I forgot to put this in.
I support same sex marriage, what is everyone else's opinion on it.
You don't have to protest violently to get a point across.
How do you not see it as a big deal. It's discrimination, there is no other way to put it.
"Those who make peaceful resolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
Why would you judge yourself based on one isolated incident? That's like saying you shouldn't trust police because one sold drugs.
Communism would only work if everyone did it, just like Pacifism
I do not support Same Sex Marriage.
I’m just sharing my base position, for the purpose of weighing the overall sentiment of the forums on the matter.
I'm going to make this brief because I don't like the forums that much.
I agree with BerkaZerka.
I am a Christian and a disciple of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and it is clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. But, it being a sin doesn't mean it is any worse than any other sin that is out there. Lust, greed, envy, murder, thievery, etc. It is all the same in God's eyes. That is why people can repent of that sin if they accept the Lord into their hearts and the Lord is faithful and just to forgive them of that sin.
That is what I believe.
Not to really insult you or your church but the Bible has mass murder and incest inside it.
The difference between the two is that the Bible does actually support it.
Separation of Church and State.
God created men to love women and women to love men.
And the Constitution created the Seperation of Church and State.
(please note that I am being sarcastic) Oh wait I forgot, when I went into this conversation I forgot that homosexuals don`t have the same rights as straight people! So the right to marry anyone they like doesn't affect them!
Screw that, imma marry my waifu.
On topic, I don't really mind gay marriage. I'd prefer they have something the exact same, just not called marriage, but don't really care.
No it's not. It's like saying "here you can have an apple, you just can't call it an apple". Either way you still get the apple, and it's still every bit as much an apple as any other apple, aside from the name.
As of now the closest they can get is something you automatically get when you live 5 years with someone (forget what it's called), but it's doesn't have the same benefits as marriage.
All men are created equal.
If we're all so equal, why do we have to call it by another name? Personally, I think marriage is a joke and I don't intend to ever get married but if some wants it, let them.
I think we should scrap the phrase all together because it isn't true at all. Life is extremely unfair and no two people are equal.
But it's not the same thing? Marriage between a gay couple and straight couple is different, because one is gay and one is straight. Two different names for two different types of marriage makes sense. In the end they're still getting the same rights.
That's an odd comparison....The watch is a watch no matter who wears it. Marriage is between two people of different sexes and gay marriage is between two people of the same sex. We already specify that it's "gay marriage" and not just "marriage" anyways. Only difference now would be that gay marriage would be given an actual name rather than being known as the gay version of marriage.
Why are you even arguing, you BOTH SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, no matter what it's called! The way I see it, you're both right! Yes, it is discrimination, but if gay marriage is allowed, who cares what it's called?
I do. By refusing to call it marriage, you're only saying that they are different.
That's like saying that a pro-segregationist and a pro-civil rights person should have stopped arguing because they both supported the abolition of Slavery. Even though the process itself was stopped (or started, in the case of gay marriage) there are still rights that homosexuals have access to as an American citizen. To refuse them the rights that every other citizen has effectively makes homosexuals second class citizens.
And also, since this argument is being resurrected, if someone sold you an apple and told you you couldn't call it an apple, would you just go "oh, alright" and eat the thing formerly known as apple, or would you ask "why the heck can't I call it an apple like you can?"
Really depends on how hungry you are at the moment ;)
While you have a point, what I meant was, if gay couples do get to be married and do whatever married people do, does it matter what it's called if they get the same rights in practice? After all, if you have a ute and a buggy in front of you, they're still cars you can drive, no matter what they're called! Instead of squabbling over names, shouldn't we be trying to make this happen?
If it's just the same thing under a different name, then why can't it be marriage? I really don't see the logic in changing the name of it. If it's the same thing, why should it be named differently?
I do see your point, and I agree in full, but maybe we should take it one step at a time. Just get it so that they can get married, then try and make it called just 'marrage'.
The difference is that a Chevrolet and a Toyota are two completely different brands. Yeah, they're both cars, but they have completely different models, additions, parts, etc.
Gay marriage and Straight marriage, however, are both the same thing. Two people who love each other are united under the law, share their insurance, and merge their property. So, because it's the same thing, not calling it marriage implies that the process is somehow different just because they're gay rather than straight. Saying that people can't perform the same marriage because they're gay is the same as saying that people can't drink from the same fountains because they're black.
I forgot to put this in my last message, but with the pro-segregationist and the pro-civil rights people, they had very different views on other things too, so they couldn't stop arguing, but here we're talking about one topic, and one topic only! For example, me and my friend have different views on lots of things, but when we're on the same side in an argument, we don't disagree with each other.
I realize that, but we're not on the same side of this debate (otherwise, the debate itself wouldn't exist).
I suppose, but wasn't the original debate about if it should be allowed at all (and it should), not what it's called?
I have a similar position. If they're all adults and consenting I don't see what the big deal is.
EndMaster is right.
I fully support it. I like End's position that it's all about informed consent. I suspect that in a few years people will look on this issue with horror; much like protesting civil rights in the 50s.
Marriage was originally a church concept
No....no it was not.
The concept was in the bible because marriage pre-dates the bible. The bible adopted marriage.
Well, the modern concept of western marriage comes from the bible (or at the very least is influenced by it), but the bible did not create marriage.
Given that your original arguement was: "Marriage was originally a church concept so I think that marriage should remain a religious concept", the reasoning behind your opinion on gay marriage is wrong, since marriage was not originally a church concept.
Your explaination posts just proves that the concept of marriage was present and defined in the bible. It doesn't support your original claim that the church created marriage. I never said marriage wasn't in the bible.
Only thing I could see you arguing is something along the lines of "western marriage is based on the church's version of marriage and I don't think that should change because I am a catholic and I like it the way it is/would feel offended if it was different".
Though in the end it seems you want to let gay couples marry, just not call it marriage, which is the same thing I want anyways. So I agree with your opinion, just not your reasoning behind it lol.
I guess you could say the church coined the word "marriage" though.
I also support gay marriage, just because they like the same sex does not mean they are any different from anyone who likes the opposite sex
I support the gay marriage. I don't see why same sex relationships should be any different than 'normal' relationships, so why shouldn't they be able to marry as well?
Why should that make it illegal though?
Just like white people and black people are different because of the color of their skin, but they're not morally different so they shouldn't be discriminated against.
I support gay marriage because I am American and I have no right to control other peoples lives.
I don't support gay people somewhat, because 1-they usually don't have children of there own, 2- I fear children they do have will be gay, but that is probably unlikely. ( I don't mean born gay, I mean raised gay)
I am probably writing something wrong I am just kind of tired.
1. They usually don't? I'd be extremely surprised if one gay couple had a child.
2/ I extremely disagree with that. Why would a gay couple raise their child to be gay after all of the shit they've undoubtedly gone through?
Plenty of gay couples adopt children....
Also don't see how one would raise a child to be gay to begin with.
I know that, I meant if one couple had a child biologically.
I thought it was a given that that was not possible lol.
That's what I meant when I said I'd be extremely surprised. haha
Posts at the bottom so pic will get noticed. Poker face. Also, having problems posting a pic.
http://www.damnlol.com/joke-of-the-week-21845.html <the pic
Cant gay couples have there children carried by someone else?
Also these websites below say that there is a greater chance of children becoming gay if raised by homosexual parents. There are probably counter studies or these websites might just be spewing out fake crap but im to lazy to check, so ill stick with it until one of you guys refutes it.
1.) Yeah, it's called surrogacy. Homesexual couples or Heterosexuals who can't have children pay women to carry an artificially inserted sperm and egg untill it's time to give birth. That way, their DNA is still carried on through the child, even though men/women can't impregnate each other naturally
2.) A common assumption is that you can be gay by being in proximity to others who are gay, despite the fact that homo/heterosexuality occurs in genetic code.
First, being gay means having a deep mental illness.
No normal person is gay. It's usual, yes, but it doesn't mean it's normal. There's a genetic issue that causes "gayness". Some DNA sequences must be female for a male to be gay.
Also, it might be the result of sexual abuse while the "gay" was a child, or a female-less environment for a long duration ( while in the army, for example).
Second, marriage between gays might not be that creepy as everyone thinks. If they are both males and both gay, then link it to what i said earlier: to be gay, you must be female somewhere in the DNA, meaning that basically, there aren't two men marrying, there is one half-man half-woman marrying another half-man half-woman, meaning a total of a man and a woman, just like a normal couple.
While being gay in the first place is not normal, gay marriage is just as normal as any usual marriage.
I don't have anything against gays ( except 3-4 individuals who tried to make me join the group).
Those are just facts. 'Ts all I gotta say about it.
You are wrong. Actually just plain wrong.
You have a deep mental illness. In fact, I think that to your core, you're one of three things:
1. An incredible moron incapable of questioning even basic premises put toward you by other people; one who simply cannot think critically and therefore a person only useful for menial tasks that don't require thought
2. An evil, evil fucktard incapable of love or tolerance or,
3. Someone so young that you truly don't even understand what you're saying.
I'll start by completely ripping apart your logic.
STATEMENT A: "There's a genetic issue that causes "gayness""
STATEMENT B: "Also, it might be the result of sexual abuse while the "gay" was a child, or a female-less environment for a long duration ( while in the army, for example). "
Are you saying that sexual abuse modifies ones genome? Either it's a genetic thing or it's not a genetic thing. As someone who has studied advanced genetics, I'll tell you that people are not turned gay during their life.
There's an article about it. In particular:
"The evidence, they conclude, is that people are born with their sexuality defined, and it is not the result of their relationships with other people in their early life, as had been previously thought."
But, lets go further than that:
"Some DNA sequences must be female for a male to be gay."
You're an amazing geneticist. What an incredible breakthrough. I had no idea that sequences of bases could have gender. Does guanine have a penis? Does cytosine have a vagina? It's pretty amazing that you've discovered this. Or maybe I misunderstand, is it certain lengths of sequences? How do base pairs have hormones? Usually gender is related to sexuality. How do base pairs fuck? Can base pairs be gay? If so, how do you explain THAT?
You end your post with "Those are just facts."
They aren't. You have no facts. You have only pathetic, hurtful musings. Here's how things actually are:
1. Gay people are born gay. It's from a combination of genes and hormones while in the womb. Not afterwards. Even if they weren't, it wouldn't matter because there's no "wrong" sexual orientation. No inferior sexual orientation. No superior sexual orientation.
2. Gay people are 100% normal. And common. My sister is gay, she's not abnormal. She's no more mentally ill than I am and she's a whole hell of a lot less mentally ill than you are.
3. There's no "genetic issue" because being gay isn't wrong and so there's no issue. Just a genetic difference.
4. Sexual abuse creates fucked up people but it doesn't change sexual orientation. It might lead to a person desiring to experiment with other people (maybe same or opposite gendered people) but it won't change sexual orientation. If it did, it would account for an absurdly minute percentage of the gay population.
5. If you still believe gender is binary (which I don't) then a gay man is still 100% man. Not 50%. Men have two different chromosomes, women have two of the same. A gay man still has two different chromosomes and is still, therefore 100% man.
Do some research.
I assumed he was trolling to preserve my faith in humanity.
You know what? Fuck you.
Ty for explaining 3J and Bo.
Also just to clear up any feelings, I am not homophobic or anything like that, I just believe people should have children to pass on themselves.
1.) Through surrogacy, the DNA line of homosexuals will be passed on.
2.) So if a man is impotent, he shouldn't be given the right to marry as he can't have children.
1) I know you said that....
2) No, I have no control over that nor would I outlaw it if I did because again I have no right to do so. Also the wife could get children still through Artificial insemination, which I would hope they would do.
2.) However, if they cna't produce children, why wouldn't you judge them as badly as homosexuals? Both of them can't reproduce directly, the indirect reproduction is exactly the same, and it's a choice for neither party.
I a bit tired so this might be a derp answer but homosexuals can still have children indirectly, infertile people cant have children at all, so I don't understand how the indirect reproduction is a choice for neither party.
1.) You just said that you look down on gays because they can't pass on their bloodline, so I pointed out how they can. Since you agree that they can pass it on, I really don't see why you look down on them. Your soul reason for doing so has been shown to be wrong.
2.) Actually, with surrogacy they take a sperm or an egg from the parents (depending on which is infertile) and mix it in order to impregnate a willing surrogate (it can't be her egg because that could make her feel the baby should be hers and cancel the deal.) It's very improbable to have two infertile people get married, but not impossible. This makes the surrogacy between heterosexual and homosexual couples practically the same because it takes the DNA from one parent and puts with another.
3.) I didn't say that indirect reproduction was a choice for neither party, I stated that being unable to have children was a choice for neither party. Therefor, looking down on homosexuals for not being able to have children would be exactly the same as looking down on infertile heterosexuals, and to look down on one and not the other would be hypocritical and is more likely to based on pure bias rather than your actual reason.
So your answer to bo's point is that they should use artificial insemination to have children, and yet you disregard bo's comment about how a gay couple could use artificial insemination to have children???
I am confused.
Okay. You said you oppose same-sex marriages because you think that people should have children. Then Bo brings up two points.
First, to counter-argue against your point, he says that gay couples can have children through surrogacy (or lesbian couples through artifical insemination). But basically, having children by non-traditional means.
Then, he proposes a similar arguement saying that by your logic, impotent men shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children either.
Then you dismiss the idea that gay couples could have children, and then suggest that its okay for impotent men, because they can have children the EXACT same way as same-sex couples can.
Its the same. Exactly the same.
So you think that heterosexual couples that willingly choose not to have kids are bad? I think that those people are exceptionally good for our planet but most of all, I think those people are completely justified. If they don't want kids, they shouldn't be judged for not wanting kids. End of story. Same goes for gay couples.
I understand were your coming from on the overpopulation thing but I still think the duty to your family is more important.
To your family as in your parents/relatives or to your family as in to your unborn children? In either case it makes no sense.
Case 1: Relatives
First off, you're making the assumption that by not having children, you're letting down your relatives. That's a crazy assumption. I'm a relative and I could never be upset with a family member not wanting kids. Second of all, even if they all want you to have kids, that doesn't make it your responsibility. It doesn't mean that you have to do it. Furthermore, if you do it, it should be of your own accord because having kids is something you should be one hundred thousand percent sure about doing.
Case 2: Your unborn child
Bullshit. You can't let something down if it doesn't exist. Haha.
The final, most crucial point:
Being gay is not a choice. Lets say, for a moment, that homosexuality was the only way to reproduce. Lets say that 90% of the population is homosexual and you're born heterosexual. Now, some kid is telling you that it's your responsibility to go have sex with another man (perhaps take a man's penis into your body, as a gay woman would be asked to do) and if you refuse, imagine if someone told you that you're letting down your family? Do you understand how incredibly fucked up you're acting?
1. Plus, even if you are a heterosexual who has kids due to societal pressures or because you feel you're expected to do it, chances are you won't care about the child as much as two homosexuals who want a child due to their own choices.
Cov this is why it's best not to argue points on this site. Also what is your opinion on what I said JJJ?
I am getting to it.
Its why its best not to argue uninformed, bigoted points on this site.
Even if your points are well formed they get torn to bits.
It doesn't matter how your points are formed, if they're based on faulty logic they will be brought down.
I think I'll help Cov out by explaining his side a bit (or what I understand his side to be).
To start, in this case relatives refers to your parents, and your parents parents (your grandparents), and so forth. In short, your direct bloodline going backwards (so siblings, cousins, uncles and such not included). Letting down your family refers to you not continuing your bloodline and ending it with you. Essentially, he's saying that your parents want grandchildren, and grandparents want great-grandchildren, etc. That's not to say they would ever shun you, or pressure you into doing it, but deep down most of them would prefer you having a child over not having one. My sister recently had a child, and beforehand there was never one remark about how either of us should have children (in fact at the time my dad was kind of pissed off). However, once she gave birth my dad and mom were quite vocal about being happy that they were grandparents. No one should be forced to have a child, or pressured into it, but most parents like the thought of knowing their family will continue on when they're gone.
Your second point is a joke I would assume. Otherwise it's just a crazy assumption.
Not much to say to your third point in regards to what he meant. You can still let down people without being at fault. If your parents were geniuses and you weren't, or if they were star track runners and you weren't, or if they wanted you to take over the family restaurant business but you sucked at cooking and managing a business. In all of these cases you're letting them down, but that doesn't make it your fault. It's quite possible parents would feel let down if their child was homosexual and could not reproduce, or if they were heterosexual and simply choose not to. To actually tell someone they were letting down their family would be a dick move, but depending on the family could still be true.
Anyways, not agreeing to his line of thinking. Forcing people to have children is just stupid, and shunning them for "letting down their family" is immature. Cov can correct me if I misunderstood him though.
Ya thats pretty much it, and I would never shun my family for not having children, like your all just assuming.
when did we all assume it?
On another note, why is the dog holding that sign? It's not like he even knows what SSM is, and I have no idea why it would affect him :P
I knew that it was just done to invoke a cuteness effect, but I was curious about how it would affect a dog.
That's the point exactly. Allowing two gay people to marry would affect me just as much as it affects my dog. Obviously if I had a gay relative it would affect me somewhat, but the point is it really won't make much of an impact in our lives.
Homosexuality is not a mental illness. The DSM-II? or III? said it was, and that was taken out in the 80's I believe. The DSM-IV TR still lists "Gender Identity Disorder" (Transexual/Transgender) as a mental illness but basically proscribes no treatment for it. I suspect that will soon also be removed.
I agree with nearly all of what JJJ is saying, and I suspect he has studied more about genetics than I have, so I will gladly defer to most of his assertions. I have, however, taken many advanced neurobiology/chemistry/physiology courses, and read plenty of research, which is where these thoughts come from.
My best friend is gay, and I have at least 8 gay friends and 3 transgender friends, none of whom I believe to have any sort of "mental illness" or deficiency. They're happy, so cool, and I am not biased against anyone.
However, regarding genetics/environment: there has been no luck in isolating a particular gene that "makes" someone a homosexual, but it is definintely an interesting topic. Psychologists pretty much failed for years to prove that environment makes anyone gay, and I have not seen any credible research which shows this to be true. Two gay parents are no more likely to have a gay child than two straight parents. However, there have been a lot of studies which show a >50% concordance rate in monozygotic twins who are homosexual, which is pretty interesting. JJJ, not sure of the p value, but I believe it was statistically significant and sufficiently powered.
This does lead one to wonder if there is some genetic factor involved. Obviously DNA base pairs have no sexuality, but I think that just as neural pathways can be physically altered by the environment, chemicals, and even social interaction, it is also true that DNA can be naturally or artificially manipulated. Besides extreme cases such as radiation mutation, is there a possibility that could happen, maybe even over thousands of generations, for some type of evolutionary purpose we have not yet discovered? I have no idea. This makes me want to break out genetics books.
I've read some of the studies. I think that most of them have come under criticism for one thing or another. The one that sticks out in my head is Kallman (1952) and I just remember reading about it and thinking that it was often unclear/methodologically weak. That being said, the concordance numbers do really suggest that homosexuality is definitely not entirely genetic. If it were 100% genetic, we'd expect to see a 100% concordance rate. The thing that casts doubts though, is that it's hard to "measure homosexuality". For instance, you ask 15 twin brothers if they're homosexual and 12 reply yes and 3 reply no. Now you know what 15 people think about their own homosexuality but there have been plenty of cases of repressed sexual orientations and the like. I don't know, it's a hard thing to measure.
Interestingly, monozygotic twins show higher concordance rates than dizygotic twins so there does appear to be some genetic factor. It's really, really fascinating.
Interesting, the perception thing. That definitely skews things, even in results. I didn't think of that. Good point. Definitely not totally genetic. Schizophrenia has a >50% concordance but cannot be totally attributed to genetics, either. Looking forward to total neurological mapping. Of course, I'll then be nearly out of a job.
A) Cute dog!
B) I'm gay, so... you can probably infer my stance on same-sex marriage. ;)
C) If you'd prefer to infer my damnation, be prepared to cite your sources. :D