Debate Same-sex marriage

Well, yes, of course it is - but that doesn't change the fact that this issue specifically deals with the rights of a group of human beings.

Err... so, to put it bluntly, you oppose gay marriage for the sheer sake of sticking to your "side" of things, the right wing of the political spectrum? That doesn't make any sense to me - while I'm probably very much what could be called a liberal, I don't pick my fights just because of that... I see this as an issue which shouldn't be party-based, because we're not talking about whether or not to up taxes or something, we're talking about a blatantly un-Constitutional exclusion of a group of people from the right to marry and enjoy the emotional and, yes, financial benefits that entails.

Of course not. I wouldn't touch a tradition like, say, Sunday mass - because that one doesn't infringe on or deny anyone's rights. But allowing only heterosexual couples to wed DOES constitute denial of the basic right to be treated equally.

Both. "Marriage" is a state of being that many people aspire to all their lives, and so yes, the title is very important. It's a legal and often religious union that many people feel is an important expression of love and devotion. But at the same time, there are certain benefits that married couples get, which currently are denied to homosexual couples. I'm not just talking about the tax breaks and stuff you can get if you have kids - I mean things like the "couple's rate" you can get in, say, golf clubs, or a spousal death benefit to help pay for a funeral. These are things that should be provided for gay couples willing to wed, because to be denied them is basically to be told "You don't count as a couple because you can't get married." To not have these benefits also shows the world that homosexual couples aren't valid. What kind of message is that?

 

Well, are they valid in the first place? That's the point of this whole discussion...
i think...

 

Times change. Blacks, before, weren't considered valid human beings.

Before that, women weren't considered valid to be even remotely on par with men.

There are things that used to be much like this but were changed, for the better, to allow a much more broad area of acceptance. Thoooouuuuugh, now people are just tossing this out the window 'cause it "goes against what they believe", heh.

Figures we'd have to go and make something like this difficult (that other cultures embraced in the past)... leave it to the bigots to claim they aren't valid.

[EDIT] Erm, just to clarify... first, I wasn't calling luvweaver a bigot... was more or less speaking of other people that I've come across in the multiple places I've seen such debates as this...

And, to me, it appeared as if he spoke of the couples in the first place, as well, considering he replied to the statement that denying marriage rights to homosexuals makes it look as if they aren't, as the previous poster termed it (I believe it was Dilandau, too lazy to leave this little Edit window and check ) "valid couples"... just seemed coincidental, is all... but, ya', wasn't calling him a bigot. [/EDIT]

 

Yep. A few hundred years ago, it was totally accepted that black people were sub-human, or at the very least a "lesser" race - just like women were considered the "weaker sex," and incapable of running their own lives. And the arguments that are being used against gay marriage now are basically the same ones that were used then - "but women have ALWAYS been property, it's tradition!" or "It's God's will that the black man serve the white man, because he would fall into sin without our guidance!"

Basically, people are always going to resist change. But eventually, change will occur. Without change, we would never have gotten past stone arrowheads and loincloths. XD Tradition is all well and good, but not all viewpoints and practices can survive. I would like to think that someday we can treat each other as true equals, rather than focusing on the preservation of traditions that make other people needlessly unhappy. (And please, no one jump on me for being senselessly idealistic here - I know damn well that you can't make all of the people happy all of the time, but in the case of gay marriage, I really don't see a single valid argument for denying them that right.)

As for whether gay relationships are valid or not, luvweaver, of course they are! Whether or not you think they're natural or right isn't the issue - but if you can honestly tell me that two men or two women cannot genuinely be in love... Well, I'll probably think you're in serious denial, but I guess that'd be my problem. XD What makes a couple is honest love and trust - and homosexuals are just as capable of those things as straight people. The only thing you need to turn a couple into a married couple is the actual ceremony.

 

Funny... in the ancient rome, homosexuality was often accompanied by paedophilia. Oh, don't forget about men having multiple wives (somehow I think this had been addressed before).

"Oh yeah in the past times black people were slaves!"

This argument is simply a mockery. Wanna know why? Because in those times, where slavery and pedophilia were accepted, homosexuality was accepted too! Christianity brought EQUALITY of rights to men and women . "In Christ, there is no difference between slave or free, man and woman, nor jewish or pagan".

I think we have arrived into times where everything is permitted (even whatever hurts us), and any bit of complaint against this is seen as a horrible drawback. Aren't we exaggerating things? Mixing liberty with abuse, private property with neoliberalism, sex with love...

Anyway, I'd like to read, if somebody can find it... an ancient manuscript (pre-christian) about two homosexual (or lesbian) lovers who want to live a life together.

 

What's that got to do with anything? Heterosexuality is ALSO often accompanied by pedophilia, and frequently, pedophilia itself is less about sexual attraction than about abusing the vulnerability and innocence of children. (Go into any hentai forum and ask male users why they like lolicon - most will tell you, "The girls are so cute and innocent!") Also, a major contributor to child molestation isn't sexual orientation, but repression of sexuality or sexual abuse during the molester's childhood. So I certainly hope you're not trying to argue that homosexuals are inherently predisposed to being kiddie-f***ers.

Besides which, ancient Rome was loaded with all KINDS of excess and debauchery, not all of which was sexual - and the sexual excesses extended to heterosexuality as well.

Not in every time period, m'dear. If you're referring to ancient times, then yes, in some cases tolerance of "alternative" sexual practices was the norm. However, I'm referring to the more recent traditions of racial and gender-based descrimination in US history. There certainly wasn't a notable level of accepted homosexuality there.

But clarify for me - are you trying liken homosexuality to the clearly inhumane practice of western slavery, or to pedophilia, to imply that acceptance of homosexual relationships is something the world is better off without? Seriously, who do homosexual relationships hurt?

If only all Christians would take that belief to heart, the world would be a much better place. But the fact is that MANY Christian-dominated societies were shockingly unequal - see again my reference to pre- and shortly post-Civil War America. (And it's not Christianity that any of us pro-gay-marriage people have a problem with, I think, but the way that it seems to be predominantly Christians who scream about homosexuality being wrong. On the other hand, I've known more than one Christian who thought gays deserved equal treatment.)

Also, if there's "no difference between man and woman" in Christ, what's it matter if two men love each other romantically? Love isn't about physical bodies, it's about emotion and loyalty, which men and women posess equally. Only physical attraction is dependant on the body.

In some cases, yes. Things like smoking in public areas, for example, should be illegal in my opinion. I don't want to breath someone else's carcinogens, and I don't see why they should be allowed to poison my body. But two people of the same gender loving each other and being able to express that love through marriage isn't harmful to me in any way, nor is it harmful to them.

In fact, having said that, I think I actually agree with you. It's harmful to homosexual couples to be treated as second-class citizens - harmful psychologically, but also economically, and in other ways, because it makes it easier for people to justify treating them as less valid as life partners. So why is that whenever someone complains about this horrible discrepency between the treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals, someone comes in shrieking that it would be awful, degrading, and against the natural order to let these people marry like other human beings?

Tch, this modern-day moral complacency is horrible.

 

Of course, it would seem like pedophilia to us nowadays, what, with fourteen year olds having children. But then you'd have to take into account the fact that humans at that time were only expected to live, at best, half the amount of time as we are today. In those ages, the times people started having children, they were in their prime, and the high point of their lives and ages.

Though, of course.. figures, any argument for Homosexual marriages is misconceived, incorrect or "a mockery". Guess that makes the other side of this fence right, eh?

 

You know, that's a really good point. I think I mentioned in one of my other recent posts that several hundred years ago, it was commonplace for girls to be married off before they'd even hit fifteen. Some were married at twelve. Putting a twelve-year-old into a marriage would definitely constitute child abuse nowadays, but then, while I wouldn't say it was right - because it was all part of the degradation of women and the idea that they shouldn't have/didn't need any say in their own married lives - it certainly wasn't pedophilia in most cases. Pedophiles tend to be sexually attracted to children because of their age and vulnerability specifically, and may be incapable of relationships with adults, or only maintain them as a facade because that's what society expects of them. But in a society where people were considered adults midway into their teenage years, you can't really look at it the same way as you would if a grown man and a twelve-year-old were having sex today.

I'm not trying to justify involving young children in sexual acts, mind you - just demonstrating that this is yet another change in viewpoint.

Anyway, to get back on topic, a LOT of viewpoints have changed throughout history. And it's not always just ONE change. Things waffle back and forth. Mindsets change to accomodate the times, and vice versa. Homosexuality has been viewed differently by many cultures throughout history. (In fact, some Native American tribes actually allowed gay men to live as women, basically functioning as their partner's wife. I vaguely remember being told that back in, like, ninth grade, and it just came to mind now. It's not the written account you asked for, luvweaver, but nevertheless this practice was in existence before Christian settlement of the US.)

 

This is kinnda funny almost everybad thing that somebody says against gay's has to have something to do with the bible church ect...

Why cant people say anyhting else ecept for the same thing over and over or is there nothing to say other that somehting about what the bilbe or church says?

I for one no not belive in the bible I dont think that a book a person wrote should be a lines and bounderys for our life it is so dumb it is the same as taking a Fiction book lets see Harry Potter and then trying to live your life as in that way.

In church it is the same way there is a man standing up and telling you what right and what is wrong.He aslo reads out of the bible-a fiction book!(can you really prove me wrong that the bible isnt fiction?)(If you can please mail me and tell me).
I think that gays are the same as anybodie else why do you think they shouldnt get married?Isnt marriege just stating that you love somebody and you want to be with them forever...unless later you find out that you dont like this person wich ends in a divorce.Can you tell me one thing about gays getting married that doesnt have to do with the bible or that you think it is wrong just because you dont like it?

As a gay personwe should have everyright like everybody else there is nothing differnt about gay couples and straight couples.
They both love each other and that is all that should matter.I think that that it is funny it says we are are equal oh what not you caus your gay is hwat it seems to me like people are saying.

I think people are more or less racist when they say that people that people shouldnt get marrided because it is a man-man or woman-woman.It is the same as saying you shouldnt get married because you are black or you are white.

 

You have to look at it from both perspectives though...the Bible, to many, is the basis for their religion. It is unfair to say that it is not rigt to follow the Bible because it would be like telling a person who follows the laws they beleive in to disobey their laws.

This subject is a very disputed subject in many peoples eyes. First and foremost you need to recognize the desire in these relationships, in many relationships these days marriage is a sign of un-requainted love and thats all most of these people wish to do, express their love to each other in the best way possible. Everyone is entitled to love who they wish...it's a human emotion that can't be changed because someone doesnt think it is right.

I belive in the Bible. but some people dont realize that all they are doing is trying to suppress other people. I may not be God, Hell i fall way too short, but it isnt right for us to determine what a person is allowed to feel, It takes away from our rights as humans. I dont care what people have to say about Sodom and Gomorrah because we are not Sodom and Gomorrah we are the United States of America, not a wicked condemned place as such... we are a country of the free and a country with morals.

 

No. Actually I'm using it as a counterpoint. Saying that with prohibitions it's like "going back in time", is a rather weak argument.

If love does not imply sex, homosexuality is left behind. (Point in my favor). But anyway, what i tried to address that bible quote, was that Christianity, even when it's despised by many for being "too prohibiting" actually made some improvements to society, and i'm using this to counter the "dark times" argument.

That is right. But here's some question: If giving full rights (including adoption) to homosexual couples, could eventually harm either them or their children or a third party (psychologically speaking)... how lawful it would be? Since we don't know the origin of homosexuality, we don't know how much it can affect a person or group's psyche, and how that can damage society as a whole. (I'm not saying it IS harmful. I'm just saying that we DON'T KNOW, and thus, we need caution). But heterosexuality is already accepted as a de-facto standard, and this is why we need to be more cautious about giving "full rights".

For example, money for funeral. In a heterosexual couple, *usually* the man works, and the woman doesn't (and if she works is because she needs the money). So if he dies, she needs the money to solvent the expenses and to maintain their children. But with a homosexual couple, in the first place, there are no children to maintain (with the exception of VERY SPECIAL CASES), and the other person can also have a work (they're the same gender, after all). So this case is quite different from the typical widow case. So why not the same rights? Because, in some cases, those rights are not needed in the first place.

In summary: Homosexuals and heterosexuals have different right because the cases are completely different. Just as men and women (a man doesn't need insurance for birth complications, because he can't get pregnant - get the idea? ). Besides, the declaration of human rights applies to INDIVIDUALS, not COUPLES. And homosexuals share their participation on these rights.

The pro-gay groups wanting to have "the same rights" than hetero couples, IMHO, are simply making up this "rights" thing. It doesn't exist.

OK, i'm done with this post.
*quickly ducks for flames, more arguments and the occasional karma penalty *

 

Okay. The stupidity that stood out to me most in your post was your "In a heterosexual couple, *usually* the man works, and the woman doesn't (and if she works is because she needs the money)." comment. I mean... The absurdity, ignorance and arrogance with which you said it made me laugh. So I guess I should give you kudos for that much. What time period do you live in? The 50's? Haha. Get with the times, my man. I'm not going to make a point, Amon will do that without any help from me and probably do a better job of it, anyway. I do have this to say, though....

It's not that I don't like the bible because it's "prohibiting". I dislike the bible because it's a load of horse manure. If not lower than that. I'm not even sure I really need to point out why I believe this. Aside from the fact women were treated as mere objects and trophies than, you know, human beings. I guess that's my biggest beef with that "book". And the whole part about how homosexuals ought to rot in hell. It's okay to boink your cows, your goats. Hell, even your chickens! But don't you dare touch another man. You go to hell for that.

 

Oh... yes... because after all it is completely, one hundred, absolutely, inconceivably and positively impossible for any single homosexual human being in the entire planet, of all 8 billion people, however many of them are homosexuals, its quintessentially ABSURD that they ever, ever, ever love someone of the same gender. Of COURSE, they're just doing it to get off. It's just stupid </sarcasm>

Much like the idea of an invisible man in the sky and made-up rules.

This, once again, goes back to the already brought up point that if you are going to be that anal-retentive (no pun intended), then that we should permanantly forbid any form of fornication, reproduction and procreation. No test-tube babies either. Be wary, they could be tainted (And, ohmigosh, they could turn out gay! Heaven forbid).

I return, once again, to my good ole' friend, Mr. Sarcasm. Oh... of course... it's just as moronic as homosexuals actually being capable of love that women actually WANT to work. Of COURSE, that's the MAN'S (read; chauvinistic, controlly, tyrranical, womanizing, sexist neanderthal) job only, because women aren't supposed to work. So I guess that means a couple of a woman who wants to work for the sake of working, and a man working because he's the "dominant" one, and one or the other has a difficulty with their reproductive system, rendering the couple incapable of ever having children... they are set aside from the typical widow case because they meet your requirements that you have given to homosexuals. Guess they don't have rights. Hey, maybe that means unfertileo or barren men/women can't get married either. Because, after all... if everyone who can't have a baby and all them gays start getting married, the population's going to die out.

Women who can't get pregnant don't need insurace for birth complications. Can't get pregnant. They have the same lack of rights. Ta-da, problem solved. Besides... homosexuals, AS INDIVIDUALS, deserve the right.

Okay, enslave the blacks, put the women back in the kitchen, gotchya'. Next?

 

Well, the simple fact is that nearly every argument used against gay rights in general, or gay marriage specifically, has been used in some form in the past to deny rights to other groups - say, minority ethnic/religious groups or women. Tradition, natural order, whatever... those are the fallback points of bigots who don't feel comfortable with whatever group is fighting for their rights at the moment.

Say wuh? If we seperate sex and love completely, then SEXUAL PREFERENCE IN GENERAL doesn't matter. (Remember that homosexual people are still perfectly capable of breeding - it's called being a donor. If everyone kept sex and love strictly seperated, there would be absolutely no reason to reserve reproduction-based privileges for straight people only.)

Mind you, I think it'd be great if we were all hermaphrodites so this whole stupid argument would be nullified completely. XD It would be wonderful if we were all just floaty souls without bodies to hinder us with nations of physical beauty or racial bigotries, or hang us up on sexuality.

Well, unlike some supporters of gay rights, I don't despise Christianity at all - just the way it's used sometimes. (And ALL religions can be abused.)

ANYTHING can be potentially harmful. But I certainly haven't seen any kind of proof that homosexual couples are more likely to harm their children or anyone else physically or pshycologically. The only damage I could see relating to being raised by homosexual parents is if the children are constantly hearing that they're not part of a "real" family, that their parents are unnatural or sinners, etc. And that's not the result of the couple being gay, it's the sad symptom of a society wallowing in bigotry.

By your argument, we should also deny the right to have or adopt children to any group which isn't socially popular. Just to restate again what's been said numerous times, this would rule out members of certain religious (or athiest) sects, people of certain races and/or interracial couples, poverty-line couples, disabled persons, single parents, and any number of other people whose only "fault" as parents is that the less openminded individuals in society may give their kids a hard time because of their own problems with bigotry, or their need to put others down for whattever reason.

Homosexuality is not the alien pod out of some fifties horror flick. We don't need to treat it like it's going to sprout tentacles and eat our babies the minute we turn our backs on it. ;P

How many homosexual people have you known personally? I'm just asking, because I really wonder if you could argue some of your points if you had a few gay or lesbian friends who wanted to get married or raise a family.

Incidentally, I feel the need to point out that the vast, sweeping, overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian individuals have straight parents, or at the very least, parents who engaged in heterosexual intercourse and were probably involved in prolonged het relationships in order to have children. What does that tell you?

So just because two people in a relationship CAN work, this means they A. want that kind of relationship and B. don't need certain benefits? First off, your argument is sexist (what if the wife dies - does this mean the husband shouldn't get any benefit to help with the funeral cost?). Second, I don't think you realize just how many families there are where both spouses work at least part-time. Many women don't want to be housewives, and many men want to spend time at home with their kids instead of working all damn day, or they want to pursue more personal and less lucrative careers, or finish a degree, or whatever.

In SOME CASES, perhaps this is true. But I don't think that homosexuals are "completely different" from heterosexuals - for one thing, we're all human beings.

An example: spousal/couple discounts at certain resorts or clubs. I'm not talking about a FAMILY discount, but one that would apply to a married couple regardless of whether or not they have kids. Why shouldn't a gay couple that plans to stay together for life be eligible for that benefit? If it's because they're not married... well! You see how denial of marriage rights removes other rights and privileges for no logical reason? I mean, straight couples don't NEED a couples' rate at their golfing green, do they? But they get it, and if they're going to get it, then devoted gay couples should too. (Mind you that descrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. ~_^)

Maybe so, but his wife DOES need it - and in case you weren't aware, lesbians CAN become pregnant, so they at least should be given such consideration. Perhaps a provision to apply insurance for birth complications would be in order if a gay couple wanted to have a surrogate mother carry their child(ren). Straight couples use surrogate mothers if the wife can't carry a baby, after all. Does that mean they don't have a need for said insurance?

Mm, just like the pro-minority rights groups and the pro-women's rights groups were just making it all up, because black people are barely above monkies and women wouldn't know what to do with their own property, right? Those groups were considered "completely different" too, y'know. </sarcasm and biting, acrid scorn>

 

Ever heard of platonic love? My point is, if people are free to love whomever they want, but without having sex, then there's nothing wrong about it. But what we're discussing here is whether homosexual couples should have the same government-given rights than heterosexual couples.

Well, unlike some supporters of gay rights, I don't despise Christianity at all - just the way it's used sometimes. (And ALL religions can be abused.)

Yeah, but not all christians are homophobes. In fact, the catholic doctrine is very generous with homosexual persons. I've heard homosexuals complain that if they don't "change" their sexual preferrence, they'd go to hell. (On a sidenote, Roman Catholicism says that homosexuals can live in chastity just as any non-married person, and go to heaven - http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/ is a webpage of a catholic homosexual who lives up to the catholic standards).

Well, i admit it, I haven't either... but I do have a couple of points:
a) It is not known if the cause of homosexuality can be psychologically-based, and
b) People with psychological problems often harm (inadvertedly) their children

So this is why I say we should be cautious. Until the causes (and "remedy"??? <-- obligatory quotes and question marks for unknown subject) of homosexuality are known, we can't be 100% sure that a homosexual parent would be a better parent had he been heterosexual.

You're right, but we also know something. It' in the heterosexual genes to find disgusting the sight of two homosexuals of the same gender kissing, or huggling. If someone feels an innate rejection for even the mention of something that disgusts him (or her), how would that be discrimination if they can't change it? Now, a very different thing is homophobia, which is an irrational and open hatred towards homosexuals.

Well, if they're capable of adopting, there's no problem. But you have a valid point about religious cults. Would you give your child in adoption to a branch davidian? Adoption rules must ensure that the adopted child will live in healthy conditions.

Thanks for asking that. I've met some online homosexuals that have heavy psychological problems i.e. depression, etc. And I would like to see a stadistical study on homosexuality and depressive problems - but I'm afraid left wing parties would lynch me if i'm in their sight.

Well if homosexuality has a psychological basis, then we'd have to check what's wrong with the parents. I really don't understand the point of your question. Besides, you have a false point in there. Of course the majority of gay and lesbian individuals have straight parents... gay parents overall are a "vast, sweeping, overwhelming" minority. What does that tell you?

Oh, there's a law like that in the US? Well, where I come from, this benefit of the funeral cost doesn't exist AT ALL. Of course, there's the LIFE INSURANCE. But any person can get one.

That's a problem belonging to the US economy and the way the economy is driven in the world. But please, let's not move off topic.

Yes, of course we are. But I alredy said it, homosexuals are already by the human rights declaration.

But a married couple CAN (and very probably WILL) have kids. If homosexuals _NEED_ to adopt kids to earn these "rights" (hey, i'm going to have a kid, now give me my discount! Now let me see who I can adopt...) , well, then there's a problem. Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying homosexuals are evil and are just using adoption. I'm just saying that since homosexual couples are not naturally FERTILE by themselves, the "rights" granted to people who form a FAMILY, should at least wait until the adoption is done. And the same could be said about infertile heterosexual couples, but the circumstancial probability of them adopting is much greater, and widely accepted.

By themselves???? That is my point right now. Homosexual unions are sterile "per-se". There needs to be some form of heterosexual union to produce a child. (Unless we're considering cloning, but ... nah)

Yes, but I'm against that, too. Please note that many "advances" of the american society - in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, divorce, abortion - are all rejected by the Catholic Church (to which I belong). Of course if you state all of these advances to be good and beneficial for society, we could engage in another kilometric debate.

(My point: See how many things in society that you take for granted and use as arguments, can be questioned).

Like abortionists? (Inserts flame-bait and runs away finishing his "sarcasm and biting, acrid scorn" )

 

Ah, but you see, a heterosexual couple can get married and get all of the government benefits afforded to any other married couple (excluding those related to children) without EVER having sex. And they can go ahead and get those child-related benefits too, if they adopt. So a chaste heterosexual couple is STILL given more than a chaste homosexual couple would be. That's what I take issue with. After all, whether people are sexually active within their relationship is none of my concern - because sex is not the necessary precursor of a romantic relationship. It's an important aspect of most, but I don't think that the ability to breed (with or without artificial assistance) should determine whether or not two people can marry.

Thankfully.

That's very nice of them, but I still think the "you can go to heaven as long as you don't have sex with your life partner" idea falls a little bit short of... well, I won't say fair, but I think it's a bit unrealistic to place so much value on singling out the "right" way for people to love each other. Personally, I don't see why any consensual, private act of sex or love should be condemned. *shrug*

I guess what it comes down to... is that none of us, in my opinion, can know exactly what's moral and what's a "sin." I would say that a sin is something done despite the belief that it is wrong, or the knowledge that it will harm someone. I don't think that two men having consensual intercourse is harmful to me, to them, or to anyone else, provided that they're as discreet about it as anyone else should be (ex., I don't want to hear their bed squeaking from across the street). I think sexual intimacy is a valid expression of homosexual OR heterosexual love, whether it produces children or not, because while sex is not in and of itself love, it's one of many ways that we as humans can express love.

Just like marriage is a way that we can express love, regardless of if we're having sex or not.

Romantic love and sexual love usually go together, but they don't have to - I could love someone romantically and remain chaste, for example, but that would not necessarily make it platonic love. Now, I don't think that it really works the other way... I mean, I wouldn't call it "sexual love" if there wasn't romantic love involved, you know? It'd be "sexual intimacy" at best. But I digress...

I see where you're coming from, but I'll reiterate: I don't think that homosexual people are any less competent to parent then heterosexual individuals just because of sexual preference. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. But anyway, this is a secondary issue - since I do still think that parenting, while an important aspect of many marriages, should not be a REQUIREMENT to get married.

Wait... where'd you get this information?

I think that any repulsion felt at the sight/idea of homosexual intimacy comes from learned stigma, not from genetic programming. Before I was really old enough to understand issues of sexuality (say, maybe eight or nine years old), I had seen my friend's father and his boyfriend kiss. I was a bit curious, but I certainly wasn't repulsed or disturbed.

Also, if straight people are genetically programmed to find homosexual behavior disgusting, why is lesbian action so popular among straight men, and why do I know so many straight women who love yaoi and/or gay porn? *laughs*

They can choose not to express that repulsion through their words and actions. There are certain things that I don't like - particular views or lifestyle choices (say, certain religious views, or the way people raise their kids, etc) - but no one is forcing me to practice them, and whenever these things are benign, it's certainly not my place to try to change them.

I said sects, not cults. "Cult" implies an unstable and often unhealthy environment, one which is frequently a scam cloaked as a religious belief. I was speaking more of valid religions which are, for whatever reason, not terribly mainstream in a given area, and therefor potentially subject to descrimination or harassment. (For example, I'm sure there are a fair number of Muslims who've been taking crap over the war recently - but that doesn't mean I would deny adoption rights to a Muslim couple, provided they met all the other criteria.)

So have I, but how much of that is because they've grown up surrounded by social stigma, and how much is actually linked specifically to their homosexuality? (Sounds like maybe we should consider that Nature vs. Nurture debate thread... XD)

I know quite a few homosexual or bisexual people, some of whom are extremely close friends, and for the most part they're just as stable as anyone else. As a matter of fact, one friend recently had a sex change (female to male), because he always felt that he was a gay man in a woman's body - and although he DOES have some problems with depression (due entirely, I might add, to his family's lack of support for the procedure, and to a recent tragedy in the family), he's a very upbeat, spiritual, moral, wonderful person, and he would make a great father or spouse in my opinion.

Also, I'd point out that depression is disturbingly common among teenagers - particularily those who feel "different" or singled out from the mainstream. Have you spoken only to homosexuals in their teens or early twenties? Could be a factor right there.

So would I, actually. But I would also like to see said study conducted with appropriate information to chart the prevalence of depression and other problems among homosexuals who are closetted, versus those who are out and taking sh*t for it, and those who are out and accepted by their family and friends - as well as other factors that can cause depression, such as heredity and substance abuse.

*chuckles* I wasn't being entirely serious. ^_^ I'm just saying - we won't KNOW how gay people perform as parents overall unless it becomes fairly mainstream, will we? Heterosexual parents screw their children up like crazy all the time. My point is, I guess, that it's the quality of the parenting that's relevant, not the orientation of the parents... and I think that you'd find a similar ratio of competent and incompetent parenting practices among homosexuals and heterosexuals, if there were equal numbers of each.

I guess there's no point in my saying again that I don't think kids should be the qualifier for ANY marital/couple benefits other than those relating directly TO children... ^^;

So then I guess our difference of opinion comes from whether or not the primary point of marriage is to express love and devotion, or to produce children.

We both take a lot of our own arguments for granted, actually, and that's what makes a debate like this such a thorny one. The issue speaks to SO many of our most closely held beliefs...

Not sure I get your point here, but Bloodberry will probably hurt us if we follow that line of discussion here... XD

 

Blah, I haven't frequented in a good few days, so I'm just reading through everything and picking out points I deem argueable.

But Hiro, nobody's telling the Christians to disobey their laws, for as long as they're not homosexuals themselves, there's no denying them a spot in heaven, correct? (Other then if they disobey another commandment or important Biblical law, but you understand what I'm getting at, right?) So it shouldn't really *matter* to them whether or not homosexual marriage is condoned, for as long as they don't participate in the act themselves, they can just ignore it altogether.

*chuckles* You make it sound as if homosexuals are a chemically altered animal we must experiment on to deem whether it's safe to release to the masses. Just how exactly would it psychologically harm anyone? If you don't allow homosexuals to marry it isn't as if they're all going to suddenly see what you might term as "the harm in their ways" and turn into heterosexual couples. The only difference would be the actual ceremony and the rights that accompany it, which shouldn't be denied to *any* group of people, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Yes, I can see how (if homosexuals were to adopt) it might create a little social turmoil for the kid growing up in a world of prejudice and minimal acceptance of anyone not falling into their cookie-cutter categories, but (if anything) it might help the kid mature more and *not* turn into yet another homophobe. Besides, there are literally dozens more "adoption" scenarios where it might be deemed "harmful" to the respective child, but eventually works out for the better anyway.

Blech, almost all the other topics I would've responded to have already been passed over, so I'll just leave with one final note.

Luvweaver (and all you other anti-homo-marriage followers): Imagine we lived in a world where homosexuality *WAS* considered natural and heterosexuality wasn't. (I realize this would eventually cause the population to die out, but let's pretend I'm not lazy and think up something more imaginative). Now you've just discovered that you're heterosexual, and after going through a series of denial and other frightened emotions, you accept your "disorder" (as your homosexual world would term it), and are ready to announce it to the world. The only problem is that heterosexuality is rare amongst your planet, and thus not widely accepted, and those who used to consider you a friend are beginning to shun you or distance themselves from you in subconcious fear. Finally you meet somebody like yourself, and after a year or so of steady dating you're ready to take the next step and wed in order to allow those who are still loyal to you to help you celebrate finding true love at last, plus gain all the benefits and misc. perks of marriage. Then you discover (even though you probably would have known this in advance, but let's pretend you're lazy like me and didn't want to research it) that not only is heterosexuality frowned upon, acting upon it is prohibited. Would you say that it's fair to deny yourself true love on the basis that you're not "normal" so you shouldn't be allowed the privledges that "normal" people take for granted?

 

i think that they should just let the people get married to to who they want to get married with. it's like the government or whatever is telling you who you can and cannot marry. it's terriblbe.