or parent teaches you something, you'll be able to take care of yourself instead of relying on handouts. Frankly, I do not care what people do, so long as they do not try to force me to live by their standards. Thus, the importance of the individual.


And gay marriage isn't forcing you to marry gays yourself.
And Jesus might have been for self-reliance, but I still think he wouldn't look to kindly on the current US affairs. There would be too much discrimination and hate for him. Some people need to stop thinking of poor people as a bunch of lazy bastards and see them as people. That way they can help them.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
muy_thaiguy
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: Back in Black
Contact:

Post by muy_thaiguy »

And gay marriage isn't forcing you to marry gays yourself.
And Jesus might have been for self-reliance, but I still think he wouldn't look to kindly on the current US affairs. There would be too much discrimination and hate for him. Some people need to stop thinking of poor people as a bunch of lazy bastards and see them as people. That way they can help them.
I never said that they were lazy bastards, though some certainly are. And at the moment, I'm not able to think to clearly due to pain killers and a late night. I had my wisdom teeth pulled. :oops:
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Iliad
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:48 am

Post by Iliad »

muy_thaiguy wrote:
And gay marriage isn't forcing you to marry gays yourself.
And Jesus might have been for self-reliance, but I still think he wouldn't look to kindly on the current US affairs. There would be too much discrimination and hate for him. Some people need to stop thinking of poor people as a bunch of lazy bastards and see them as people. That way they can help them.
I never said that they were lazy bastards, though some certainly are. And at the moment, I'm not able to think to clearly due to pain killers and a late night. I had my wisdom teeth pulled. :oops:
didn't you say that like a week ago. How long does that take? :?
User avatar
muy_thaiguy
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: Back in Black
Contact:

Post by muy_thaiguy »

Iliad wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
And gay marriage isn't forcing you to marry gays yourself.
And Jesus might have been for self-reliance, but I still think he wouldn't look to kindly on the current US affairs. There would be too much discrimination and hate for him. Some people need to stop thinking of poor people as a bunch of lazy bastards and see them as people. That way they can help them.
I never said that they were lazy bastards, though some certainly are. And at the moment, I'm not able to think to clearly due to pain killers and a late night. I had my wisdom teeth pulled. :oops:
didn't you say that like a week ago. How long does that take? :?
No. I got it done 2 days ago on Friday. :? And it takes around 3-5 days to recover, but no pop for something like 6 weeks or the what not. And I can't have "solid" foods, like steak or chicken and the like. :(
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
ritz627
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:17 pm
Gender: Male

Post by ritz627 »

muy_thaiguy wrote:Who ever said the government should teach everyone to do everything? I know I didn't. Anyways, parents should teach their kids to be self-reliant, not the government.Jesus also preached to do things for yourself if you could, and to do things of your own free will. Not to be forced to by anyone else. And that phrase, as I guess I have to put it, says that when your boss or parent teaches you something, you'll be able to take care of yourself instead of relying on handouts. Frankly, I do not care what people do, so long as they do not try to force me to live by their standards. Thus, the importance of the individual.


Oh I certainly believe in the importance of the individual, don't get me wrong, but I also believe in the importance of being a good Samaritan. I believe that being a good Samaritan over-rides individualism.

And by the way, socialism takes away some degree of economic freedom due to taxes, and that is really the only area where economic freedom and freedom in general is impacted in a socialist society. Economic freedom and freedom in general are different things. Socialism still supports the freedom of the individual but emphasizes the importance of the collective group. I believe that that's more along the lines of the teachings of Jesus Christ than the every man for himself Capitalism. In Socialism you do not force anyone to live by your standards and beliefs, rather endorse the equality of man, again something I believe Jesus would get behind. Socialism is still a democracy, not a dictatorship, that must be made clear. In the interest of time, I have to get going....I have some homework that needs some work....

Now i do believe that we have strayed far from the original topic.
User avatar
Napoleon Ier
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Post by Napoleon Ier »

That's a real shame....I sympathize, I have frequent problems of tha nature due to bizarre growth of my teeth.

Homosexuality : Psychological disease contrary to natural order. Gays can marry, just not each other. There is no reason to give them public recognition whereas they can get all the "rights" they need via Civil Union. Why should we give them marriage?
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
unriggable
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Post by unriggable »

Napoleon Ier wrote:Why should we give them marriage?


Because you're giving them civil unions, which is identical to marriage, and as we all know separate =/= equal.
Image
User avatar
Neutrino
Posts: 2693
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:53 am
Location: Combating the threat of dihydrogen monoxide.

Post by Neutrino »

Napoleon Ier wrote:That's a real shame....I sympathize, I have frequent problems of tha nature due to bizarre growth of my teeth.

Homosexuality : Psychological disease contrary to natural order. Gays can marry, just not each other. There is no reason to give them public recognition whereas they can get all the "rights" they need via Civil Union. Why should we give them marriage?


That is, through lack of a better word, unconstitutional. You're saying that seperate schools for blacks and whites was perfectly fair, since according to the government, the education provided was completely equal (it wasn't, but that's not the point). By having "different, but equal" systems for various groups, you are destroying the basic equality between these groups.
"Normal people get married, but don't get to get married, 'cause you're not normal"

As I said "You can marry, just not who you want".
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...

The Rogue State!
User avatar
Dancing Mustard
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Post by Dancing Mustard »

Napoleon Ier wrote:That's a real shame....I sympathize, I have frequent problems of tha nature due to bizarre growth of my teeth.

Homosexuality : Psychological disease contrary to natural order. Gays can marry, just not each other. There is no reason to give them public recognition whereas they can get all the "rights" they need via Civil Union. Why should we give them marriage?

Because you haven't actually proved that homosexuality is a "psychological disease contrary to natural order". Until you get round to doing that, the rest of your anti-homosexual vitriol is just premised on irrational fear and prejudice. Now I can understand why you might feel that way, but perhaps trying to bury that feeling under a raft of spurious and illogical argument isn't the best way to deal with it?

Seriously, speaking in the nicest way possible here: you've tried to justify your odd desire to discriminate on several different basis now, all of which have met with equally little success when exposed to logic and empirical argument; is it perhaps time to just concede that there's no logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another and that your desire to do so is simply based on a gut feeling that you aren't comfortable with the concept of full homosexual marriage? Because I suspect that, really, all your attempts at justifying your seemingly irrational (yet vehemently and genuinely held) beliefs are just far-fetched devices to conceal what is essentially, a gut feeling on your part.

I'm not criticising you for having that gut-feeling, I'm just saying that trying to justify it with fallacious and spurious arguments might not be the best way of dealing with it. Perhaps simply accepting it as a gut-feeling that refuses to bend to logic might be the best way forward for you? There's no shame in admitting that y'know.

As a point of general interest, and in a non-judgmental way, how many homosexuals do you actually know and/or socialise with on a regular basis?
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Post by Snorri1234 »

DM, have I ever told you how much I love you?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
bradleybadly
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:53 pm
Location: Yes

Post by bradleybadly »

Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for homosexuality then you can't say that it is natural. It is an unnatural behavior. You don't have to be a Christian to support traditional marriage of a man and woman marrying.

Of course if you don't support homosexuals getting married to each other then you get labeled as a bigot. It's one of the tricks of the left. They try to equate the civil rights struggle in America with giving people of the same sex the right to marry. Blacks didn't choose to be black, they were born that way. Homosexuals choose their behavior. Before you bleeding heart idiots start asking me "did you choose to be heterosexual the answer is 'no' because being attracted to the opposite sex is natural.

Slavery used to be legal but that never made it legitimate. Making homosexual marriage legal doesn't make it right either. You're just trying to make something that is unnatural look natural. Then you probably go pat yourselves on the back thinking that you're so moral.
User avatar
unriggable
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Post by unriggable »

bradleybadly wrote:Unless you can prove that there is some type of genetic reason for homosexuality then you can't say that it is natural.


http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn't waste any time before getting down to business.

So it's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party--no, an orgy -- among themselves.

With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

What's going on?

Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.

A report of Odenwald and Zhang's findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the mounting evidence that homosexuality has genetic origins, and is sure to produce new fireworks in the contentious debate over what it means to be gay. The two scientists are not foolhardy enough to claim that a single gene can make a person homosexual. But they think their studies may yield important new insights into how genetic makeup, through a complex series of biochemical reactions, influences sexual orientation.

Such work stirs mixed emotions in the gay community. To some extent, gays and lesbians welcome the research because it supports what most of them have long felt: that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, like skin color, rather than a perverse life-style choice, as conservative moralists contend. And if that is true, then gays deserve legal protection similar to the laws that prohibit racial discrimination. "On a political level, genetic research does seem to move the debate along a certain path," says Denny Lee of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay advocacy group in New York City. "When people understand that being gay or lesbian is an integral characteristic, they are more open-minded about equality for gay Americans."

On the other hand, many gays are wary of the genetic hypothesis. It could, they fear, help promote the notion that gayness is a "defect" in need of "fixing." "Any finding will be used and twisted for homophobic purposes," says Martin Duberman, head of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the City University of New York. "If it does turn out that for some people, there is a genetic or hormonal component, the cry will then arise to take care of that." Indeed, the cry is already rising.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition in Anaheim, California, says that if a biological cause of homosexuality is found, then "we would have to come up with some reparative therapy to correct that genetic defect."

No matter how people feel about the issue, it is increasingly hard to argue that genes play no role in homosexuality. The evidence began to pile up in 1991, when studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings. That same year, a California scientist reported slight brain differences between gay and straight men, although the conclusion is disputed. And in 1993, an NIH researcher found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation. But no one has proved that a particular gene promotes gayness or has offered any convincing theory of how genes could influence a person's choice of sleeping partners.

Odenwald and Zhang do not pretend to have any easy answers. In fact the type of gene they've been studying in fruit flies could not begin to account for the complex variations in human homosexual behavior. For one thing, the gene does not cause flies to renounce heterosexuality altogether. If a "gay" fly is surrounded by females instead of males, he'll fertilize the lady flies. So strictly speaking, the NIH flies are not homosexual but bisexual. And the gene produces no unusual behavior when transplanted into females: the scientists have produced no lesbian fruit flies.

Yet the way the gene works is intriguing, and may offer some clues to the biochemical roots of gayness. Surprisingly, the swatch of DNA in question was discovered long ago, and is one of the most thoroughly studied of all fruit-fly genes. It is called the "white" gene because, among many effects, it influences eye color, and a particular mutation in the gene causes a fly's normally red eyes to be white.

The gene's specific job is to produce a protein that enables cells to utilize an essential amino acid called tryptophan. If fruit flies are unable to process tryptophan properly, then they cannot manufacture red eye pigment.

Under normal circumstances, the white gene is active only in certain cells, including brain cells, and does nothing to disrupt standard sexual behavior. In the NIH experiments, Odenwald and Zhang inserted a normal version of the gene into embryonic flies, but transplanted the gene in such a way that it was activated in every cell. That's what apparently played havoc with the flies' sex lives. With every cell sucking in tryptophan from the blood, a shortage of tryptophan developed in the brain, where it has important uses. Since tryptophan levels were altered, the researchers hypothesize, the brain was unable to make enough serotonin, one of the neurotransmitters that carry messages between nerve cells. Serotonin is a multi-purpose chemical, and abnormal levels of it in humans have been linked to everything from depression to violent behavior. In the case of the gay fruit flies, the scientists speculate, a shortfall of serotonin produced those all-male conga lines.

Though the idea seems far-fetched, it jibes with two decades of research suggesting that serotonin plays a role in regulating sexual behavior. One piece of evidence is the action of the drug Prozac, which relieves depression by lifting serotonin levels in the brain. At the same time, though, the serotonin boost tends to dampen sexual desire. In contrast, low serotonin levels can produce heightened sexual activity, at least in lab animals. In experiments done in the U.S. and Italy, scientists used drugs and special diets to suppress serotonin in rats, mice, cats and rabbits. The result was increased sex drive and, sometimes, homosexual couplings.

As intriguing as it sounds, the serotonin theory is still full of holes. Even if shortages of the chemical increase sexual activity, why would it often be homosexual rather than heterosexual? And if sexual orientation is genetically determined, then why do some identical twins differ in sexual preferences?

Getting the answers, if possible at all, will require much more research. Even harder will be knowing how to use any knowledge that emerges. Will children be given genetic tests to determine the odds of their becoming homosexual? Will prenatal tests lead to abortions of fetuses that might grow up to be gay?

Scientists caution against jumping to conclusions about the meaning of the NIH studies. To complicate the picture, some of the work shows that environment, along with genetics, influences sexual behavior. In one experiment, a small group of "straight" flies was mixed with a larger group of genetically altered "gay" flies.

While the gays formed their conga lines, the straights stayed to the side -- but only temporarily. After a few hours, the straights joined in and, for the time being, acted gay.

In fruit flies, and certainly in humans, sexual orientation is just not a simple matter. And no amount of scientific research is going to change that fact of life.
Image
User avatar
jiminski
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Gender: Female
Location: London

Post by jiminski »

I assume that you are Straight Bradley? if so i have just one question for you: could you ever joyfully have sex with another man?
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”