The Gay Marriage Controversy

[Boss]

Yes, we have human diversity, and I am not against that.

My point is that somebodys rights (two concenting adults) should not violate other peoples rights (children, who have not asked to be born). Or to rephrase it: It's not a human right to have children.

Sometimes we make choices in life that have consequences. Perhaps, if children feels so important, that you ought to have them the "usual" way, that would mean to sacrifice a same sex relationship. If, on the other hand, the relationship is more important, then it would be better to live without children, for the children's sake. I went to school with a girl who was adopted (ethnic Norwegian) and who was extremely frustrated because she could not know who her biological parents were. Now adoptees have the right to know when they are 18 years old. Why would we now create a society where many would never ever know of their originis because of anonymous insemination? Do governments know what a "Pandora's box" they have opened? And what mental pain and despair it could cause for future generations?

Heterosexual couples already do that. If you believe people should not be free to "sell" sperm or "rent" a womb then, okay, fine. But it's not something new, I don't think, and I am not sure anecdotal examples (like the one you cited) are helpful in establishing anything because other people may report quite different cases (e.g. I know a girl from my neighborhood was adopted from Bulgaria when she was a baby and she was raised by a single (and quite old) mother. She's nearly 25 now and I am sure quite happy with her life so far).

You mention artificial insemination which is not quite the same as adoption. One of the biological parents is usually the actual parent. Lesbian & gay couples might do that. Now this is far more new but, in your sense, less "dangerous" than adoption. After all, the child knows at least one of her biological parents is her actual parent.

But I admit I do not know whether adopted children are worse off or better off than non-adopted children. I am saying though that adoption is not something new (so, in my opinion, your point about unknown consequences is not right).

Read this by the US Department of Health & Human Services, for example.

 

[Grubbe]

Heterosexual couples already do that. If you believe people should not be free to "sell" sperm or "rent" a womb then, okay, fine. But it's not something new, I don't think, and I am not sure anecdotal examples (like the one you cited) are helpful in establishing anything because other people may report quite different cases (e.g. I know a girl from my neighborhood was adopted from Bulgaria when she was a baby and she was raised by a single (and quite old) mother. She's nearly 25 now and I am sure quite happy with her life so far).

You mention artificial insemination which is not quite the same as adoption. One of the biological parents is usually the actual parent. Lesbian & gay couples might do that. Now this is far more new but, in your sense, less "dangerous" than adoption. After all, the child knows at least one of her biological parents is her actual parent.

But I admit I do not know whether adopted children are worse off or better off than non-adopted children. I am saying though that adoption is not something new (so, in my opinion, your point about unknown consequences is not right).

Read this by the US Department of Health & Human Services, for example.

You are of course right that neither adoption nor insemination is new. When I think that insemination is more "dangerous", it is because it is usually not known who the sperm donor is, and the firms that offer this service, have the policy to keep it unknown indefinetely. Adopted people usually have a paper trail, and the information of who their parens are can be known when they reach 18 years of age.

You are also right that some adoptees live quite happily without knowing who their biological parents are, but then again: Today most adoptees can know if they so choose.

My worry now is that making gay marriages legal has created a much larger market for insemination (and surrogaty) than it was before, because earlier gay people would marry to "hide" their nature, and then often had children in their marriages, while now they go to these clinics abroad instead, if they want children, even if their home countries maybe have laws at least against surrogaty. So I think that the governments have not thought far enough ahead to see what could come, when they made their decisions. Gay marriages will probably not see such increase in adoptions; not because they are not allowed to adopt (at least they are in Norway), but because the countries where the adopted children come from will not give their children to gay couples, as far as I understand.

 

[Sennevini]

I think not a lot will change when legalizing gay marriage.
Here in the Netherlands we have this institution since 2001;
records say about 2% of marriages is a gay marriage. In overall,
the number of marriages is declining, whether straight or gay.


The principal key to marriage is equality. If two people consent to each other
to share their life for as long as possible, why deny some of them rights like financial
constructions in for example assurancies and hereditary rights?


If one says marriage is to be destroyed, then that's not the case. For straight
people nothing changes at all.
If one says it will open the road to legalize stuff with children and animals,
then that's hopefully not the case: marriage is built upon consent from both spouses.
If one says it is bad for children to grow up with gay parents, well, it may raise confusion in some circles,
but I think it depends on how caring the parents will be.
For now, what I see, many children are born outside of a marriage (maybe half of them in these days!),
or are raised by single mothers, or by step-parents.
I think divorces or severe arguments between parents are a larger problem for children then
the single fact of having gay parents. Also, think of all adopted children, thank god they find someone
who agrees to care for them. And hopefully, they will grow up in a stable, loving environment.
If one says marriage is all about the raising of children, you are welcome, because raising children should be
in a stable environment. But don't forget that a fundament for a good, stable marriage is a good relationship
between both spouses.
For the record, I am talking here about the juridical marriage, not about the religious; religion is not quite strong
in my area.

 

[Fire Haired]

sorry if i said some inappropriate things it is the only way to make my point. please to abolish my account i said these things because their what make my argument.

No one is born gay it is gay people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people. gay men use testosterone they have the same behavior(i dont want to get specific) as straight men. They dont have some strange sexuality with diff hormones they also dont have a woman's sexuality. it does not matter if a man has less testosterone or more estrogen than average he uses his balls, pennis, and testosterone for sexual suff. If a man has testosterone, balls, pennis he is straight not gay those body parts are made for many things one of them having sex with a human female not other men and this is how humans and other species reproduce. If a man humps another man that is a clear sign he is straight because that is made for reproducing. If a man uses testosterone, pennis, and balls for something that is not a human female that is unnatural and perverted and a sin.

The same goes for gay females they have the same sexual behavior as straight females they are just using it on women when they should be using it in men.

In evolution homosexualty is one of the worst things for a species. Think about it a gene that does not allow some members to reproduce reproduction is the key thing for s species survival. If a homosexual gene popped up there would be two different ones for men and women also it would be killed off by natural selection because homosexuals would not reproduce. Also it would be extremely recessive like red hair. my uncle and aunt both have brown hair but had two redhead kids but if redheads stop reproducing eventualley red hair would die out. My brown haired aunt and uncle got the red hair gene from past redheads who reproduced so if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out.

also i dont see how a homo gene would pop up. how could a man use testosterone, pennis and other things made to be attracted to women and somehow get a gene that totally goes against natural selection that makes him want to do the reproductive processes with a another man. and how could another gene do the same for woman on woman. that sounds very impossible to me mainly the natural selection and hormone parts.

I think homosexuality can easily be explained in psychology. It is not a surprise sexuality towards the same human gender is more common than towards animals(which does exist). Because humans are very social we spend alot of time together our same geneder has some of the same features as the oppiste gender so it would make sense some people would pervert and be attracted to the same gender. Also people treat it like a new thing which would add another reason why it is more tempting.

In my opinon homosexuality is not natural at all and is a sin. i dont really think people of the same gender should marry like i said it is unnatural and is unmoral. but then people say america is made to let people do whatever they want. No that is not true that does not mean u against or natural sexulaity and live a perverted life.

 

[sparkey]

If a man humps another man that is a clear sign he is straight because that is made for reproducing.

I think I see a flaw in your argument.

 

[Fire Haired]

I think I see a flaw in your argument.

What flaw. Humping is a reproductive process mens sperm is suppose to go in womens egg to make children. if men hump other men they are doing a action that is suppose to be done on women and for reproduction obviosuly they are confusing their body from the natural way. since gay people are known for having add's and they do this it proves many are just perverted.

i know what i am saying sounds sick but it is the only way to explain my point. we cant just assume people are born gay i haven't seen any legit evidence for people being born gay i think it i absolutely impossible.

 

[hope]

Well let`s make the phone call now, tell all those people who have been studying this to pack up and finish early for the week-end, because Fire Haired has nailed it.

No one is born gay it is gay

Quote your sources or reference the studies.

people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people.

FH. I`m not going to debate this at length with you, for a few reasons.
1. It is clear you have not researched this subject and are giving your opinions based only on a personal conviction.
2.Why must there be any debate?
We have gay and lesbian people and we have heterosexual people..and we have shades between even these. Why do you feel any particular group needs to be explained or judged.? Do you not think it a bit arrogant to stand judge over an individuals personal choice? Why should it matter to you at all?
3.There has assuredly been gay people always with us. It is not a new phenomenon. I haven`t seen the human race declining or perishing because of it..have you?

Try researching some studies on the subject. Have a look on-line even, you can find lots written on this topic. When you have read some of it, considered it, perhaps then you may feel better placed to make a more informative announcement on it..if you indeed feel one is needed.

if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out.

Bit of advice here..homosexuals do not reproduce but nice to note you`re now inclined to think a gene might be responsible..very quick turn-round there.

 

[Ike]

I don't have anything against gay marriages per se.

I find it somewhat opposite. I have nothing against gays, but have a lot against gay marriage. It's like they subconsciously feel they are not 'regular' but by obtaining this right they will be equalized with others. What's next? Trying to legalize holy gay matrimony? And then somehow import it into Bible, so that they could finally sleep well because they won't go to hell for their diabolical acts...

They were already given too much attention and space, considering that they are just a statistical deviation, and that there are no more obstacles for them to lead an open gay life.

 

[LeBrok]

No one is born gay it is gay people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people. .

Aside the fact that you rewritten decades of research, how did you get to this conclusion? Are you citing the bible as ultimate authority on truth and universe?

To open your eyes, let me give you a little memory exercise. Remember the time when you hit puberty (it shouldn't be too difficult in your age). One day you saw a beautiful woman or naked woman. How did you know how to get erection when you saw her? Who taught you this trick? (I'm assuming you're a straight man).

 

[Fire Haired]

Aside the fact that you rewritten decades of research, how did you get to this conclusion?

i know gay men use their private parts for sexual stuff and that they hump i knwo that is sick but it is key to my argument. they have the same sexual behavior as straight men wouldn't u agree so they dont have differnt hrone they dont have pink balls. thee have been no gay hormones or body parts discovered that i know of. what research are u talking about i would love to see it.

The fact gay men and women use the same bady parts and hormones for sewual things as straight men and women and have the same behavour. i cam up with the conclusion they dont have a dffernt sexuality they are perverting the natural human sexuality that is why they do the reproductive stuff but dont create kids.

Are you citing the bible as ultimate authority on truth and universe?

i thought of these idea on my own. when the bible mentions homosexuality which is rarely does it just says it is perverted they dont say we will kill all gays like people say modern Christians do. it does say it is a hated sin and they almost always put sexuality towards animals with homosexuality and lust. it says the same things in the new and old testment. People in the ancient world like Romans and Greeks where not exactly the greatest moral people in the world neither where Jews but the Jews where as good as they got and their laws where good just the people rarely followed them like the bible mentions many times.

Roman traditional law which went back to Italic tribes says homosexuality is against the law but Romans went into Greek culture and did it anyways. Nero who was bisexually i think also motorsexual(animals), insane, mass murder is not a good argument for gay marriage.

Also Roman gay men used to dress and try to act like women to suduce roman men. well of course their going to act feminine that will trigger male hormones. if they act like john wayne and had hairy chest. i doubt the roman men would giggle like girls or be attracted to them.


i cant find this source it had books and bookd and books of very anceint roman and greek writting. I rember one talking about Celtic tribes aound the alps and other Gaulic tibes. they said war like people only allow sexual relations with men and women and the toughest guys gets more women, but starngly these Gauls allow sexual relations of men with men.

ancient homo relationships where out of lust not love the modern gay marraiges thing from what i know i may be wrong did not exist in the ancient world. also in the ancient world men could have many wives does not matter if they are not involve men could also have conkbines aka prostutes. It was Christians and Jews who stopped these things they only allowed men to have one wife who they married out of love(this all marriages where suppose to be out of love but usselly not some whee for political and economic reasons) and that people can choose who their husband and wife is before it was ofentlly arranged.

also since ancient people where so lusful why does the fact some where gay help the argument for gay marraige. i know u did not say anything about this just it reminded me.

To open your eyes, let me give you a little memory exercise. Remember the time when you hit puberty (it shouldn't be too difficult in your age). One day you saw a beautiful woman or naked woman. How did you know how to get erection when you saw her? Who taught you this trick? (I'm assuming you're a straight man).

It came naturally i cant speak for other guys. it kind off starts around 4th grade 10 years old. i dont want to get specific but the first time it just came naturally. then the next step is around 12 and 13 when ur voice gets deeper and u start to grow body hair. like i said before it came naturally literally the first time i dont know about other people. and i saw that what i thought was a good looking female is what all other men did too. i as kind of surprised. i started to realize weather women on the news alot of the time where not real weather experts.

again i really dont want to get specific but i taught myself like in kindergarten before anyone told me about certain things. Of course i dont know the whole human psychological procces for me before anyone told me i was doing the normal straight things. Which shows me it is in my instinct and i am sure it is in ever guys instinct and "gay" ones perverted the natural way and use the same behavior on the same gender.


that was a extremely personal question

 

[Fire Haired]

Well let`s make the phone call now, tell all those people who have been studying this to pack up and finish early for the week-end, because Fire Haired has nailed it.

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!! I will start calling them now give me their numbers.

Quote your sources or reference the studies.

I dont because i thought of it on my own. but what i do know is gay men use their privets just like straight men they hump just like straight men and have the same sexually behavior. so they dont have a different sexuality there has been no gay hormone i have heard of that causes homosexuality. Also gay men an women would have different hormones and the fact it would be impossibly for that to survive and that it would survive twice seems very unlikely.

FH. I`m not going to debate this at length with you, for a few reasons.
1. It is clear you have not researched this subject and are giving your opinions based only on a personal conviction.

actulley i have researched this subject i looked and looked for any mention to a gay gene or hormone non. all i could find is they use perverted animals as a argument and something about babies being born upside down and their moms had gay milk crazy stuff like that.

Why must there be any debate?
We have gay and lesbian people and we have heterosexual people..and we have shades between even these. Why do you feel any particular group needs to be explained or judged.? Do you not think it a bit arrogant to stand judge over an individuals personal choice?

Because i dont want guys and guys doing it or girls and girls doing it. that is just wrong and sick and unatural and if it is unatural i dont want in our society. we are not just suppose to let people do whatever they want. i dont want people talking to chairs or babies thinking a bird is their mum that is unnatural. i have had this born gay argument with many of my teachers in school i have a very libearl school. All of them had no response to my main argument about people being born gay. all they said is we will never know or it doesnt matter. also when i brought up the other shades of sexuality like animals they said that is wrong so they do have a limit to sexuality so why cant homosexuality be that limit.

Why should it matter to you at all?

if one group is doing what is not natural i am going to say it is not natural i am not going to ignore that. i dont think it is arogent to judge peoples personal choose all of what u are saying is of post 1960's philosophy origin. it matter to me because i care about my society it is not always about the indivdual it is about the tribe the scoiety. humans are naturally very socail we are suppose to communicate and care about our tribal members where not animals. like i said human society is naturally tribal we are suppose to live in somewhat small family groups. that is why we feel so natural and so much love for our sports teams, families, school classmates. we are not just suppose to let each other go and do whatever they want we work together as a team.

3.There has assuredly been gay people always with us. It is not a new phenomenon. I haven`t seen the human race declining or perishing because of it..have you?

that is true it is not a new phenomenon but how does that change anything from my argument. When did i have mention human race declining because of it well i guess if less people reproduce hey it does decline in survival. I think it causes tension within the society between gays and not guys because gays have been known in history to be sexually aggressive like in ancient Rome men would dres as women to try to seduce other roman men. this again proofs even more no one is born gay they saw the best way to seduce men is be like women a feminine attitude wakes make hormones up. The Roman men would defintley not be attracted to big strong and hairy macho man like women are(well i cant say from experience i am not a girl but i assume).

why do u think homophobes exist homo stuff gets people angre. Also that is why there is a liberal stereotype homophobes are gay because sometimes fear and that it is differnt causes them to have gay temptations.

Try researching some studies on the subject. Have a look on-line even, you can find lots written on this topic. When you have read some of it, considered it, perhaps then you may feel better placed to make a more informative announcement on it..if you indeed feel one is needed.

thanks for the advice i have tried this once and got lazy. i always wanted to do a huge research project on this. maybe i will now possibly make a thread about it in the next few days or weeks i suck in information very quickly.

Bit of advice here..homosexuals do not reproduce but nice to note you`re now inclined to think a gene might be responsible..very quick turn-round there.

i am saying a gene or something in DNA is the only possible source. i would love to see what ur opinon on the topic of are people born gay.

 

[LeBrok]

i was doing the normal straight things. Which shows me it is in my instinct and i am sure it is in ever guys instinct...

Thanks for the novel, but I just needed this line above. So hold on to this thought. If you agree it is an instinct it means, that from two things that makes us - the nature and nurture, you think that our main sexual behaviour is controlled mostly by Nature. I completely agree with this too. If it is Nature then it means that it is in our DNA. DNA dictates architecture of our brain and basic instincts. Therefore this simple exercise tells us that our sexual instinct, our sexual preferences (whether woman's body excites you, or man's. one) is coded in DNA and brain architecture (we are born with).
In short, we are born with our partner's sex preference. It is simple like that, you hit puberty and you automatically know. No classes needed.
If you strictly straight man only female body can sexuly excite you, so there is no way you could hump man.

that was a extremely personal question

Not really, billions of man on this planet had same experience. You made it personal with your long post.

 

[hope]

Because i dont want guys and guys doing it or girls and girls doing it. that is just wrong and sick and unatural

And who are you to say what you want other people doing or not doing? Who do you think you are to say how people should live their lives?

and if it is unatural i dont want in our society.

How do you know if it is natural or not? Have you not said you are just too lazy to do the research? Oh no wait..you tried it once.

if one group is doing what is not natural i am going to say

it is not natural

Your opinions and again not based on research but on personal feelings.

it matter to me because i care about my society it is not always about the indivdual it is about the tribe the scoiety. we are not just suppose to let each other go and do whatever they want we work together as a team.

This is a rather unsettling statement in my opinion.

this again proofs even more no one is born gay

i am saying a gene or something in DNA is the only possible source.

Okay, well here you seem to be contradicting yourself. Which one are you going for?



My problem with your post is this. Everyone has opinions..and this is good. We live in a society that allows us to express our opinions..and this also is good. However, there are ways to give your opinions and when you start using terms such as .."not natural", "wrong", "sick" etc..that becomes very insulting and sounds somewhat prejudiced.

 

[hope]

I find it somewhat opposite. I have nothing against gays, but have a lot against gay marriage. It's like they subconsciously feel they are not 'regular' but by obtaining this right they will be equalized with others. What's next? Trying to legalize holy gay matrimony? And then somehow import it into Bible, so that they could finally sleep well because they won't go to hell for their diabolical acts...

They were already given too much attention and space, considering that they are just a statistical deviation, and that there are no more obstacles for them to lead an open gay life.

You start off by saying you "have nothing against gays"..then go on to say they have been "given too much space"..that they are a statistical "deviation" and imply they will "go to hell" for their "diabolical" acts and they are not "regular" [ although to quote correctly, these you did put in as way of what they might be thinking]
Indeed, it sounds like you really have nothing against gays.

 

[ebAmerican]

Today's society categorizes sexual acts and relationships. This has not been the norm throughout history. If Fire Haired was born a Celt or Roman 2000 years ago his chances of having a homosexual relationship would be very great. Celtic culture had a very open sexual society. The chief or big man had first priority over all the women in the clan. It was not uncommon for cousins, brothers, and fathers to share wives, as long as they were not mother to son relationships. The war bands that traveled and raided settlements consisted of single men. They would form tight bonds, and even sexual bonds. The type of sex "Prison sex" was very common in ancient cultures. The definition of "Prison sex" - anal sex as a means of dominate power over another individual. It was common in Roman society to give it to a guy, as long as you were not the one getting it. Sex has always been looked at from a power perspective. In modern culture we have soften the views and blurred the lines of dominance. Sex is natural, love is natural, and it doesn't matter if it's between two women, two men, two women one man, four women two men, or just a man and woman. I don't believe homosexuality is genetic, because I don't believe sexuality is genetic. I think we have an instinct to multiply, which leads us to the opposite sex for obvious reasons. I believe social conditioning and human development through your mailable years pushes ones choices in later years. Woman are beautiful, and I'm not gay, and do not have any homosexual feelings, but I can't say that if I was a Roman I wouldn't have participated in the cultural norms of the day (religious orgies and homosexual acts). What is funny about the bible is it was so common and pervasive that it had to be mentioned as a sin.

 

[LeBrok]

I don't believe homosexuality is genetic, because I don't believe sexuality is genetic. I think we have an instinct to multiply, which leads us to the opposite sex for obvious reasons. I believe social conditioning and human development through your mailable years pushes ones choices in later years.

I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.

Nobody teaches you how to swallow, how to feel hungry, how to salivate when smelling good food. Do you have to teach kids to like milk or sweet candies? Try putting piece of lime in their mouth. All without any education.
Same with our sexuality. It is strong and primal, and we are born with it. All you can do is to polish it here or there, and make it more sophisticated.

I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.

 

[ElHorsto]

I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.

Nobody teaches you how to swallow, how to feel hungry, how to salivate when smelling good food. Do you have to teach kids to like milk or sweet candies? Try putting piece of lime in their mouth. All without any education.
Same with our sexuality. It is strong and primal, and we are born with it. All you can do is to polish it here or there, and make it more sophisticated.

I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.

It all makes sense, but I don't understand why homosexuality is not extinct if it is genetic. Instead it keeps existing by about 10% (or some other minor percentage, have no source at hand right now) in most vertebrates.

 

[ebAmerican]

Sexuality, not Sexual characteristics. You forget we are all female at conception, and the amount of testosterone determines sex. The Y chromosome has a big part to play in the amount of testosterone that develops. If there is a genetic link to sexuality, then it is hormonal. I strongly believe that if sexuality is open socially people would have no problem experimenting. At the end of the day genetics might steer one back to the opposite sex, but it doesn't stop one from trying; society does that. The common disgust, and revolting attitude towards homosexuality is all social and not genetic. A person learns to hate, they are not born with it.

 

[sparkey]

I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.

Proof that sexual orientation is not genetic is that identical twins can have different sexual orientations. IMHO the most convincing evidence is that it is primarily epigenetic, per Friberg & Rice. That indicates that it is (primarily) nature rather than nurture, so gays are born that way, but it is not (strictly) hereditary in the sense that there is a persistent gene. It solves the issue of how people cannot seem to choose their orientation, as well as the issue that a theoretical "gay gene" would be suicidal.

 

[sparkey]

What flaw.

Gee... it may have to do with the fact that if I walked in on two men humping each other, my first reaction wouldn't be "Aha! A clear sign that these men are straight!"