Gay marriage: for or against ?

[irishdragonlord]

Linnen said:

Sorry IDL, however you are wrong. It is in the animal kingdom.

My favorite is the gay pengiuns in New York. ^_^ Here is the article.

www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp





So yes, it is natural.

mmm... time for more research on my part.

Do I support it? Yes. You cannot deny who you are. I know people who are gay and they are just like everyone else. Does that mean that because they have the courage to be who they are meant to be they should be treated like some sort of freaks?

No.

They are entitled to love and happiness like every other person. They are being who they are and are doing what they want to do. Because we are simply blind to what is our happy little niche is unacceptable. This is the modern day - we know that gay people are like you and I.

No, they should not be treated as freaks, but no one said they should.

So, this begs the question - why is it wrong? Simple.

For one, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve for a reason: one is kids do do better with two parents than one or two of the same gender. Proven. It shows how to react when one is grown up, how to act towards the opposite sex, and how to treat people that are of a different gender.

In addition, does this make it ok for people to love squirrels, more than one person, or relatives? People love their siblings, but it is illegal. What about them? True, the resulting offspring are usually deformed, but they "could" use protection... but that doesn't make it right.

And this whole deny-who-you-are - if you actually believe people who are homosexuals cannot change, you are mistaken, because it is happened, and they are not in denial.

I have nothing against gay person and I would rip harder on someone who hurt a gay person than the gay person themself. But I still think the gay person is wrong.

I belive marriage carries more laws with it than one would belive. I think that you are entitled to tax breaks, ablity to take care, healthcare, etc. Also gay people are not allowed to adopt children in most states (such as Florida).

The adoption thing I see the reason for - the whole psyhchology thing. And, sadly, healthcare and tax breaks are not unalienable rights.

[irishdragonlord]

Guest-Rishiy said:

Some black people DO become white. But they have to pay a lot of money and go through procedures that are TRULY unnatural. Why should people even HAVE to change?

The analogy about murderers is overused and wrong. Homosexuals hurt nobody. Murdurers, rapists and the like are only condemed because they are harmful to society.

They "do" hurt people - at least, in most cases, the said adopted children. And why does happy Napoleon need to realize he's not the French Emperor and just some average Joe? Answer me that.

[/quote]
A lot of you seem to be forgetting that humans are part of nature. There are a lot of traits that are unique to us, just as there are a lot of traits unique to other animals. I beleive seahorses are the only species where the male carries the children. There are only a few species that are naturaly haemaphrodites. Are they unnatural just because that only occurs within their species? No. So what if homosexuality only occurs within humans? Is it still unnatural?[/quote]

Technically the seahorse holds the already laid eggs in a pouch; and what species are haemophrodites? And yes, it is still unnatural if it is only in humans. And in animals too - are they neccessarily the exact same in the brain as the others, or is something different? I don't know the actual neurological details, but I believe it is so.

[Linnen Malfoy]

IDL said:

And this whole deny-who-you-are - if you actually believe people who are homosexuals cannot change, you are mistaken, because it is happened, and they are not in denial.

I didn't say they couldn't change, but is it the right thing to do? Why should someone change simply to fit the conforms of today's society?

And what are the long-term effects of this change?

By the way, I read an intresting article which comments on why there is 'Adam and Eve'

Furthermore, some Adventists will argue that God did not create same-sex partnerships in the originally conceived Eden as another point against homosexuality. Genesis 1-3 show Adam and Eve created for companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard human relationship to teach a religious lesson. The crux of the example regards the love and wisdom of God, who made all good things and wills no evil upon human beings. Nothing suggests that biblical authors intended the story of creation to be a lesson on sexual orientation.20

I too, belive that. I mean, if you want to be nit-picky wouldn't Adam and Eve be insect? After all, Eve is part of Adam and, therefore, is related. Wouldn't that be wrong?

No, because that's reading a bit too much into it. There is nothing that says that whoever wrote the bible is speaking of homosexuality - it's Adam and Eve because if it was Adam and Steve then we wouldn't be here. Boys don't make babies (sadly. I'm not looking foward to the pain whenever it happens).

By the way, do you have any information on those who rejected homosexuality? Though it most likely works at first, I'm sure that the long term effects are not pleasent. There are many projects with burying things in the mind, which usualy manifest themselves in other behavior. I would look for journals on that, however my time is limited, so instead I asked that you show me your proof on the matter.

IDL said:

They "do" hurt people - at least, in most cases, the said adopted children.

How so? Children raised by gay couples do not turn out gay.

Instead, the court relied on the testimony of Dr. Alexandra Kaplan, a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts. She stated that:
There is no evidence at all that sexual preference of adults in the home has any detrimental impact on children . . . . Many other issues influence child rearing. Sexual preference per se is typically not one of them . . . . Most children raised in homosexual situations become heterosexuals as adults . . . There is no evidence that children who are raised with a loving couple of the same sex are any more disturbed, unhealthy, [or] maladjusted than children raised with a loving couple of mixed sex. [sexual orientation of the parent] is irrelevant to [the child's] mental health.

[sollunaestrella]

IDL said:

what species are haemophrodites?

Earthworms are.

As for this debate... I don't think I should get involved.

[Komori]

I am against homosexuality, for purely religious reasons. The Adam and Eve argument is weak, yes. But there are distinct places in the Bible where God says homosexuality is a sin. One is in Romans, Chapter 23, but I forget the verse.

Yes, homosexuality is a sin. So is prostitution, witchcraft, fortune-telling, and others. HOWEVER. God looks at no sin being worse than any other sin. Therefore, in God's eyes, a man who has sex with another man is no worse than the man who is jealous of his boss's new car. I am no more righteous than any other human on this earth, whether child, murderer, priest, homosexual, or whoever. That being said, let the gay man do what he will, if that is his choice. Do not try to remove a splinter from your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own.

Gay marriage? Sure, whatev. I don't like it, but I'm not goint to stop you. Gay marriage in a church? I sigh and shake my head.

[Rishiy]

IDL said:

They "do" hurt people - at least, in most cases, the said adopted children.

What are you talking about? Most children adopted by gay couples are in no way affected other than the fact that they are raised with a great deal more tollerance than most people. Which just goes to show that homosexuality isn't a choice. If the child was born straight, s/he will be straight, no matter who the parents are.

[theunorthodox]

Like Linnen said, there is actually quite a few examples of Homosexuality in nature. The Gay Penguins being one of the more famous ones. However, there have been gay frogs discovered, gay sheep, cows, monkeys, dogs, rodents, and a lot of others. And in laboratory studies of the brains of lesbians, they showed significantly higher amounts of testosterone and other male hormones, which appear naturally in small amounts in females, and much larger hormonal glands. They were born like that. It's a slight mutation, but mutations are quite normal in nature.
I don't think all homosexuals are naturally homosexual, because I know some people choose to be that way. (But geez, who would choose to be part of such a hated minority?) But true homosexuality, though rare, is normal in that sense.

Since saying natural gay people are an insult to heterosexual couples is sorta like saying people with Downs Syndrome are an insult to the majority of people with 24 chromosomes, I have no problem with homosexuality. I honestly don't care. If people are afraid of the 'sanctity of marriage' being overthrown they should've banned Vegas quickies and divorce. All thoughts considered, I think allowing gay marriage will raise the bar.

But I'm not sure about the whole marriage issue. I have two views on it.

1) Honestly, why would you want to be married under the eyes of a god that condems you? There are plenty of other ways you can still be recognized as a couple- Civil Unions give the same rights as a regular Christian marraige does. Pegans have been performing same-sex marraige ceremonies since before Christianity was founded.

2) The Church doesn't have the act of marriage copyrighted to them. And I'm a firm believer of the seperation of church and state. If God doesn't want gays getting married let God decide, not the government. Also, a lot of what the bible says is disregarded because of changing times. For example, according to the bible, we're allowed to have slaves:

“[Y]ou may acquire male and female slaves ƒ from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born into your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.” (Leviticus 25: 44-46)

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ” (Ephesians 6:5).

In the exact same chapter as the bit on homosexuality (Leviticus), only a few chapters away, in fact. So Christians at this point can either, a) Maintain that the Bible contains no error and concede that slavery may be morally acceptable or b) Acknowledge that the Bible contains some error.

and what species are haemophrodites?

Most plants, worms, mollusks, crustaceans, porifera, ctenophores, cnidaria, reptiles, and lots of fish. There's also this thing called Sequential hermaphrodite, which is when a specie starts out one gender, then changes as it matures. And then there's always the occasional mutation (Gonadal dysgenesis- the 'true' hermaphrodite) born in about 1% of all mammals, including humans. (I'm a Bio major. )

[Crystal]

The said:

In the exact same chapter as the bit on homosexuality (Leviticus), only a few chapters away, in fact. So Christians at this point can either, a) Maintain that the Bible contains no error and concede that slavery may be morally acceptable or b) Acknowledge that the Bible contains some error.

Just pointing out here - the passages were in the Old Testament, before Christ was born. I don't know about others, but I usually ignore most of those and concentrate more on the New Testament, which were the teachings of Christ himself.

Now, about gay marriage - if I remember right this is the fourth debate already - I'm against, but reluctantly.

There is no evidence that a gay gene exists. On the other hand, there is no evidence that it DOESN'T exist. So is it a choice? I honestly don't know and until that gene is actually found I don't think there's be a rest in this debate.

However, I can probably just about guarantee who will win. Sooner or later gay marriage will be passed, in the US at least.

Alright, enough of my country-biased views.

Socially speaking, I don't know if I can accept gays. I mean, I have no problem with them over the Net. Honestly. But when it comes to IRL - there's a major social stigma associated with hanging around/hugging/physically touching people of the opposite sex, and I don't think I'd like that stigma extended to those of the same sex, either. That means I'll probably wind up just bringing my bolster around and hugging it all day, 'cause I'm one of those people who needs physical touch and until I get a boyfriend the only people I can hug without being seen as some kind of... umm... I forget the word... are other girls.

Selfish, I know.

Politically, as to this 'seperation of church and state', the first time I encountered it I thought it was ludicrous. Honestly. I still do, to a certain extent. Over here, it's 'union of mosque and state'. Annoying and nerve-grating sometimes but I can get around it well enough. I live in an Islamic country, under an Islamic government, although I am free to choose my own religion. Until the day Islam accepts homosexuality (in fact, Christianity in general is an extremely low percentage in Malaysia), my opinion counts for nothing. I'm actually happy it counts for nothing because then I don't have to make the choices.

And religiously - I am Christian, and I'm against it. However, I will hold nothing against you if you are gay, if you give me a minute or so to gaze glazedly at you and adjust my thinking round a bit with a screwdriver.

If put to a vote - I'd either be against or I'd abstain, most likely the latter.

[theunorthodox]

Just pointing out here - the passages were in the Old Testament, before Christ was born. I don't know about others, but I usually ignore most of those and concentrate more on the New Testament, which were the teachings of Christ himself.

Well that's my point exactly. Why do Christians use the book of Leviticus to fight gay marriage, but deny its plausibility when something like slavery or misogyny is dug out of it? Sorry, I don't like double-standards.

There is no evidence that a gay gene exists. On the other hand, there is no evidence that it DOESN'T exist. So is it a choice? I honestly don't know and until that gene is actually found I don't think there's be a rest in this debate.

There is far more evidence that it does exsist over that it doesn't. For example, the enlarged hormonal glands that should be in the opposite sex show a strong sign of it. As well as it appearing in nature and the such. People like to nit pick and say it isn't a gene because it isn't hereditary, but...gay couples aren't exactly producing their own gay offspring. So we don't even know if it's hereditary... Lol. However, the intricacy of the brain-works and behaviors is tough to breakdown, especially when it's secluded to a minority. It may be quite a while before it's found, if ever (That is, if it does exsist).

Socially speaking, I don't know if I can accept gays. I mean, I have no problem with them over the Net. Honestly. But when it comes to IRL - there's a major social stigma associated with hanging around/hugging/physically touching people of the opposite sex, and I don't think I'd like that stigma extended to those of the same sex, either. That means I'll probably wind up just bringing my bolster around and hugging it all day, 'cause I'm one of those people who needs physical touch and until I get a boyfriend the only people I can hug without being seen as some kind of... umm... I forget the word... are other girls.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I'm getting that you're saying you would have a hard time socially accepting gays because you're afraid of what people may think of you if you hang around with them...? o0 I have several gay/bi friends and I couldn't care less what people think of me. They're probably the most fun crowd I know. I think they're fantastic. Especially openly-gay people. They have amazing self esteem. ^^

Politically, as to this 'seperation of church and state', the first time I encountered it I thought it was ludicrous. Honestly. I still do, to a certain extent. Over here, it's 'union of mosque and state'. Annoying and nerve-grating sometimes but I can get around it well enough. I live in an Islamic country, under an Islamic government, although I am free to choose my own religion. Until the day Islam accepts homosexuality (in fact, Christianity in general is an extremely low percentage in Malaysia), my opinion counts for nothing. I'm actually happy it counts for nothing because then I don't have to make the choices.

Ludicrous as in you think it's a rediculous concept or as in you don't think it's possible? o0


I'm not a huge fan of the idea of gay marriage simply because I think they shouldn't be begging for acception from a religion that obviously doesn't care for them. But I'm totally for Gay Equal Rights.

[Crystal]

The said:

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I'm getting that you're saying you would have a hard time socially accepting gays because you're afraid of what people may think of you if you hang around with them...? o0 I have several gay/bi friends and I couldn't care less what people think of me. They're probably the most fun crowd I know. I think they're fantastic. Especially openly-gay people. They have amazing self esteem. ^^

Well, I don't know how it is where you live but over here if I hug a guy, I'd get ridiculed, teased, and basically "why the fail??!11??"-ed for the next month or so, unless it's my brother or something. I tend to like hugging people, but I stick to girls because of this. I KNOW it's selfish, but if I suddenly find out that now there's ridicule and teasing attached to hugging a girl, I'll probably resort to carrying my bolster around everywhere just so I have something to hug.

Alright, alright, it wasn't the best of points. XDDD I wasn't trying to be logical there. Basically, ignore it, those are just my own warped reasons.

They might have high self esteem, but mine's pretty darn low.

Besides, I've never met a gay person before IRL. Everyone I know seems to be straight.

The said:

Ludicrous as in you think it's a rediculous concept or as in you don't think it's possible? o0

Both. When I first came into the debates board and saw people using it as a point, I couldn't comphrehend it because it was so far off from my own background (not that I'm saying the Islamic ruling thingy here isn't dumb and unfair, just that I'm so totally used to the idea that total seperation just doesn't seem to make sense.)

[Stal in CSC class]

The said:

Well that's my point exactly. Why do Christians use the book of Leviticus to fight gay marriage, but deny its plausibility when something like slavery or misogyny is dug out of it? Sorry, I don't like double-standards.


There is far more evidence that it does exsist over that it doesn't. For example, the enlarged hormonal glands that should be in the opposite sex show a strong sign of it. As well as it appearing in nature and the such. People like to nit pick and say it isn't a gene because it isn't hereditary, but...gay couples aren't exactly producing their own gay offspring. So we don't even know if it's hereditary... Lol. However, the intricacy of the brain-works and behaviors is tough to breakdown, especially when it's secluded to a minority. It may be quite a while before it's found, if ever (That is, if it does exsist).



I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I'm getting that you're saying you would have a hard time socially accepting gays because you're afraid of what people may think of you if you hang around with them...? o0 I have several gay/bi friends and I couldn't care less what people think of me. They're probably the most fun crowd I know. I think they're fantastic. Especially openly-gay people. They have amazing self esteem. ^^


Ludicrous as in you think it's a rediculous concept or as in you don't think it's possible? o0


I'm not a huge fan of the idea of gay marriage simply because I think they shouldn't be begging for acception from a religion that obviously doesn't care for them. But I'm totally for Gay Equal Rights.

Dox, if I were you, I'd take a closer look at Leviticus and think about the reasons for some of those laws at the time. And also think about the sort of meaning they had back then, even if it sounds cold and formal today.

A) The slavery issue isn't what you think of slavery today. To be honest, the slaves had it pretty good and there was a time every so often where all debts were forgiven and all slaves freed.

So I'd just suggest you take a look at the reasons involved with the slavery issue before you blast it.

B ) The misogyny you speak of...you mean sending women outside of the camp during their time period? The reason for that was hygiene. The women back then didn't have tampons or pads. Think about that and the mess that could've been made. And so this was to set up effective hygiene and quarantine laws.

And, to be honest, my religion hasn't done away with the Old Testament like so many others. We don't see how or when that was done in the NT as so many branches of Christianity claim. Some of those Levitical laws were just laws for the time of wandering in the wilderness, for example the quarantine type laws based on what they had to work with. Nowadays it'd be overkill.

Some would even argue the same for the clean and unclean dietary laws. That it had to do with their level of technology when it came to being able to purify the food. But that's still something that my church teaches, and I've never had a piece of pork.

As well Homosexuality isn't mention in Leviticus only.

The word used for adultery in the 10th Commandment is the term "Pornea". This term included adultery, fornication, pornography, and other sexually deviant/perverted and wrong things. Homosexuality is another thing encompassed by that word and is mentioned in the New Testament and throughout the Bible.

Does that answer any questions? ((Just pointing things out and not arguing anything at all...))

[Komori]

And in laboratory studies of the brains of lesbians, they showed significantly higher amounts of testosterone and other male hormones, which appear naturally in small amounts in females, and much larger hormonal glands. They were born like that. It's a slight mutation, but mutations are quite normal in nature.

So, I guess according to that, I should be a lesbian. Pfft, I go to the doctor for hormonal problems, and have to take medication for it. I have an unusually large amount of testosterone in my system, which causes increased weight gain, larger amounts of facial hair, and reproductive problems. If I didn't have boobs, people would think I'm a guy. -___-; And I'm not lesbian. In fact, there's a lot of lesbians out there who look too womanly to have a testosterone problem. I don't buy that excuse.

[theunorthodox]

Guest-Stal said:

Dox, if I were you, I'd take a closer look at Leviticus and think about the reasons for some of those laws at the time. And also think about the sort of meaning they had back then, even if it sounds cold and formal today.

A) The slavery issue isn't what you think of slavery today. To be honest, the slaves had it pretty good and there was a time every so often where all debts were forgiven and all slaves freed.

So I'd just suggest you take a look at the reasons involved with the slavery issue before you blast it.

B ) The misogyny you speak of...you mean sending women outside of the camp during their time period? The reason for that was hygiene. The women back then didn't have tampons or pads. Think about that and the mess that could've been made. And so this was to set up effective hygiene and quarantine laws.

And, to be honest, my religion hasn't done away with the Old Testament like so many others. We don't see how or when that was done in the NT as so many branches of Christianity claim. Some of those Levitical laws were just laws for the time of wandering in the wilderness, for example the quarantine type laws based on what they had to work with. Nowadays it'd be overkill.

Some would even argue the same for the clean and unclean dietary laws. That it had to do with their level of technology when it came to being able to purify the food. But that's still something that my church teaches, and I've never had a piece of pork.

As well Homosexuality isn't mention in Leviticus only.

The word used for adultery in the 10th Commandment is the term "Pornea". This term included adultery, fornication, pornography, and other sexually deviant/perverted and wrong things. Homosexuality is another thing encompassed by that word and is mentioned in the New Testament and throughout the Bible.

Does that answer any questions? ((Just pointing things out and not arguing anything at all...))

I'm not saying it didn't have plausibility back then. I know it did. You misunderstood me. I'm saying that even though it had plausibility back in the old days, it doesn't now and shouldn't be used as a tool for debation since it's so outdated. (Just like Leechwives. They were great back in the day, but cripes, you don't want someone to stick a blood-sucker on your temple for a headache nowadays o0) In this day and age, slavery has been abolished (At least in most places) and misogyny is looked down upon (Again, in most places).
All you really did was go more in-depth with the point I was trying to make.

And the point about a rat being turned gay because of a chemical only proves even more that it is normally a mental imbalance of something or other.

Technically, almost every inately 'abnormal' condition of the human body ever was because of a chemical imbalance of some sort. Even the most insignificant of things are caused by chemical imbalances in the body. I'm the only person in my family with light-colored hair. It's because of a chemical screw-up somewhere in my structor. I also have blue eyes- because the chemical enzymes that control eye-color deposited too little Melanin in my iris. That doesn't make me some sort of abnormal chemically-unstable person, just a little off in some areas.
A lot of people are under the impression that all chemicals are completely unnatural when most appear naturally in the body. Perhaps the rat was being genetically manipulated by natural enzymes and ended up gay? It's a possibility.

So, I guess according to that, I should be a lesbian. Pfft, I go to the doctor for hormonal problems, and have to take medication for it. I have an unusually large amount of testosterone in my system, which causes increased weight gain, larger amounts of facial hair, and reproductive problems. If I didn't have boobs, people would think I'm a guy. -___-; And I'm not lesbian. In fact, there's a lot of lesbians out there who look too womanly to have a testosterone problem. I don't buy that excuse.

Ok, let me clear that up.

High Male Hormonal levels = Lesbian.
Lesbian = High Hormonal male Level(...?)
You know, like Mutant Buzz are cool, but just because you're cool it doesn't make you a Mutant Buzz...? ^^;

These lesbians had high levels of male hormones, that doesn't mean that all women who have unusually high levels of testosterone are lesbians...or that all lesbians have high levels of the hormone. It's just a possible explaination. And sometimes it *is* a choice....or they're being paid to do it, like most of the beautiful lesbian pr0n stars around (Plastic surgery can also work wonders). @.@

I'm not saying every single person who claims to be gay actually has the hormonal thing since true homosexuality, in that sense, is fairly rare. However, someone else's sexuality choices are none of my buisiness. If they want to be gay because they 'feel like it' or whatever, fine....just don't hit on me. >.o



Actually, if you want to hear some funny views on the subject, go to this site: www.ranting-gryphon.com and click on the rant for Gay Marriage at the top. The ranter, 2 Gryphon, is quite gay himself so some of you might be interested hearing it come straight from the horse's mouth (Or Gryphon's, in this case). I'll warn you though, he's totally raw and doesn't take any precautions to censor himself. It's offensive, but the guy definitely has some intelligence behind his thick skull.

[Stal]

The said:

I'm not saying it didn't have plausibility back then. I know it did. You misunderstood me. I'm saying that even though it had plausibility back in the old days, it doesn't now and shouldn't be used as a tool for debation since it's so outdated. (Just like Leechwives. They were great back in the day, but cripes, you don't want someone to stick a blood-sucker on your temple for a headache nowadays o0) In this day and age, slavery has been abolished (At least in most places) and misogyny is looked down upon (Again, in most places).
All you really did was go more in-depth with the point I was trying to make.

First, I'll address the chemical thing...I believe the cases you cited would be closer to Recessive Traits and Genes in the genetic make up of your parent's DNA. Remember Pundit Squares? Once you have that gene, it sticks around with you even if it's an extreme minority. But there's always the chance, ya know?

Anyway, the cases about the Levitical law, how can you say that the homosexuality law has no basis for today? I mean, honestly, I don't understand what you're getting at there. Perhaps you should clarify...?

[The Angry Artist]

Bascially all I'm seeing is that it's wrong to be gay.

So some people think it's wrong. Does that mean we should make a law against it? Aren't laws made because of legal implications? So what legal implications make gay marriage illegal?

IDL, your legal argument against gay marriage is weak and flimsy. you built your house using naught but thin twigs and rain. You say more marriage costs politicians money. If this is such a pressing issue, I would like to see evidence of this. Also, wouldn't that not fit in with a perfect world? Based on your theory, if there was world peace and everone was happy and married each other, would that mean the politicians would be in debt? Are politicians charged per marriage that occurs? If I became a mayor would I have to pay 1 cent to the government each time someone in my city got married? I noticed that you brought in bestiality. That is an entirely different matter, as that is sex with other animal species.

And IDL, you seem to be saying that because homosexuals aren't the norm we shouldn't allow them to marry. People with an extra finger aren't normal. Does that mean we should not allow them to marry? Of course, in the legality-only argument that hase no precedence.