PDA

View Full Version : The Gay Marriage Controversy



Pages : [1] 2 3

kirei_na_me
25-02-04, 16:35
It's a huge story in the U.S. right now. As of now, it's up to the state, not the federal goverment, to certify same-sex unions. Dubya is trying his best to change this, though. He's now wanting to alter the Constitution of the United States of America by adding an amendment which will ban all same-sex marriages for good( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20040225/ts_washpost/a3320_2004feb24 ).

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about this subject. Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned? Do you think that homosexual couples should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples? Or you're not sure? Let's have a little discussion.

I'm adding a map showing the status of same-sex marriage by state(Alaska is questionable):

jeisan
25-02-04, 16:49
i thought hawaii allowed same sex marriages...
personally i dont really care what other people do in their spare time as long as it doesnt hurt me or my friends/family and they dont try to push their beliefs on me.

Maciamo
25-02-04, 17:29
I can't find that sinful, as I am not religious. Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together.

Then, I was wondering what is the legal status of a gay couple who would have got married in a country or state where gay marriage is legal in any place where it is not legal. If it is the same as with dual nationality, it is only recognised where it is legal. E.g. if an American becomes Japanese, he/she will have both nationalities in the US, but only the Japanese one in Japan (as Japan does not recognised dual nationality, but the US do). How does it work with US driver's licences ? As ages varies from state to state, is it ok for instance for a 15 year old to get a driver's licence in a state where the legal age is 15, then drive anywhere in the US, or can they only drive in the states that accept 15 year-olds to drive ? (don't have this issue in Europe as the legal age for driving is 18 everywhere, so I don't have a clue).

jeisan
25-02-04, 17:38
Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together.
actually sodomy is illegal in some states...
as for honoring the marriage it varies, some states recognize gay marriages from other states though they dont allow them themselves while others dont. not sure about the drivers licenses though, but i think they will be honored, when my uncle was 15 he used the one he'd been issued in a state where it was too early for him to get one there with no problems.

Hachiko
25-02-04, 18:19
I think gay marriages should be legalized. I feel that Bush's move to ban gay marriage is a just a plan for him to get reelected. Bush won't succeed, and neither wi0ll the ban. Period.

kirei_na_me
25-02-04, 18:40
Yeah, I think he's trying to do it to get voter approval too, but like you, I don't think he's going to succeed. He's done dug himself pretty darn deep already.

Eternal Wind
25-02-04, 22:42
well.....i still think that same sex marriages are to be legal...cause it is the human choice of who loves who and not jus being controlled by human laws,each person got the right to choose who they love and who they don't.Cause love can't be forced.And as long as the 2 truely loves each other,Y not?

Frank D. White
25-02-04, 23:06
Big business & government don't want to have to pay for benifits, lose tax money, and fight court battles over the legal issues involved. I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!

Frank

Winter
25-02-04, 23:38
Grr....this issue....ISNT AN ISSUE!

Let the freaking people marry whomever they love within reason *none of that minor bs*.

This isnt a freaking issue, and thats the reality of the situation. This shouldnt be having so much energy put in it. Rights shouldnt discriminate, and being a former supporter for Bush, I'd have to say that he is only doing this to regain support from his strongest redneck-....er....voters of the south.

All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.

As corrupt as our system of govt is, there will not be an amendment that will forbid these types of unions. Even if it does come out, it will be annulled immediately.

Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, CAPITALISTS. With that said, once word gets out on how much money my hometown of San Francisco has made off this, the rest of the country will be itching to get in on the action. This 'issue' right now mean big bucks.

kirei_na_me
25-02-04, 23:52
Summed it up pretty nicely, Winter. I also think all of this could be a ploy to get attention off other matters at hand, such as the whole Iraq situation. Let's take the people's minds off the issues that really matter...yeah...

lineartube
26-02-04, 00:33
I don't know why everyone is so upset. after all, in the start of his term, Bush did pushed or tried to push a program to incentivate marriage. Perhaps it worked too well? :)

It is a serious issue, but I think that nowadays, it only draws attention from the right wing Christians and the people that are directly affected. In the middle is a mass of (more or less informed) people that threads on the politically correct, don't care less and wonders what's the big fuss about.

Looks like everyone's already forgot another major issue that was raised by Janet Jackson's Tiet Offensive. :D

Maciamo
26-02-04, 03:30
I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!


So what ? money has always been a valid argument in politics, but religious shouldn't be. You can't impose your religious views to all the nation (especially such a hybrid one as the American one). I think the French are right when they want a strict separation of religion and politics (the ban on headscarves at school is another problem...).

Maciamo
26-02-04, 03:39
All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.

Completely agree with you. :lol:



Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, CAPITALISTS.

Inserting a ban on gay marriage in the constitution is plain non-sense, especially when this one grant the citizens freedom of opinion, beliefs, expression, etc. I've nener heard of a constitution that forbids rights rather than grant them. Interesting new way towards tyranny. :danger:

Mandylion
26-02-04, 04:53
First, I am in support of allowing gay people to marry if they wish. It doesn't bother me, in my view it doesn't cheapen the institution, nor endanger society. How can two adults who care and love each other be considered as bad?

That said - For the sake of discussion (remember, I don't endorse all these views, just want to keep it alive)

Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.

So what if everyone compromises by letting congress rewrite some laws to extend legal protections/benefits but stop short of demanding marriage? The right wingers would be happy because their ideals are met, gay couples gain legal protection/benefit for their relationship, and you can get rid of all this silly nonsense about gay marriage throwing open the door to polygamist/three men/animals and people.

It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.

Hachiko
28-02-04, 02:19
Which is the price to pay for living in a Puritan-based society. :o

Kuro_Tsubasa69
28-02-04, 02:41
@Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also. So, if we are to go by your idea, do we have a 'legal union' reciption for them? :p (Even though I can see ppl having probs w/that also....:auch:.)

IMHO: I don't see any problems whatsoever with two people in love who wish to marry. If those bible-belt people raise a stink over gay marriage destroying the so-called 'sanctity' of marriage, then why aren;t they pissed off as much about those reality shows like 'my big fat obnoixious fiance' and 'married by america'? I think those shows are the only things doing damage to marriage. :angryfire

Elizabeth
28-02-04, 03:05
It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.
Yeah, I agree politization of an issue is ultimately antithethical or irrevelant to matters of the heart. Unfortunately as with so many other areas gays and lesbians often seem to perpetuate the controversy by reducing the reasons for marriage to a question of legal rights, universal recognition, as a statement against discrimination/anti-Bush etc none of which of course are integral to the institution itself. It's much rarer to hear what should be the most fundamental motivations of giving children a stable family life or preserving the longevity of their own relationship.

Maciamo
28-02-04, 03:40
Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.




@Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also.

In laic Europe, (especially countries like the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands...), so many people have come to dislike the idea of getting married because of its association with religion and church ceremony, that the number of umarried people living and having children together is on the rise. I don't know in the US, but in Japan almsot 100% of parents are married, because the father would not be recognised otherwise.

In Europe, that's already a few decades that married and non married couples have the same legal status. France offers 3 possibilities to couples who want to live or have children together : cohabitation, "pacs" or marriage. The legal status of each is different, but in all cases the couple and their children are legally recognised. Couples in "pacs" can declare their revenue together and enjoy tax rebates after 3 years of "pacs", while married couples always declare together and cohabiting ones never do. The inheritence tax is also progressive, highest for cohabitation, then pacs (degressive with number of years spent together), then marriage (also degressive).

For property and debts, cohabiting couples are completely separate, those in "pacs" have common property for thing sthey bought together and must be solidary for everyday debts, while married couples always have common properties and debts, unless otherwise specified in a "contract" (prenuptial agreement).

Now more interestingly, in all 3 situations, couples can have a common social security, medicare, etc. Even better, it is possible for a foreigner either in "pacs" or cohabiting with a French person (so not married), to obtain French nationality after 5 years of living in France (same condition as for married couples in Japan). If they are married, then only 1 year is necessary (that is for France, as each EU country has different laws ; e.g. it is only 6 months in Belgium).

For work, couples in "pacs" and married ones have the same priorities for holidays/vacations. That is, they are allowed to ask to have their holiday/vacation at the same time as their partner, but it's a matter of company policy.

It is also possible for couples in pacs to adopt children, though only one person can officially do so, while both can if they are married. Cohabitating couples can't.

In case of separation, there are no formalities for cohabiting couples, but "pacsed" and married couples must declare it officially at a tribunal/court. The only difference is that if they were married, they can ask their ex-partner for financial help/support. But in both case, damages can be sought by either party.

Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?

That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.

For those who can read French, here is the website where I obtained my information (http://www.lemoneymag.com/Kalideo/Site/Application/Dossier/s_Dossier/0,1676,4-12481-12482-5970-0-0-DOS,00.html). BTW, these laws aren't new in France/Europe. I've always known this system since my childhood.

One last thing, in lots of EU countries, civil and religious marriages are clearly disctinct things. But that depends on the country. In France, Belgium, etc. the only legal way to get married is to sign at the townhall. Marriages made by a priest have no legal value. So if people want a religious marriage, they must get a civil one first. In countries like Italy, however, either way is acceptable. Japan is of course like France and many other Eu countries. How about the USA ? These "Las Vegas marriages" are only religious ones, aren't they ?

I suppose it's because marriage still has such a strong religious connotation in the US that it causes so much turmoil from religious activists and puritan politicians now. やはりアメリカはヨーロッパよりサウディアラビアに近い。

Keeni84
29-02-04, 08:32
Does anyone remember the phrase "separate but equal"? I pray to God we won't do the same thing to homosexual people who's only crime is to want to be married to their significant other. I mean, damn.


Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?

Well, there are several sorts of things like that in America. We call it a "Domestic Partnership Registry". My city became the first in the nation to allow it's citizens the right to vote on whether or not homosexual couples could be allowed domestic partnership, and we were the first in the nation to pass. Basically, you get all the same benefits as a married couple does.

However, I don't believe this to be enough.


That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.

This would be the "solution" for gays? Why does there need to be a "solution"? Why can't America just do the right thing and award equal rights to its citizens? How would this "satisfy" homosexual couples? The homosexual couples that I've talked to, and my homosexual friends don't believe this to be enough. Segregation didn't work before, remember?

Just the fact that you say "almost" the same rights gives me cause for alarm. "Almost" the same rights? Like homosexuals are "almost" citizens, right?

Homosexual people are just like every other citizen, but more importantly, they PAY TAXES. I'm sorry, but if I was homosexual and I was being denied my rights, I would stop paying taxes, and take it to the Supreme Court.

Feral-Darkness
29-02-04, 09:58
The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.

IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.

It has to be equal.

jeisan
29-02-04, 10:19
the US and australia have whats called a common law marriage, where if a couple has been living together for 12+ months then they can claim to be spouses, will work for citizenship in australia, not sure about the states though. in both cases claiming common law then separating still requires a legal divorce.

Maciamo
29-02-04, 10:28
The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.

IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.


Actually, I didn't see it as a "bullshit" at all. As you might know, I am not Christian, nor even religious, so for me the idea of "marriage" as it is understood in Western cultures, is slightest disturbing. I am married to a Japanse, but only because marriage in Japan has a completely different meaning, more of a social duty towards the family, and has nothing religious (we had no ceremony either in a church/chapel nor in a temple/shrine). What is more, it is the only form of officially recognised relationship (no cohabitation or "pacs"). But if it were up to me to change things, there wouldn't be any marriages, but just civil unions. So when I was talking about such sort of union for gay, I was thinking of a better solution than marriage (given they aren't religious like me), as I would never have got married had it been tinted with religious connotation.

So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.

kirei_na_me
29-02-04, 15:13
It almost never fails that I agree with Maciamo completely.

The above post is exactly how I feel. I, also not being religious, would rather not have gotten married at all. In fact, I didn't want to get married when I did, and if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't be married. Yes, that's a bold statement and it is for very many reasons and it's a long, complicated story. Anyway...

The point is, though, that gay people simply want to be considered equal, and I believe they should have that right. If they wish to be married like their heterosexual counterparts, I think they should be able to. Not everyone is non-religious like me and there are still people who believe that marriage is necessary to seal the deal and make everything right. I don't deny that many might be doing it just to prove a point, though... ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040227/ap_en_tv/rosie_o_donnell_wedding_12 )

This hits close to home for me. There are several lesbians in my family(could it be genetic?) and also friends who have partners and some of them wish to be legally married to them. I know them and I know how they feel about each other, and I feel that if they want to be married to each other, then why shouldn't they be able to? They exhibit much more genuine, loving, and caring behavior toward each other than so many heterosexual couples I've known. Oh well...it's too personal for me, I guess...

bossel
29-02-04, 19:01
Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned?

If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.

Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.

Elizabeth
29-02-04, 19:29
So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.
And why then should the majority give up any of their rights to "marriage" which already is "customizable" in the sense that religious ceremonies are not mandatory, when inclusion in the institution is precisely what gays and lesbians seem to be asking for? You could also argue I suppose on the other spectrum in the name of religious freedom that for a truly devout couple legal recognition in the form of a license, registration, etc should be irrelevant to their personal commitment which could even undermine their faith and a sacred ceremony alone ought to be passively endorsed/recognized by the state.

Keeni84
29-02-04, 20:00
THANK YOU, Elizabeth.

Why should everyone else be denied the right to get married? Their are Christian homosexuals who have faith in marriage as a religious institution. Do not assume that homosexuals have no faith. There are Jewish homosexuals, Christian homosexuals, Catholic homosexuals, Pagan and Wiccan homosexuals...and the list goes on. Should they be denied their right to get married in the religion of their choosing?

Not everyone in the world is non-religious. People should have the right to get married under their God in their religion. Just as I should have the right to have a civil union with no religious connotations.

I believe that marriage and civil union should BOTH be allowed in society. For whomever wants to get married in religion (homosexual or not) and for whomever wants to just have a civil union with no religious connotations (homosexual or not).

kirei_na_me
29-02-04, 20:09
I think I just said something about people who are religious wanting to get married and have some kind of ceremony to make it "right" for them? Even homosexual people have religion, and I don't think there's one thing wrong with that. I just want to make sure you all knew that I said that...

kirei_na_me
29-02-04, 20:13
If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.

Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.

bossel, separation of church and state doesn't really mean anything in this country. There has just recently been a long, drawn-out debate about The Ten Commandments being taken out of an Alabama courthouse.

Elizabeth
29-02-04, 20:22
If this is Bush's argumentation I wonder what he makes of the separation of state & religion. To bring this into the constitution would go against one of its very principles.

Maybe there should be anyway a differentiation between the "sacred institution" of marriage as of the church/religion & contractual marriage as of the state.
Bush was simply using the term marriage in the legal sense in lieu of civil unions or domestic partnerships since as yet there's no universal agreement on where or how those should be recognized. As far as I'm aware, the governor of California has come out for full & equal legal rights between civil union (homosexual) and married (heterosexual) couples so I doubt even Bush would quarrel with that. Certainly no one can deny homosexual couples a purely religious ceremony and those have probably been going on underground for quite a long time now.

Keeni84
29-02-04, 20:56
Oh, Kireina_me that wasn't in reference to you. I just wanted to point out that many if not most homosexuals don't want to be "civil unioned" they want to be "married".

mieboy
01-03-04, 15:22
Well!! I totally support this gay marriage stuff...BECAUSE I'm gay....lol
Bush is beeing nazist saying these stuffs on tv. The Americans say that the USA is a country of freedom...So, Why Gay marriage its not allowed?!
Well, I have an Australian boyfriend. I hope someday the planet earth accept that there are man who likes man and woman who does like woman...It's not a disease, it's not a option or preference...It's just who we are,I'ts just our feelings...
BYE!! :emblaugh:

kirei_na_me
01-03-04, 15:41
Good for you, mieboy! :-)

I think people are born being gay. So many people remember being attracted to the same sex--or both sexes--from very early on, like pre-K age. I don't think it's a conscious decision at that stage.

I think it also could be genetic. How many people in my family are gay? Enough to make me question if it's inherited. Besides the ones that are officially "out", there are others that are not, but pop up on the gaydar.

Maciamo
01-03-04, 16:12
And why then should the majority give up any of their rights to "marriage" which already is "customizable" in the sense that religious ceremonies are not mandatory, when inclusion in the institution is precisely what gays and lesbians seem to be asking for? You could also argue I suppose on the other spectrum in the name of religious freedom that for a truly devout couple legal recognition in the form of a license, registration, etc should be irrelevant to their personal commitment which could even undermine their faith and a sacred ceremony alone ought to be passively endorsed/recognized by the state.

What I mean, is that legally marriage should disappear, but it would of course remains as a religious ceremony, or something recognised by one's religious group, but completely separate from the government. What does religion have to do with legal benefits such as tax rebates, common insurance, lower inheritance tax, possibility of adoption, etc. Religion always causes problems like now. If marriage had nothing to the state, there wouldn't be any problem betwen gays and the Bush administration. If they want to get married, that is up to their religion (and branch/sect). If the local priest/reverend doesn't want to marry a gay couple, they go somewhere else, change religion or protest against their religious leaders. What could people like Bush have the right to decide for everybody of all confessions and no-confession who has the right to get married, or align legal benefits on the institutions of marriage, when people like me would rather get the benefits without the marriage. In addition, nowadays people should be able to customise each legal part of their union to some else. Basically, instead of getting married and have the same law applying for everybody regardless of their peculiarities and situation, I'd rather make a contract that fits exactly to my relationship with the other person. You don't always want to have financial responsibility for your partner "in the package". That's why such contracts already exist ("prenuptial agreement", which sounds like a rather old-fashioned term). What I would like is keep the contract for legal matters between the couple, and let the marriage (not just the ceremony, but the whole idea of marriage) to the religious groups. So that if people feel marriage is "sacred" and an alliance before god, then they are perfectly free to do that in accordance with their religion or beliefs, and let others be free of that trouble.

Hachiko
01-03-04, 16:42
Well!! I totally support this gay marriage stuff...BECAUSE I'm gay....lol
Bush is beeing nazist saying these stuffs on tv. The Americans say that the USA is a country of freedom...So, Why Gay marriage its not allowed?!
Well, I have an Australian boyfriend. I hope someday the planet earth accept that there are man who likes man and woman who does like woman...It's not a disease, it's not a option or preference...It's just who we are,I'ts just our feelings...
BYE!! :emblaugh:

This from one who has come out in earnest, without hesitation or remorse. Applause.
*applause*

Elizabeth
01-03-04, 17:22
What I mean, is that legally marriage should disappear, but it would of course remains as a religious ceremony, or something recognised by one's religious group, but completely separate from the government.
The legal status of marriage may not be as flexible as you describe but it is in effect a totally seperate entity from the religious in the US at least which the language may or may not reflect depending on your context and perspective. I don't necessarily assume marriage implies a church wedding or contract between two people and their god and it certainly isn't the religious or ceremonial aspect of marriage per se that is the crux of the issue with gays and lesbians and Bush.

mdchachi
13-03-04, 23:00
Some of you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with that of religious marriage. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies for years. Whether or not a religious organization allows gays to marry is an issue for that organization alone.

The issue that is at hand is the legal definition of marriage. Legally, marriage is basically an affirmative action program for married people. Married people are given certain rights and benefits that other people are not. These rights and benefits are mainly to do with practical matters such as inheritance, child custody or health care.

I think the debate needs to take a step back and determine what the State is attempting to accomplish with this "affirmative action" program. Once the issues and goals are clear, then the solutions will also appear. For example, why limit "marriage" or "civil unions" to gay & heterosexual couples? Why couldn't a brother and sister enter into a committed "civil union"? Why couldn't a man or a woman form a "civil union" with multiple partners (ie polygamy)? These ideas might make sense. Or they may not. But it really needs to be looked at in logical manner without bringing issues of religion into the discussion as they are not relevant.

mieboy
14-03-04, 07:30
personally. I dont mind if the govern creat some law that allows gay people marry. I even dont care even more if the catholic church its against the gays union too...I just wanna spend my lifetime with someone that I love and trust...A piece of paper or a ceremony wouldnt make any difference. :cool:

Rachel
14-03-04, 18:35
Personally I think this whole thing is staggering!
Iíve been keeping an eye on this from my side of the pond, and I have to ask ?
Why the HELL did you elect this guy as leader of your country ? I meanÖ WHY ?
I just donít get it !
Didnít you have enough warning about the Bush family when you elected George. The man who said :

"No, I donít know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots.ď

Then you elect another one in and acts surprised when he declares gay marriages are wrong and cause confusion ! (What confusion by the wayÖ.That gay couples are capable of being a committed loving respectable couple, instead of being evil loose godless perverts.)

This man is a modern day Hitler ! And I'm sorry if that offends anyone but, lets look at the facts.

1. Like Hitler Bushy is funded more than any other industry, by the oil industry. Did you know that Hitlers war machine was funded by the export and sale of petroleum. Germany owned the patents on most of the petroleum products of the time and controlled most of the trade of those products.

2. Like Hitler Bushy has given his country a focus for it to hate, an minority for it to persecute and a religion to revile. A source of all woes for his countryís problems, keeping peoples focus away from the damage being done within by there own government.

3. Like Hitler Bushy is inspiring and encouraging his own countrymen to spy on each other for the sake of ĎNational Securityí. This whole thing with Ashcroft and ĎThe Ministry of Homeland SecurityíÖ. Itís the Gestapo all over again. And if you think thatís harsh letís look atÖ

4. Like Hitler Bushy has given his Intelligence arm the right to hold anyone they want, for any length of time, with out any legal rights, for any reason they damn well like.
Have any of you read the ĎPatriots ActíÖ..Oh my god! Scary or what ?

5. Instead of ĎGerman Aryansí you now have ĎAmerican Patriotsí. Tell me are you a good little Patriot ?

6. Like Hitler Bushy is now imposing extreme travel restrictions and permits on people coming into and leaving the country. In order to protect the country from agitators, terrorists and extremists who pose a threat to the fatherland.

7. Like Hitler Bushy is holding ĎUndesirable None Combatantsí in a prison camp. If theyíve done something wrong then give them a trial and a sentence. For **** sake treat them as humans or let them go.

The ONLY real difference is bushís PR is slicker and better developed than Hitlerís was.

I could carry on for a while, but I think you get the idea by now. Your country has become the very thing that ours crippled itís self to stop! And no one seems to really give a damn, which makes me mad damn it !
:box:
(Big Breath)

Ok rant overÖsorry. :sorry: I think I need some chocolate.

Good for you ĎMieboyí. Never be afraid to be true to your self, no matter what. I hope you find that love and trust your looking for with your current boyfriend honey.
:love:
Huggy Love, Rachel.

kirei_na_me
14-03-04, 21:31
Thank you, from one Rachel to another! :-) I happened to like your rant very much! Just wish everyone could see and understand what's going on.

Rachel
14-03-04, 22:59
Thank you, from one Rachel to another! :-) I happened to like your rant very much! Just wish everyone could see and understand what's going on.

Thank you for the compliment Kirei.

Itís really not that hard. The lesson is already there in black and white, the problem is people just have to wake up and SEE !
If you compare Hitlerís rise to power and the things he did in Germany before he invaded poland, to whatís happening in America today. The closeness is frightening.
People have to WAKE UP, to pay attention to whatís happening and learn from the lessons of WWII.
Before itís to late.

Maciamo
15-03-04, 04:35
Some of you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with that of religious marriage. Gays have been getting married in religious ceremonies for years. Whether or not a religious organization allows gays to marry is an issue for that organization alone.

I didn't know that. So why are religious leaders or extremist so agitated about now in the States ? Civil marriage shouldn't be a problem for them, as it is not connected to religion (oh, damn it, I forgot that the US does not separate church and state :angryfire: )



For example, why limit "marriage" or "civil unions" to gay & heterosexual couples? Why couldn't a brother and sister enter into a committed "civil union"? Why couldn't a man or a woman form a "civil union" with multiple partners (ie polygamy)?

Excellent point ! The future of our society lies in such reasoning. Marriage is an anticated institution. People should be able to live (that doesn't mean have sex or children - still another debate) with whoever they want and enjoy the same legal protection as "regular couples". I mean, some people can be sterile, castrated (still lots of them in India) or just don't like sex or don't want to have children. Wht couldn't they live with a friend or family member and share the benefits social and medical care, like a gay civil union ?

But very religious or conservative people will never understand such logic of their lifetime.

--

BTW, great post Rachel, I completely agree ! :cool:

jeisan
15-03-04, 07:37
... Why the HELL did you elect this guy as leader of your country ? I meanÖ WHY ?
I just donít get it !
we didnt, bush lost the popular vote by 500,000. but because of the stupid system thats in place he got the presidency. anyway nice rant.

mdchachi
15-03-04, 19:59
> This man is a modern day Hitler ! And I'm sorry if that offends anyone but, lets look at the facts.

> The ONLY real difference is bushís PR is slicker and better developed than Hitlerís was.

I realize you are just ranting but the comparison is not apt in my opinion and I wouldn't worry about things getting out of control. Bush doesn't have the cult of personality that Hitler had. He doesn't have the support (remember only about 24% of people of voting age voted for him in the first place). On top of that he's not likely to gain much more support. Unlike Hitler he hasn't solved the nations problems. (Under Hitler the Germany's unemployment rates went down as production soared.) Unlike Hitler he doesn't have a grand appealing vision. (Afterall, Hitler foresaw the European Union -- unification of Europe -- he just happened to believe it would be best if Europe was unified as a single Germany.) Unlike Hitler he doesn't have enough support to change the nation's Constitution or subvert the courts. And I personally believe he doesn't have the ambition.

Even if Bush gets reelected, it won't be the end of the world. Certainly nothing even close to Hitler's regime.

Winter
15-03-04, 23:13
I'm sure the hitler comparison was just a metaphor to symbolize Bush's apparent strive for tyranny, and oppression.

Guys, please, dont worry too much. Everything will change when I gain power. People think I'm joking when I say that; I'm really not.

howabe
16-03-04, 00:43
Gays should be culled.
Set replies for any comments:
a) No offence.
b) I don't care.

NB, those two aren't the obvious contradictions they appear to be.

Kuro_Tsubasa69
16-03-04, 02:34
Gays should be culled.
Set replies for any comments:
a) No offence.
b) I don't care.

NB, those two aren't the obvious contradictions they appear to be.


!PERDON! :wave: I don't care if you care or not, but exactly what do you mean by that? (This goes to Toliet Roll too!) Please tell me, I wish to know what makes bigots tick.

kirei_na_me
16-03-04, 02:41
You know what my husband said when asked if gays should be allowed to marry? He said it would be good in that maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist.

Frank D. White
16-03-04, 02:46
bound to kill a love, no matter how strong!

Frank

:D :p :cool: :blush:

Frank D. White
16-03-04, 02:47
all the more women left for me !!

Frank

:blush:

kirei_na_me
16-03-04, 02:51
Yeah, we know Frank. You're licking your eyebrows...we know... :p

Frank D. White
16-03-04, 02:53
Yeah, we know Frank. You're licking your eyebrows...we know... :p

Excuse me, hairball !!

Frank

:blush:

mdchachi
16-03-04, 05:56
You know what my husband said when asked if gays should be allowed to marry? He said it would be good in that maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist.

I don't follow the logic. :confused:

kirei_na_me
16-03-04, 05:58
I don't follow the logic. :confused:

Exactly. I don't either.

den4
16-03-04, 07:51
Time for your local intermission.
Forget the negative campaign ads this year during the US Election time. Why settle for a lesser evil? Vote for Cutethulhu and VP Cute Kitthulhu!
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming... :D

it's election time...what more is there to say? :D

howabe
16-03-04, 10:02
"Maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist."

The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.

howabe
16-03-04, 10:08
I wish to know what makes bigots tick.
Usually the knowledge that what they say is right.
Also, before ascertaining that it isn't because of my religion, or personal experience (ie. having been violently raped by a man etc) that I hold these beliefs, don't label me.

Kama
16-03-04, 11:23
"Maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist."

The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.


As also many heterosexual couples. And what do you want to do with this? Kill them, for this?

Definetely! Gay marriages should be allowed. I'd like to have a marriage with a person I love wether it's boy or a girl. I don't care about religious ceremony, as I am not religious, at last in the sense of being religious Catholic.

I think that "marriage" can be viewed also as a sybol of equality. I am the same as you, why my love should be evil and siniful, juzt because I love the person of the same sex? Love doesn't bother with partner's sex... It's just descending onto you. Being in love and wanting to be in a relationship with this person... Is it bad? I don't want a world like this.

I know! I should become politician!! :D

kirei_na_me
16-03-04, 13:42
"Maybe the 'defect' would eventually cease to exist."

The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.

I knew that was what he was trying to say, but there are homosexuals who have children via artificial insemination, right? Like a gay man might use his sperm with the egg of a surrogate mother or a lesbian might use her egg and then sperm from a donor, as a lot of them do.

Then there's all those who aren't 'out' and are in heterosexual marriages for whatever reason. There will still be children produced from those relationships.

bossel
16-03-04, 15:33
The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species.
Nope! Biologically/evolutionary invalid points.
BTW, which furtherment?

mdchachi
16-03-04, 18:20
> The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate [sic]

And how would you happen to know this? Are you God?

Kuro_Tsubasa69
16-03-04, 20:35
Usually the knowledge that what they say is right.
Also, before ascertaining that it isn't because of my religion, or personal experience (ie. having been violently raped by a man etc) that I hold these beliefs, don't label me.


I still think that you're a BIGOT.

1) Religion is not something to hide behind. (Because, after all, it was created by MAN.) ~AND, also, religion is mainly the reason behind bigotry, I actually assumed that was the reason you hate~

2) Really? Personal experience you say?

AHEM. *enter rant mode*

Women are violently raped all the time...by MEN. Yet do they hate each and every single one out there?? NO. Also, you may not be aware of this fact, but a straight male is more likely to rape another man than a gay male is.

Also, I assume you hate all homosexuals, correct? Well, if, say, it was a gay male who raped you, and you thus hated all gay males thenceforth, what about the lesbians? What'd they do? Why do you hate all if it was just one gender?

*END RANT*

Oh, yeah. Please tell me how bigots are "right".

howabe
16-03-04, 21:32
Ok. Firstly, although this obviously appears to simply be an attempt at ducking out of the situation, I'd like to point out that neither of those comments were actually my own opinion. Being the superficial person I am, the first was simply to amuse a friend. The second was merely an attempt to try and explain a standpoint which people seemed to have difficulty getting to grips with.
@ Mr. 'Pimp':
a) I'm an atheist.
b) 'a straight male is more likely to rape another man than a gay male is'.
Maybe so. But my statement was hypothetical. Any 'bigot', as you so prejudicially put it, who had been raped, whether by a 'straight' or gay man, would, as a bigot, simply blame it on all gays, as he would obviously be prejudiced against them. I was simply working with your sweeping generalisation. Had you elaborated better, my reply would most likely have been quite different.
b) 'Personal experience'.
Not my own personal experience.
c) 'I assume you hate all homosexuals right?'
Another random assumption. My school had the highest proportion of gays than any other in the Northwest, and (I hate to phrase it in such a way, but needs must) daily interaction and of course close friendship with them has (I like to think) given me a higher-than-usual tolerance of gays.
d) 'Please tell me how bigots are "right"'
If there was nothing to base an opinion on, it would most likely never occur. Therefore, bigots must base their opinions on some (however feeble) semblance of truth
Addendum:
If you were more observant, you'd realise I was an avid Juggalo. You'd also probably know the Insane Clown Posse promote acceptance of all people and that everyone deserves to be treated equal. Being as obssessed as I am, I follow this to the word, which obviously means I try to hold as few prejudices as I can.
Bear in mind:
"There ain't no bigot that ain't been Clowned."

@ mdchachi:
Know how to form the perfect active infinitive of an impersonal deponant verb? No? Then don't mock an accidental grammatical mistake.

Probably going away for a while till matters calm down.

Rachel
16-03-04, 21:54
Usually the knowledge that what they say is right.

(Room drops a couple of degrees)

pardon !.....

(Sound of breeze block being sliped into handbag)

Howabe..2 questions.

a. How old are you?
b. What is your opinion on the 'NF'?

Rachel
16-03-04, 22:06
Look, I think what I am trying to say is, poofs are poofs, but when they start trying to have a baby? Its just wrong in my opinion :(
If anyone is intrested this guy is a brit, I'd say he's about the age of 8 - 13.

Frank D. White
16-03-04, 22:14
If they can't make love and produce off-spring, they should be shot.

I know animals can't be gay too.


digging your own right next to his? Intolarance is a hard lable to shake! Freedom of speech & right to your opinion
can lead to some BIG hard feelings.If we want everyone to feel welcome on this Forum, some things are better left unsaid, even if you do truly believe them! This looks like a good thread to lock down before we all go to far down the road & around the bend!!

Frank

Frank D. White
16-03-04, 22:26
in the past, people who say politically incorrect(hateful)
things get banned from posting, sometimes with a warning before and sometimes no warning. It doesn't pay to even joke about somethings. This Forum probably has less hate & anger then most do. It really is nice when everyone is friendly & polite; one big happy family!! By the way, I have no power or athority on the Forum, I just like happy people!


Frank

:blush:

kirei_na_me
16-03-04, 22:29
My warning is up there.

Rachel
16-03-04, 22:30
in the past, people who say politically incorrect(hateful)
things get banned from posting, sometimes with a warning before and sometimes no warning. It doesn't pay to even joke about somethings. This Forum probably has less hate & anger then most do. It really is nice when everyone is friendly & polite; one big happy family!! By the way, I have no power or athority on the Forum, I just like happy people!


Frank

:blush:
I'm in agreement with you frank. I think some one needs to step in now and sort this out, before it gets out of hand.

kirei_na_me
16-03-04, 22:35
He tried to be sneaky and add something to another one of his posts after I deleted the last one. I don't like sneaky, I don't like inflammatory posts, and I don't like someone trying to dumb down my thread.

Rachel
16-03-04, 22:44
He tried to be sneaky and add something to another one of his posts after I deleted the last one. I don't like sneaky, I don't like inflammatory posts, and I don't like someone trying to dumb down my thread.
(In best American accent)

You GO girl !! Yeah ! :cool:

kirei_na_me
16-03-04, 22:46
*gives Rachel high five*

I have to crack that whip every once in awhile! :p

Rachel
16-03-04, 23:03
Howabe... IF your saying your post was a joke, It was done in really bad taste.
It wasn't big, and it definitely wasn't clever.

neptunemoon
16-03-04, 23:15
Well ok since I work at a zoo I know animals can be gay. I know female goats who are confused and try to mate with other females. These gay female goats think they are male. I think we also have a gay male goat something about a chemical imbalance. Well I think gay marriages are good and the whole thing about children well you know how many homeless kids we have. These couples could adopt and provide a stable home. I think this can help our society out and provide a home for these children.

mdchachi
17-03-04, 00:10
> Know how to form the perfect active infinitive of an impersonal deponant verb? No? Then don't mock an accidental grammatical mistake.

I wasn't mocking your grammatical mistake (what made you think so?). It should be clear that I was questioning your statement itself. ([sic] is used to quote a person to indicate that the mistake is not the quoter's but the quotee's; it's not normally used to mock.)

Rachel
17-03-04, 00:23
Ok lets get back to the matter at hand now.
I think most of us agree that gay couples should have the legal right to be together.
Correct?
The question now seems to be what kind of union would be best.
I think gay couples should have the same right to marry as non-gay couples

Sanitarium
17-03-04, 01:22
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own


I think if you browse this thread, you'll find that the only people who are intolerent of other people's opinion (yes, opinion being the key word) are the ones in some kind of moral lynch mob, hypocritically flinging the word 'bigot' about.

I don't see any insults from anyone against gay marriage here, at all. Just derogatory remarks made to them, by others.

It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal. Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too.

The fact that in some countries it's legal for two gay people to adopt is politicl correctness gone crazy. I pity any poor child with same sex parents. Teased at school, given the wrong image of how a family should be, and having to think about his parents having gay sex. It's abhorrent.

Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all. People are complaining about this for complaining's sake, because they have nothing better to do than whine.



Originally Posted by Frank D. White
in the past, people who say politically incorrect(hateful)


politically incorrect does not mean hateful. If it did, it'd be called 'hateful' and not 'politically incorrect'. A more accurate description of politically incorrect would be "what most people think, but don't want to say because of a select few people (usually minority groups) crying about it". It's just a restriction of free speech to make people look 'clean' and politicians safe from anyone whatsoever kicking up a fuss.

Rachel, you say that we think 'gay people should have the legal right to be togther'. They DO. They just can't get married. Big deal. If I was gay I'd be worried about, well, being gay, not about the fact I couldn't get married.

bossel
17-03-04, 02:11
It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal. Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too.
Well, you can call homosexuality abnormal, for the vast majority (the "average") is not. But basic biology? No way! Homosexuality exists in a lot of species, not just humans. It obviously has a function or else it wouldn't exist in so many species. A deviation in the brain, doesn't mean that it is bad: abnormal ... maybe, harmful ... obviously not.


I pity any poor child with same sex parents. Teased at school
The teasing originates from intolerance in society. If somebody is to blame then it's not the homosexuals.


Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all.
True, but if they want to marry, why not?

kirei_na_me
17-03-04, 02:35
Excellent, bossel.

Kama
17-03-04, 15:24
It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal. Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too.

Good God! No! Never! I don't want this. It's brainwashing... That can lead to tyrany. It's not abnormal... Maybe for you, but for me it's quite normal that I like both boys and girls... I feel offended by your statement.


The fact that in some countries it's legal for two gay people to adopt is politicl correctness gone crazy. I pity any poor child with same sex parents. Teased at school, given the wrong image of how a family should be, and having to think about his parents having gay sex. It's abhorrent.

It's good that they can marry. Your point of view is from middleages, I would say. More importantly the family should be loving, not talking about somebody's sex. A wrong image of how a family should be is having a drunkard and psychical/phisical violence at home.



Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all. People are complaining about this for complaining's sake, because they have nothing better to do than whine.

You don't need, but maybe I want to marry the person I love. It's only your point of view, on the whole world there are people who marry somebody because of love.


Rachel, you say that we think 'gay people should have the legal right to be togther'. They DO. They just can't get married. Big deal. If I was gay I'd be worried about, well, being gay, not about the fact I couldn't get married.

Why should I worry that I am gay [ok. : bi?]? It's absolutely normal for me, no need to worry about this. And I want to marry the person i love without worrying if it's woman or man. Yes, big deal. Why I can't get married? I am juzt a normal citizen.

mieboy
17-03-04, 16:00
WHAT'S GOING ON?!I cant believe that there are people that thinks we're here just to procriate..We're all here with some mission to achieve here in the Planet...We're not animals! We are human beings. So I'm sure that we're not here just to procriate...

Research in animals suggests that it is a genetic brain abnormality, and soon the technology will allow us to prove this for humans too

I'm really glad I was born GAY. And if I could turn back time and choose to be heterossexual...I wouldnt do that. I met many interestings people(gays and heteressuals) And if I wasnt gay. I wouldnt never know then..

I respect all u guys...So respect us!! RESPECT ITS ALL WE NEED...

And please dont compare animals with us! Off course I'm sure that there are animals more decent than many humans around...

P.S. My sister is a pshychologist and she says that people whom says too much bad things about gays. It's because they're gay thenselves...They just repress their feelings because they think it would be wrong. :giggle:

mieboy
17-03-04, 16:12
If there's just one thing wrong about gays. It's gay people who get married and get involved in a relashionship with another (guy, woman). In Japan Man can just get promoted if he's married and have childrens...Many guys marry and have childrens After they get married so they wouldnt have sex relations with the wife(since the kids born the mother gets busy) .In Japan if u're 30 and not married. This is very bad. People would think u're addicted to something(alcohol , drugs, game)
Other day My friends Ex-Boyfriend broke up with him And he just said. I'm getting married next week, so it's better if we break up...My friend got shocked...So would I...
But nowadays. Japan is changing..and for better...

P.S. Off course there are many gay people who gets married and have and get involved with another person in the whole world
And KAMA:p !! Very nice!!People like u make us not the best...but almost the best!!!

mdchachi
17-03-04, 16:30
> I don't see any insults from anyone against gay marriage here, at all. Just derogatory remarks made to them, by others.

Actually you missed some inappropriate remarks saying that gays should be killed. They were deleted.

> It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal.

Well as much as you can call left-handedness or red hair a defect. Since most people don't have these qualities then left-handed and red haired people are abnormal, right? If that is what you are trying to say, then I agree.

Another thinking point:
You are aware that some people are physically "abnormal" and have both male and female genitalia, aren't you? Just because they are a minority and are abnormal does that give you the right to treat them unequally under the law?

> The fact that in some countries it's legal for two gay people to adopt is politicl correctness gone crazy. I pity any poor child with same sex parents.

Personally, I pity any child that isn't given love and is abused or neglected. I am happy for children who have two loving parents. It sounds like you are talking about something you know nothing about. Very much like the arguments in the not-so-distant past against interracial marriage.

> Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all. People are complaining
> about this for complaining's sake, because they have nothing better to do than whine.
> Rachel, you say that we think 'gay people should have the legal right to be togther'. They DO. They just can't get married. Big deal.

You are missing the point. Besides the fact that these people are not being treated equally under the law, there are many practical problems that they have to face. Like, for instance, most insurance companies & employers don't provide health insurance benefits to non-legally-married partners. Or if there is some medical emergency, a hospital won't recognize the right of the partner to act on behalf of the patient. (Or to even visit in the emergency room.) Try looking past your prejudice and thinking these issues through.

Rachel
18-03-04, 00:19
Homosexuality does have a function. In fact I would say it has 2 functions.

:shock:

1 Survival Ė The human race has survived and become the dominant life form on this planet by being incredibly diverse. We have survived disasters, plagues, wars, weather and eco disasters by such diversity. The fact were still here proves it works. Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.

2. Culture Ė Without the Homosexual community we wouldnít have half the culture we do today. Though out history they have made up the bulk of our artists, actors, painters, tailors, sculptors, musicians, designers, directors and writers. Most of the new ideas and advancements in these areas have come from the creativity of homosexuals (A creativity that is unique to their mind set, the way they think). Without homosexuality we would never have had the genius of Oscar Wilde, without homosexuality we probably wouldnít be having this conversation right now. Alan Turing the man who invented the computer was gay.

BTW Kama. I agree with you totally. Good reply honey ! :cool:

Maciamo
18-03-04, 04:20
You are missing the point. Besides the fact that these people are not being treated equally under the law, there are many practical problems that they have to face. Like, for instance, most insurance companies & employers don't provide health insurance benefits to non-legally-married partners. Or if there is some medical emergency, a hospital won't recognize the right of the partner to act on behalf of the patient. (Or to even visit in the emergency room.)

Well, then the problem resides in insurance companies or hospitals' policies, doesn't it. I mean, if they didn't discriminate first against people living together but not married (shall I remind you that this is more common in Northern Europe than being married, as 50% of British parrents are not married to their partners, and the figure rises to 80% in Sweden).

I don't think that this kind of discimination exist in Europe. As I mentioned earlier, systems like the "pacs" in France give couples similar rights to married couples, and everybody know about these rights, as it is as common as marriage.

Frankly, for visiting the emergency room, I don't see why they make such a fuss. Anyway, how can you prove whether you are the partner or a relative, or somebody else. In case of gay couples, they could just pretend to be a brother or sister. They are never going to ask for an ID, and even if they did, it's not written on it (just say you are half-sibling or step-sibling if they ask why the family name is different). People create problems because they don't think and try to solve them when they appear. :sick:

Maciamo
18-03-04, 04:46
Sorry Rachel, I will have to disagre with the following :



1 Survival ĀEThe human race has survived and become the dominant life form on this planet by being incredibly diverse. We have survived disasters, plagues, wars, weather and eco disasters by such diversity. The fact were still here proves it works. Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.

As homosexuality exist among animals too, humans have no additional advantage. We are merely animals. Then, I don't see why homosexuality would have help us either survive or become dominant, for the reason mentioned above.


2. Culture ĀEWithout the Homosexual community we wouldnít have half the culture we do today. Though out history they have made up the bulk of our artists, actors, painters, tailors, sculptors, musicians, designers, directors and writers. Most of the new ideas and advancements in these areas have come from the creativity of homosexuals (A creativity that is unique to their mind set, the way they think).

Half of the culture is a gross exaggeration. Just a few % of the population is and has always been gay, in all times. There is no reason that this fraction of the population create a disproportionally high number of geniuses.

Besides, I don't think that homosexuals have such a unique mindset. It's just a hormonal factor. It has been more or less proved that homosexuality is caused by a lack of testosterone during pregnancy (especially the brain forming phase) for males, and an excess of testosterone during the same phase for female babies. Hormones have a powerful effect on the way the brain develops and specialises. Male hormones (testosterone) increases 3D imagination, orientation, logical thinking and semantic vocabulary capabilities. Female hormones (oestrogenes) increase sentence building and fluidity of the language, communication skills, emotion recognition (in faces, voice, etc.) and artithmetic capabilities (among others).

In addition, these hormones give us our sexual orientation. Foetuses which have had a strongly imbalanced male/female hormone influx have very high chances of becoming gay individuals. Statistics show that 90% of gay are male. This is also easily explained by the fact that it is easier for a mother to lack testosterone. Both men & women have both hormones in the blood, but in different proportion. Doing physical activities, for instance, increase the testosterone level (which helps building muscles). Stress also increase testosterone in blood. I am not 100% sure, but it seems logical to think that pregnant mothers physically active or suffering from high stress have higher chances of having lesbian girls or very "male-minded" boys. But the reverse in more common, as women tend to lack testosterone.

Anyhow, all this to say that homosexuality appears in the womb, cannot be changed back after the brain has been formed, and is not a genetic defect or abnormality, but is due to the hormones' effects on the brain. In other words, gay men think like women, and lesbians think like men. The only think you could prove about gay playing a disprportionally high role in the the world's culture, is that they replaced women, who often throughout the history have had less chances to be recognised for their works.

mdchachi
18-03-04, 05:51
Well, then the problem resides in insurance companies or hospitals' policies, doesn't it.

Yes but as long as they can legally do this, they're not going to stop. It's expensive to insure people, they're not going to willingly insure extra persons.

Frankly, for visiting the emergency room, I don't see why they make such a fuss. Anyway, how can you prove whether you are the partner or a relative, or somebody else. In case of gay couples, they could just pretend to be a brother or sister. They are never going to ask for an ID, and even if they did, it's not written on it (just say you are half-sibling or step-sibling if they ask why the family name is different). People create problems because they don't think and try to solve them when they appear.

Your solution is for them to lie thereby risking legal action and prosecution? Anyway that won't work in complicated situations. Like if there are other family members present that do not accept the "spouse" and thereby won't let him/her take part. Or, for example, say there is a decision in care that needs to be made. If the "spouse" isn't recognized, it would then get made by the next closest relative.

Anyway these are just two examples. I'm sure there are many more problems that can be enumerated.

Golgo_13
18-03-04, 06:15
Where will it end?

Should a bisexual be allowed to marry both a woman and a man?

What if two siblings (outside of KY, TN, and WV--they already do that there) wanted to marry and promised to only adopt and not produce their own offspring?

"Yuck! That's disgusting!!!" Oh? But two men or two women marrying is okay.

I thought what Woodie Allen did was even sick -- to marry his own adopted daughter.

I also don't buy the argument that a certain percentage of animals are gay, so humans should be too. We don't base our morality on the animal kingdom. There are animals that kill and eat their young, and those that mate among siblings. So . . . why not us?

Kama
18-03-04, 10:16
Mieboy, when I come to Japan, we definetely have to go drinking. :beer: XD

Rachel, I like your point of view... XD

Maciamo... And what about bi? How do you explain this? Don't forget about bi! They are homosexuals too... XD And what Rachel said is right... There was a book of 100 famous gay people. Don't remember now the people... XD Too much names for me... :D


Golgo, about Woody Alen, I think the same.

bossel
18-03-04, 13:47
Homosexuality does have a function. :shock:
Wasn't that what I said? Why should I be shocked?



Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.
True. Though I would have said that in Perfect: has kept. Wouldn't say that it is absolutely necessary for the species' survival.


Without the Homosexual community we wouldnít have half the culture we do today. [...] Alan Turing the man who invented the computer was gay.
I agree with Maciamo here.
BTW, when it comes to the question who built the first computer I would go for Konrad Zuse. Not gay, AFAIK.

What Maciamo said about hormones during pregnancy is probably true. But genetical reasons can't be excluded yet. It is not yet certain what causes homosexuality.

bossel
18-03-04, 13:56
Where will it end?

Should a bisexual be allowed to marry both a woman and a man?
Why not?


What if two siblings (outside of KY, TN, and WV--they already do that there) wanted to marry and promised to only adopt and not produce their own offspring?[QUOTE]
Why not?


[QUOTE]"Yuck! That's disgusting!!!"
Disgusting? No! Strange, yes.



I thought what Woodie Allen did was even sick -- to marry his own adopted daughter.
Don't see the problem.



I also don't buy the argument that a certain percentage of animals are gay, so humans should be too. We don't base our morality on the animal kingdom. There are animals that kill and eat their young, and those that mate among siblings. So . . . why not us?
Nobody says humans should be. It's a simple fact that a certain percentage is gay.
The point was that somebody said homosexuality is not natural, which is an invalid argument since a lot of other animals beside humans can be homosexual (or bisexual). Nobody said because animals are, humans should be, too.

Maciamo
18-03-04, 15:43
Maciamo... And what about bi? How do you explain this?

Bisexuals are apparently more common than simple homosexuals. Let's say their brain is at the border betwen male and female, probably more towards the gay side, but not decisively so.


And what Rachel said is right... There was a book of 100 famous gay people.


Yeah, and you can do a similar list with left-handed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_left-handed_people), epileptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy#Famous_people_with_epilepsy), manic-depressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic-depressive#Bipolar_disorder,_talent_and_famous_peo ple) (check here for more (http://www.mentaljokes.com/famous_manic.html)) and exceptionally gifted people. All minorities, and all seemingly playing a disproportionate role in society. So many actors, musicans, athletes and artists (Picasso, Michelangelo, Da Vinci...) are left-handed, but also Bill Clinton, George Bush senior, Osama bin Laden (nice combination !), while Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln were both left-handed and epileptic, Gustave Flaubert and Vincent Van Gogh were also epileptic ; W.A. Mozart, Robert Schumann, Friedrich Nietsche, Victor Hugo and Winston Churchill were manic-depressive, and Napoleon was left-handed, epileptic and manic-depressive !

Interestingly, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso were also gay. Actually, it is said of Ceasar that he was every woman's man and every man's woman, so "bi". Picasso was also bisexual. Alexander was Greek ; that explains all .:D (Btw, did you know that George Michael, also gay, was of Greek origin - which is partly why is was selected to compose the Athens Olympics songs).

Among the famous gays, there seem to be lots of rulers/military leaders, artists, actors, musicians, fashion designer, etc. Same giftedness as left-handed people, and naturally, lot's of gay are left-handed or vice-versa (=>see 5 examples above).

Manic-depressive, on the contrary, seem to become more prominent intellectuals (even in music, Mozart and Schumann have nothing to do with modern pop or rock singers), with dark or cynical phases (due to the "low").

More famous homosexuals here (http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/famous/) or here too (http://apll.freeyellow.com/gaycelebs.html) and here for desert (http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm)

What not add the Jews or Freemason as well (although that's not a biological abnormality, is it ? :D ).

Jean-Francois
18-03-04, 17:14
Actually, the main concern of the law-makers is to legitimatize gay marriage will open a door for other minority groups. What about incest couples? If they are in love, they pay taxes and they don't bother other people, are they entitled to equal rights too ? In North America, we follow common law codes which based on precedence...

mdchachi
18-03-04, 17:25
I don't think that is the main concern in the U.S. It is more of a religious/moral issue here.

EscaFlowne
18-03-04, 20:55
True it may not be the main focus like religious/moral issue it dose open that door. And somebody would bring it up. Religiously-they are always going to have a problem with it in any faith for what was written in the bible and what they believe in. Morally- is the same way, whats morally right and whats morally wrong. which that "incest" part could fall under because morally...thats just wrong! :mad:
The gov. is not looking at the outcomes of someone who is gay, lesbian, etc who get togeather and nothing really can come out of that but then incest..could lead to diformities in children that they might have and etc....
This subject is like a side-coin when flipped it lands standing up because no one is ever going to let this drop....

[In my own opinion if your gay or whateva they should let them get married-they just like the average normal person getting by in the normal day of the life we live, who is the gov. to tell someone that they can't marry this person. Love is all that matters.]

~Adieu~

Rachel
18-03-04, 21:32
I would like to say sorry if I havenít done a good job of getting myself across, of explaining my opinions. This isnít something I find easy to do, ok!
Iím not used to this wholeÖthinking thing. Deep thoughts donít come easily to me, in some ways Iím having to relearn how to think and feel now my brain is active again And being dyslexic to boot doesnít help matters much.
I am trying. Itís not easy but Iím trying. Ok.

Maciamo. Point one. Iím not sure what the best way to explain my survival idea so you could understand it would be.
Maybe an example. OkÖ Lets try this.

There are 3 children.
Their mother brings out 3 ice creams.
Vanilla, chocolate and strawberry.
Child 1 eats the chocolate, child 2 eats the strawberry and child 3 doesnít eat any ice cream.
It turns out that the strawberry is poisoned.
Child 2 is taken to hospital.
That leaves Child 1 who had a 1 in 3 chance of picking the bad ice cream but didnít because she liked chocolate.
And Child 3 who had no chance of picking the bad ice cream because she decided not to have anything to do with it.
Survival by diversity.

The human race has survived by branching out in lots of different ways, through genetics, society and choice. No particular way is right or wrong. We are a tree, we can lose branches and the trunk itís self can be harmed but to kill us as a race you would have to pull us up by the roots. Which isnít an easy thing to do because we spread out in so many directions.
Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Bi-sexuality, even Transsexuality are all valid paths in the over all survival of the human race. The more variation in who we are, what we are and what we do, the harder it is for anyone thing to put an end to us.

Point 2.YesÖ. half our culture is an exaggeration if you take it literally. It was meant as a figure of speech, maybe I should have said ďa significant ProportionĒ, it was late and I was tired ok.
And I didnít say that they were all geniuses. What I was saying was they have made up the bulk of our creative community through out history. And as for not having a unique creative mindset ! I have yet to meet a single Heterosexual that can exhibit the same kind of creative processes as a Homosexual. Iíve meet plenty who have come close, but not one who could hit the nail on the head.

PS. Who the hell is Konrad Zuse ?

Golgo_13
20-03-04, 04:43
Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

Al Rantel
Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok.

First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.

Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?

There is an answer.

Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.

While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.

What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?


Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC.

bossel
21-03-04, 03:18
PS. Who the hell is Konrad Zuse ?
German engineer who developed the first program controlled computer:
http://www.epemag.com/zuse/



the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society.
Hmm, maybe not so much of a redefinition as this guy thinks. Here is a nice link regarding this issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

Quote:
"First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy."

Kuro_Tsubasa69
22-03-04, 00:48
*sigh* I really, really don't see why people have such a problem with people of the same sex marrying. :( You know, I am not a big advocate for marriage in general :p, but if I ever changed my mind, I would like the option to marry whoever I choose. :blush: (And really, is it anyone's business what goes on in the privacy of another's bedroom? :giggle:.)

BTW, interesting link I found:: http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/sexualorientation.html

kirei_na_me
24-03-04, 16:09
My stepdad sent me this nifty little cartoon by Tom Tomorrow:

And in case you can't read it, the quote under the title says, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence...a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization." --George W. Bush

The note in his hand at the end says, "TO DO: 1. Scapegoat-GAYS"

Maciamo
25-03-04, 04:21
Take a good look at this : BBC News : Oregon county bans all marriages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564893.stm)


Confused by the twists and turns of the US gay marriage issue, Oregon's Benton County has decided to err on the side of caution and ban all weddings.

Until the state decides who can and cannot wed, officials in the county have said no-one can marry - even heterosexual couples.

They hit upon the plan to ensure that none of the county's 79,000 residents are subject to unfair treatment.

Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion.


Great decision ! :spray: Others should follow in protest !

Satori
27-03-04, 11:18
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-10.htm

Rachel
28-03-04, 01:07
ALRIGHT !! Strike one up for the good guys.

emperor
08-04-04, 09:20
I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.

Kama
08-04-04, 09:25
I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.

And what about just homosexual love?

If I remember correct (and I do remember ;)) we were already talking about if it's biologicaly unnatural... and what means our bio-circle?

emperor
09-04-04, 07:07
And what about just homosexual love?

If I remember correct (and I do remember ;)) we were already talking about if it's biologicaly unnatural... and what means our bio-circle?
Bio-circle is simplified form 'biosphere'....:happy:
homosexual love? why not?
I love my father.. i love my brother.. i love my comrade.. i love my male teacher..
Yes, this is love... but, we can't get marriage only...
:spray:

bossel
09-04-04, 17:42
Emperor:
I think, what Kama meant was not only platonic love, but also acting on it. IE relationships, tenderness, sex.
As Kama said, the natural side of it has already been discussed here. Have you read the thread?

emperor
10-04-04, 15:36
i read, i read!! okok... :happy:

playaa
22-04-04, 23:51
I am gonna have to disagree with this, and agree with Anti-Homosexual relation's. I personally do not hold grudges against it, freak out about it, or look down upon people who do it... I treat them the same, but I do not agree with it. As long as they do not try and push it on me, then I am fine. :p

Kama
30-04-04, 10:54
I am gonna have to disagree with this, and agree with Anti-Homosexual relation's. I personally do not hold grudges against it, freak out about it, or look down upon people who do it... I treat them the same, but I do not agree with it. As long as they do not try and push it on me, then I am fine. :p

But nobody tries to pushi it on you! :D For me it's just, live and let the others live... :-) Nothing else... XD

Golgo_13
30-04-04, 20:40
But nobody tries to pushi it on you! :D For me it's just, live and let the others live... :-) Nothing else... XD

Then why not let men marry more than one woman, or let siblings or relatives marry? Live and let the others live?

bossel
30-04-04, 23:49
Then why not let men marry more than one woman, or let siblings or relatives marry? Live and let the others live?
Yeah, why not?
& why restrict polygamy to polygyny? Shouldn't have women the same right?

Golgo_13
01-05-04, 00:45
Sure, why not let people marry their own kids?

Woodie Allen did.

bossel
01-05-04, 01:02
Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

yimija
08-05-04, 12:15
Sorry, I'm late.. just discovered this topic. No time either to read everything, just across and diagonal reading. Sorry too if I repeat what has allready been said..

BUT what "howabe" said :
"The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species."

is real bullsh....

Sorry ! Animal have that sole purpose, but really ? Why are they here in the first place ?

And, my dear HOWABE, believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about : (because I was born a woman and an homosexual)

1) I'm not on earth for the sole purpose of multiplication and procreation. Absolutely not ! I would be extremely unhappy if I were...
2) As a woman, I have the most powerfull possibility to procreate WITHOUT ASKING YOU OR ANYONE ANYTHING, or not. I have that choice, whether I'm a lesbian or not.
3) Admittedly, gay women have more power in this field than men.
4) It does'nt stop the gay community to adopt CHILDREN THAT ARE IN NEED OF A HOME SO AS NOT TO DIE within the next days, weeks, months or year. That will also help a lot in the fields of the survival of the species...

I hope dear Howabe, that you have other goals in your life than just trying to make copies of yourself...

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about this subject. Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned? Do you think that homosexual couples should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples? Or you're not sure? Let's have a little discussion.

First, about Bush, no one should care about what he thinks, he should be away within months, so, what's the worry.

Then, as it has been said (by mieboy21 I think) the most important is to give love and care and respect. No need for official ties to do so.

Finally, who wants toi get married or pacsed, anyway ? Just to imitate "regular couples" ?

Not worth it.

Just to prove something to your partner ? That's not the proof he wants.
To feel more secure ? Well it might work for some. I know any kind of "official" ceremony, be it religious or civilian, would make me feel like entering into a jail, just because of the complications to get out again...

I'm sure many hetero couples would feel the same.

kirei_na_me
08-05-04, 12:56
Good post, ascate! :-)

yimija
08-05-04, 13:14
Good post, ascate! :-)

but it's all coming from inside

WINK smiliy if it exists......!

TwistedMac
09-05-04, 02:11
Ok lets get back to the matter at hand now.
I think most of us agree that gay couples should have the legal right to be together.
Correct?
The question now seems to be what kind of union would be best.
I think gay couples should have the same right to marry as non-gay couples

i don't get it.. why are people even arguing this? ofcourse they should get to marry!

what is it that makes gay people less human than straight? i just don't see it...

I think bush is fighting some personal issues.. like the "why do i get aroused when i look at www,weeeeforbigdicks,com?..no..no.. IT CANT BE!!"

"why not let someone marry more than one person"
why not indeed? aslong as all parties are happy with it, who gives a toss?

"why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.

yimija
09-05-04, 06:31
Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?


Woody Allen got maried with his stepdaughter because he fell in love with her. (I?m not wether reciprocity was requested, though, but I think the answer is yes).

And love can be blind, happiness opens your eyes. Even the age difference in this case is not a matter to talk about. Those two are still together, no ? And it's been a long time..

Consanguinity (inbreeding) has nothing to do since the "daughter" was totally outside the family-related blood. She was adopted by Mia Farrow.

So good luck to them and a good day to you bossel.


i don't get it.. why are people even arguing this? ofcourse they should get to marry!

Well, there is no obligation to this... they should get married if they think it's necessary. I've heard that in some countries, married people get tax reduction. Let's put taxes higher for married couples and see how many "weddings" we get...

what is it that makes gay people less human than straight? i just don't see it...
We are human allright. Nut for some humans, THEY believe that they ARE more human than others. The typical example was Hitler.

"why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.


Well, let's keep it to something slightly "reasonable" and let's be somewhat respectfull for the life to come.

TwistedMac
09-05-04, 11:58
Well, there is no obligation to this... they should get married if they think it's necessary. I've heard that in some countries, married people get tax reduction. Let's put taxes higher for married couples and see how many "weddings" we get...

ofcourse i meant they should have the option >_< not that they/you(?) should be forced into it =P

yimija
09-05-04, 13:03
ofcourse i meant they should have the option >_< not that they/you(?) should be forced into it =P
weel, no one is worried, i'll never ever will be forced into anything, and all the less that kind of thing...

mieboy
09-05-04, 16:48
:balloon: GAY PRIDE PARADE IN SAO PAULOPEOPLE!! I'm going to Brazil in the next two weeks!! SO EXCITED!!
On June 13th there will be a gay pride parade in Sao Paulo... :cool:
It's the world's third biggest parade...Over 1 million people are going to be there...On Saturday..We're going to the gay day in Hopi Hari (amusement park)
Anybody wanna join me?! KAMA?! LETS'S GO GIRL!!! :balloon:

bossel
09-05-04, 17:29
"why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.
Actually, this is a common misconception.
Incest is prohibited on moral grounds, the biological reasons are minor. Personally, I see this kind of reasoning as leading in the direction of Eugenics as the Nazis enforced it. You forbid people to procreate for reasons of the "health" of future generations.

The probability for genetic disorders is of course bigger in incestuous relations (than in most other relations of healthy adults), but it's normally highly exaggerated. Usually you'd need several generations of inbreeding to see negative results.

From Wikipedia:
"Incest may be a form of inbreeding, and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons.
[...]
If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy. Thus, the frequency of a defect-carrying gene in a population may go up, or down, when inbreeding occurs. The overall effect of inbreeding depends on the size of the population."

Your argument of "grave disabilities" holds more water for relationships of (related or non-related) bearers of genetic deficiencies, let's say haemophiliacs. I think, if a male bleeder procreates with a female carrier of the gene defect, there is a 25% probality (didn't look this up, just from memory) that the child is also a bleeder.

According to the logic of probability of disabled offspring, should carriers of that defect then be prohibited to marry? This question counts for other genetic deficiencies as well.

Rukasu
09-05-04, 22:18
In the Netherlands homosexual marriages are legalised.
It's been like that for a while now, and nothing bad has happened because of it.
That's why it shouldn't be a problem there as wel in my opinion.
I think it's very frustrating for gay couples if they can't marry the one they love.
I guess it's the same as when I would like to marry a girl I love and I'm not allowed.
But I don't think marriage is the most important thing in a relationship, as long as you love eachother there is no problem i.m.o.

Kama
10-05-04, 09:42
Anybody wanna join me?! KAMA?! LETS'S GO GIRL!!! :balloon:


I'd like to, Mieboy, but for now U have no time... :D Studying to the summer session. :(

And we had a GAY Parade in Krakow last weekend. Well, first it was the church, who wanted the city prseident to ban the Days of Tolerance (from Thursday to Sunday), and to the University vice chancellor not to let them meet and have prelections and so on in that University. They even had a anti-manifestation leaflet (I'll translate it later and put it here) send to the peoples' mailboxes... :auch:

There was also an antimanifestation (illegal). They had transparents like "Let's throw out himosexualist from krakow" or "Homosexualists of all countries get treatment" or "Wawel's Dragon was hettero" (this Dragon is Krakow's symbol. :auch:

Anti-manifestation threw eggs and stones towards the manifesting gays and their sympathizers. Ah, there were also shouts like "Tolerantion! Go to the clinic!" Heheh... And they heard in response "Don't pick up us!" :cool:

Well, there was a bit of brawl between these 2 groups... :( And because of the anti-manifestation they couldn't finish their manifestation, and they had to change route for a few times. :auch:

Well, at last the good point of it was that it hasn't been cancelled, and that the city's goverment and the university authorities hadn't been scared of the church and right-wing f... politicians. And that Famous Krakowians like Wislawa Szymborska, a Noble Award owner, were for the Days of Tolerance... :bravo:

yimija
10-05-04, 13:42
[QUOTE=mieboy]:balloon: GAY PRIDE PARADE IN SAO PAULOPEOPLE!! I'm going to Brazil in the next two weeks!! SO EXCITED!!

You'r right mieboy, go to Brazil, it's a fantastic place to go. Dont forget to tell them all to stop destroying de rain forest and to keep the indigenous populations out of trouble (i.e. alcohol & smokes & drugs). That will seem somehow more appropriate and important.

Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)

Then you will realise how small our problems are and how ridiculous all that can be.

Yes, let's organize a HUMAN BEINGS PRIDE (meaning we are PROUD to be human beings) let's show how we, hetero ans homos we can do things together. Let's make music, let's dance, let's show off on that ! YES !!!

You'll never see me in one of those gay pride. You are right to go to Brazil, and dance, and enjoy yourself, but don't make a monkey out of you. It's not a zoo nor a circus.

Have a good time and send us a postcard, we'll all be happy for you.
Love
Mi-ja

PaulTB
10-05-04, 14:43
I think, if a male hemophilliac procreates with a female carrier of the gene defect, there is a 25% probality (didn't look this up, just from memory) that the child is also a hemophilliac.
I think that's wrong, and not just by a little.


According to the logic of probability of disabled offspring, should carriers of that defect then be prohibited to marry?

People with the hemophillia gene should be aware of the risks involved, inform themselves of the exact particulars of their individual case, and consider carefully what actions they should take.

In my personal opinion if I was a carrier of a gene that with treatment reduces life expectancy by ~10 years I'd get the snip and rely on sperm banks.

Incidently there was a recent case where a couple who were born deaf wanted to use a sperm filtering technique so that their child would also be deaf. The reason being that they wished their child to be part of the deaf community. I believe that the court ruled against them.

bossel
10-05-04, 17:04
I think that's wrong, and not just by a little.
You're right, my example was wrong (BTW, I would appreciate it if you would either quote me correctly or otherwise indicate your changes!). As I said, it was just from memory.
In my example above the probability of a child being a bleeder is actually 50% (the probability for being a carrier of the gene even 75%). The probability of 25% is in the case of a female carrier procreating with a healthy male.



People with the hemophillia gene should be aware of the risks involved, inform themselves of the exact particulars of their individual case, and consider carefully what actions they should take.
Exactly! Like always when people want to have children.
But the question is: Should it be possible to forbid people to marry or procreate for genetic reasons? I don't think so!



Incidently there was a recent case where a couple who were born deaf wanted to use a sperm filtering technique so that their child would also be deaf.
This would actually be deliberately causing bodily harm to the child.




Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)
The Love Parades (or whatever these Techno parades are called) all over the world could count as such, I think.:music:
Anyway, I know from German gay pride parades that they are not an exclusively homosexual event.

Yeah, there are bigger problems on this world, but the most urgent problem for people is always the one that currently buggers themselves. That's OK, as long as the bigger problems are not forgotten.

PaulTB
10-05-04, 17:39
You're right, my example was wrong (BTW, I would appreciate it if you would either quote me correctly or otherwise indicate your changes!).
It may well be different where you are but that word is an insult where I was brought up.


This would actually be deliberately causing bodily harm to the child.
You could argue that it would be beneficial for a child being brought up by two deaf parents to be deaf himself. If he isn't deaf then there will be strong influences acting to separate him from his parents and their culture.

Kama
10-05-04, 22:29
Everywhere you might go, don't forget to organize a STRAIGHT pride and parade and show off, so that hetero can also have a nice musical momentum to show off. (Has anyone thought about that or hould I put a copyright on it???)
Have a good time and send us a postcard, we'll all be happy for you.


Yes, definetely send (me) a postcard, mieboy. :)

I think that in some countries, Poland for example, such parades are needed. People still try to not notice us, or hide us in the cages of our own homes pretenfding there is no such subject like homosexualism at all. You can't go with your love on the street and kiss because everybody will loook at you thinking "gross". [actually, I have them deep inside...] Maybe with these parades people will get used to this thought that there are homosexuals among us, and they will tolerate, and accept them.

bossel
11-05-04, 00:45
It may well be different where you are but that word is an insult where I was brought up.
I never heard that bleeder could be an insult. Upon your statement I looked it up in the OED & indeed it can be, but in a different context, not referring to haemophilia. Since the context is clear, I don't see the problem.

From the OED:
bleeder
2. Med. A person subject to hśmophilia, i.e. disposed by natural constitution to bleed.
3. low slang. A very stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person; also transf.; also used inoffensively, preceded by little, poor, etc., = DEVIL n. 4c.

yimija
11-05-04, 06:39
I think that in some countries, Poland for example, such parades are needed. People still try to not notice us, or hide us in the cages of our own homes pretenfding there is no such subject like homosexualism at all. You can't go with your love on the street and kiss because everybody will loook at you thinking "gross". [actually, I have them deep inside...] Maybe with these parades people will get used to this thought that there are homosexuals among us, and they will tolerate, and accept them.

Yes, Kama, you might be right. It might be good for Poland, but now that your country is in EEC, it will make things go faster. But it will take time for older generation to adapt (even some younger ones), but finally, it will come to a "normal" situation. thanks for your posts

TwistedMac
11-05-04, 14:18
Actually, this is a common misconception.
Incest is prohibited on moral grounds, the biological reasons are minor. Personally, I see this kind of reasoning as leading in the direction of Eugenics as the Nazis enforced it. You forbid people to procreate for reasons of the "health" of future generations.

The probability for genetic disorders is of course bigger in incestuous relations (than in most other relations of healthy adults), but it's normally highly exaggerated. Usually you'd need several generations of inbreeding to see negative results.

From Wikipedia:
"Incest may be a form of inbreeding, and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons.
[...]
If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy. Thus, the frequency of a defect-carrying gene in a population may go up, or down, when inbreeding occurs. The overall effect of inbreeding depends on the size of the population."

Your argument of "grave disabilities" holds more water for relationships of (related or non-related) bearers of genetic deficiencies, let's say haemophiliacs. I think, if a male bleeder procreates with a female carrier of the gene defect, there is a 25% probality (didn't look this up, just from memory) that the child is also a bleeder.

According to the logic of probability of disabled offspring, should carriers of that defect then be prohibited to marry? This question counts for other genetic deficiencies as well.

good post, but where does that leave me?

to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine..

does that make me racist.. errr.. sexist? or something like that? :souka:

i guess it does... i'll have to ponder this... :?

(yeah, i know.. not racist for sure, but i can't really think of anything else that sounds as hated as racist..)

PaulTB
11-05-04, 14:54
good post, but where does that leave me?

to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine...
Whether or not the children will do fine biologically* there is still the question of whether such relationships are psychologically healthy.

There are a countries where there are reports of high proportions of incestual relationships - most of them are not pretty at all.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040125/herworld.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/259959.stm

* And I believe there have been some of animal studies showing a very significant decreased life expectancy associated with 'close' relationships without any known individual 'bad gene' being involved. It was reported in New Scientist a few months ago.

yimija
11-05-04, 16:23
Thank you for the links PaulTB

If I might just say that there are more than 50 organizations ( NGO, UN affiliated, private and official gov.) that are shouting into India's top ministers'ears about this problems.

Unfortunately, the laxity of the government and the fact that India is a self-proclaimed civilized country stops them from taking serious actions, even if they try. A good punishment, such as emasculation, without prescription (limitation of action by laps of time ) shoud be more appropriate and should bring to a stop a large part of what is considered as a way of life. But can y human being do that to another ? I would say yes.

But dont get it wrong. Incestuous child abuse and agressionsar not a "specialty" of India. These practices are well and truly alive. Even if they have a tendency to be less important in Europe and North America, it has not completely disappeared.

And it will always remain in countries such as some regions of Africa, Middle-East, and some more Oriental Nations. As long as the male considers himself as more worthy and important than the female. And as long as he will feel himself supported as such by law, religion or ancestor's traditions.

It's a familly affair and all of them who knows, knows nothing. Terror, blackmail and beatings are a common "language" in these situations. Quickly, you'll find the whole familly living in a sort of "Syndrome of Stockholm", just to keep alive.

And it's not only girls that are the victims, boys too. You never know who might be the next victim. If you have a neighbour with children, just ask yourself if they are safe...

Frightning nightmares that have kept me awake more than a night ! Even worst, tears of anger, rage and despare that have run down my cheeks, suspecting of what was going on, and not been able to do anything.

Empty eyes, without light, of an abused child wandering into nothing-land, future with no hope. Emptiness, no rewards.
She was called IŮes and she died at the age tewlve, on january 3rd 2003. Not so long ago. How many more since then ?

bossel
12-05-04, 03:24
to be honest, i still feel it's not really ok, even if the kids will do fine..
Hey, you don't have to like it! There are lots of things I don't like, incest is one of them, but if people enjoy what they do & nobody is harmed without their consent, why should I forbid them to do it?





Whether or not the children will do fine biologically* there is still the question of whether such relationships are psychologically healthy.

There are a countries where there are reports of high proportions of incestual relationships - most of them are not pretty at all.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040125/herworld.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/259959.stm

* And I believe there have been some of animal studies showing a very significant decreased life expectancy associated with 'close' relationships without any known individual 'bad gene' being involved. It was reported in New Scientist a few months ago.
Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

I quote myself (bad habit, I know):

Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

With child abuse you are actually harming someone!
There is something called the age of consent, in most countries somewhere between 16 & 21, I think. We are talking about adults who are able to make a choice. Should they be allowed to marry, or not? I don't see, how child abuse enters the game. Child abuse is harmful & without consent.

Editing: BTW, I searched NewScientist for what you mentioned but didn't find anything. Can you provide a link?




But dont get it wrong. Incestuous child abuse and agressionsar not a "specialty" of India. These practices are well and truly alive.
Right on! In the link below, you will find that of 60% of children in Europe say that they are "abused" at home. These are all forms of abuse & the number is not very objective, but it shows that abuse is quite common.
It's hard to get the real numbers, anyway, since many cases go unreported.
http://www.euro.who.int/document/mediacentre/fs0203e.pdf

yimija
12-05-04, 05:50
Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

This is a stupid statement, and please excuse me to be so direct & blunt about it.. How can you say that an incest on a child is not an abuse ? So before I'm really affraid of you, give me a motivation for what you said, please !

We know that incest between adults may results of perversity or of a somewhat disturbed minds. But nature has from time to time made "funny" twists, and a young man, arriving at maturity might physically fall in love with his mother (even his father). Same thing apllies to the daughter / father relation. So is it ok between adults ? I would tend to say yes, it's none of our business as long as they dont reproduce.

PaulTB
12-05-04, 11:10
Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!
No they are not. But I would bet a significant amount of money that statistically most incest is abusive and most child-abuse is incestual (e.g. with a relative).

Unfortunately the New Scientist article was a right pain to trackdown the last time I had to look it up - there weren't any obvious 'keywords' to use.

Incidently there is very good evidence that people brought up together will have less successful relationships regardless of whether they are related or not.

(The classic study on the subject being
Wolf, A., & Huang, C. (1980). Marriage and adoption in China: 1845-1945. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. )

bossel
12-05-04, 23:23
Now you are really mixing things up. Incest is not necessarily child abuse & child abuse is not necessarily incest!

This is a stupid statement, and please excuse me to be so direct & blunt about it.. How can you say that an incest on a child is not an abuse ? So before I'm really affraid of you, give me a motivation for what you said, please !
Before you are really afraid of me, read again what I posted! :worried:

What you quoted is simple logic, maybe this makes it clearer: Incest among adults is no child abuse. Children can be abused by complete strangers, hence no incest.
If you'd read further in my last post, everything should have been clear, I think.


No they are not. But I would bet a significant amount of money that statistically most incest is abusive and most child-abuse is incestual (e.g. with a relative).
Well, I wouldn't take that bet. As I said, statistics on this topic are not very reliable, since esp. abuse by relatives is often not reported.
What makes it even more complicated are the differing definitions of incest. In some countries it means only sexual relations between direct relatives (IE parents, children, siblings), while others include more distant relatives.

Golgo_13
13-05-04, 00:43
Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

Okay, how about a father marrying his own biological adult son?

Don't bother answering. I already know you think it would be okay.

TwistedMac
13-05-04, 04:31
i'm gonna go with bossel on this whole topic.. it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse.. in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...

on the topic of child abuse and rape however, i think most will agree it's just plain wrong and quite sickening...

so i've decided to go entirely with bossel's live and let live attitude...

Rachel
15-05-04, 18:26
Strike two for the good guys. :cool: :bravo: :yeahh: :cheer: :victory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716615.stm

PaulTB
15-05-04, 23:35
it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse..
Nobody has said differently.

in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...
Care to put a percentage on that 'could very well' for a country of your choice?

From the set of parent/child incestual relationships what fraction are non-abusive and started when both parties were adult. 1%, 0.01%, ... I don't know, but I'd bet it's on that edge of the graph by a long way.

Morfos
16-05-04, 00:22
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, in fact I am perfectly fine about them telling me about who they dated. I am ok with them getting married. Equal Civil unions or marriage sounds acceptable. I do not think the church should tell the government what to do or vise versa. If gay marriage is against Christianity, then the church will simply refuse to preform them. If the church is willing to preform a homosexual marriage, than so be it. I hate how Conservatives want to get the government involved with religious and cultural affairs (especially since they say they are for smaller government, but clearly are not). Conservatives like to censor what they find "offensive" and punish who even made it. Stupid Religious Right Wingers are the reason teenage girls go to jail for having naked pictures of themselves. Either Bush and the religious right looses power or I am leaving the country. I am sick of Conservatives and their anti-homosexual, anti-everything attitudes. Religious-Right Wingers think they speak for every Christian in the world, however they are wrong. There are plenty of Christians who believe Social-Conservatives are a bunch of bigoted morons, which they are.
:p

yimija
16-05-04, 06:48
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, in fact I am perfectly fine about them telling me about who they dated. I am ok with them
:p
the funny part about it is that you have to ACTUALLY TELL everyone that you are ok with homosexual. Why speak about it ? Do you tell everybody that you aare actually OK and have nothing AGAINST hetero ?
Why make a difference netween them, since you seem to agree that ther shouold NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE ?
On that point you are right : There is no difference.


it's true that incest isn't synonymous with child abuse.. in a parent/child incest relationship the daugher/son could very well be an adult and may even be the one that seduced his or her parent to start off with...

on the topic of child abuse and rape however, i think most will agree it's just plain wrong and quite sickening...


so we all agree on that point. It's good to see there is some cohesion...lol


Strike two for the good guys. :cool: :bravo: :yeahh: :cheer: :victory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716615.stm

Hi Rachel, I'll go along with you, too

Lina Inverse
16-05-04, 20:17
There's absolutely no sane reason to hinder gay or lesbians from marrying if they really want to.

yimija
17-05-04, 06:27
There's absolutely no sane reason to hinder gay or lesbians from marrying if they really want to.

yes, of course you are right. But some people have to be told again and again...

Kama
17-05-04, 23:28
yes, of course you are right. But some people have to be told again and again...

and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better... :(

Frank D. White
18-05-04, 00:04
and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better... :(

self rightous people will do if when they die, they find out the religious figure they worship is gay??

Frank

:?

yimija
18-05-04, 06:13
and some of them still don't get it... some people are jsut too stubborn and/or they think they know better... :(

no, for most of them, they have just bee born and raised not to be open-minded andthe rest of them are too weak to have their own minds and cannot think.
Thea are just weaklings and we cannot blame them !!! LOL


... they find out the religious figure they worship is gay??

Frank :?
We want names, Frank, please !!!!!!

Kama
03-06-04, 08:44
Im starting to be ashamed of being Polish. First, in Krakow (Cracow), now in Warsaw there is a church organization which sends to PEOPLE'S MAILBOXES. They doesn't allow a peace march of gay and followers because it's one day after a church holiday (so what? XD) and because it's immoral (we gays are sodomists XD). The march will end before the parliament's building with petition to allow gay marriages. There will (probably) be "allpoland's teenagers" who last time threw stones into the marching people. They want to confront us with aggression. People from this group won't shake hands with gays. ==" Some days ago there was a politician who publicated over the net names and e-mail addresses of people who opposed his anti-gay politics.

Warsaw's president because of his OWN THOUGHTS banned the march. His decision was cancelled from the up. But he refused to allow the march for the second time. Till this year, nobody banned the march.

Everybody is shouting it's the end of family, we want to destroy a beautiful relationship between man and woman. And yes, they all say, we want to promote our lifestyle. Yes, yes... That's our plan!! :D We will agitate for sure "become gay, become les". And everybody will rush to become gay/les. XD

Some people say that they tolerate gays only when they are doing it inside and when they are not reminded outside that gays DO exist. Why can't I hug or kiss my love on the street? Why it's allowed for a boy to kiss a girl on the street?And why I can't kiss my girl? Why it's awful? Why I and my feelings are worse?

I think I will never understand people. I wish some ot these f... politicians tasted what is like to be hated by (almost) everyone, when in reality you haven't done anything wrong. The country (in the paper, as everything in Poland) is such a wonderful country... So what if we have european-union-standards law, when nobody respects them? So what if we ratificated Genevian convention if the politicians (not talking about normal people) didn't even bother to respect it? So what if we have "unreligious" country where in reality is dictated by the Church (one and the only one right)? How can people critcize muslim religious countries (theocracy) when it's in Poland (so what that not officially?)

nekosasori
03-06-04, 11:01
I'm very proud to be Canadian. The melding of Church and State is also appalling in Ireland. Gay sex became legal in the Republic in 1991 I believe, but I don't know a single "out" person in the company of 300 people I work with. Dublin has one gay bar (we have a population of 1.2 million or so). After having lived in Toronto and Boston, I am outraged at the impact that Catholicism has had here (and how little progress has been made in the realm of recognition of homosexuality and bisexuality).

dreamer
05-06-04, 12:32
I just learnt that this morning in France the 1st Gay wedding happened(a few hours ago).
So, I 'd like to know what people think about it?
Is it a bad thing or a new step toward more tolerance?

kirei_na_me
05-06-04, 12:38
We've already got a thread about that?

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7090

dreamer
05-06-04, 12:42
oops sorry^^
then feel free to either move or delete this thread :D

kirei_na_me
05-06-04, 12:47
I'll just merge it.

Lina Inverse
05-06-04, 19:38
I just learnt that this morning in France the 1st Gay wedding happened(a few hours ago).
So, I 'd like to know what people think about it?
Is it a bad thing or a new step toward more tolerance?
Well, if it makes them happy... why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?

dreamer
08-06-04, 07:17
Dunno it's because of the church I guess...

EscaFlowne
08-06-04, 14:31
IMO, In terms of tolerance I blieve it is a step. True in the church its not meant to be done for a man/man-female/female relationship but "god loves all" dosen't he :? Like so many other things from the past that changed this is just another one. Its all well and all to have faith in the church to pick the best point of view for some people but we all know in some places the churc is just as wrong. So it all depends on the person. And I for one knows it make some people[my two best friends: Lesbians] happy to be married[Soon]. Both know it may be wrong, but love is all it takes it seems---Just like god. :-)

dreamer
08-06-04, 15:27
If god really loves everyone, then how do you explain the church position toward gay marriage?

Buddha Smoker
08-06-04, 15:46
Dunno it's because of the church I guess...

Makes you wonder when the church started to dictate everything.

I follow my own religion...hence the name. :D

Flashjeff
08-06-04, 22:45
Personally speaking, I don't see what all the uproar is all about here. Gays who marry should have equal rights as straight couples do. Period. Anything less would be discrimination. And discrimination hurts E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y.

I've always believed that the so-called "institution of marriage" is threatened a great deal more by the immoral acts of heterosexual couples who've made a royal mess of things with cheating (on both sides), spousal abuse (mental and physical), not to mention couples who live together for years and years, even have children but never bother to tie the knot.

But the politicians and obnoxiously self-righteous bible thumpers won't acknowledge that fact or even discuss it because they can't do anything to correct those sins. So they jump on gays, if but for no other reason than they are a minority and can be easily held accountable for the wrongs of heteros who've caused the real damage to marriage.

Now, I'm straight and I had no trouble figuring that out. Why can't more enlightened people like elected officials and religious leaders see that for themselves? Boggles the mind.
:souka:

Swtess
20-06-04, 02:48
i agree with flashjeff.
i don't understand how come some people are against gay marriages. it's not their life or their business to not accepting same sex marriages. if it was me i would be like f off! i don't see what's the problem. so they both got dicks or both don't. they still love eachother like heterosexual couples. it's not their fault they fell in love with the same sex..

i remember watchin tv lastyear about a couple hundreds of people in front of Ottawa rejecting same sex marriage. i don't understand what's their problem against this, but it's THEIR opinion that its wrong. not the rest of the world. some people who are throwing a fit about this just seems to me like an overgrown spoiled brat.

Areku
20-06-04, 03:13
I think we need to seperate 'marriage' into Christian marriage, and normal marriage.

My main problem with the moaning about gay marriages is that if two people love each other, why are they so desperate to confirm it with a ring? It shouldn't be a major issue.

Anyway, with Christian marriage, if they want it prohibited, then that's up to them. If Christians see it as wrong, then gay people can't do anything about it. It's up to the religious leaders to see how hypocritical they are, and change things.

With legal marriage, erm, I don't see a big problem with it being legal EXCEPT moving towards an image of gay couples as family units. I don't believe that gays should have mistreatment from anyone else because of their sexuality, and that they should be able to do what they want without harassment, but...allowing them to adopt/foster kids is very wrong. And if marriages are legalised, it's just one more step towards letting them have kids because of stupid political correctness.

Before anyone jumps on me for saying that, stop for a second and imagine that you were brought up by two men. Unfortunately the clichťd phrase that some gay activists like to use is wrong, "love is (not) the only thing that matters". Parenting goes much deeper than that, on a psychological and emotional level, directly relating to the M/F bonding and image.

Kama
20-06-04, 15:11
My main problem with the moaning about gay marriages is that if two people love each other, why are they so desperate to confirm it with a ring? It shouldn't be a major issue.


Before anyone jumps on me for saying that, stop for a second and imagine that you were brought up by two men. Unfortunately the clichťd phrase that some gay activists like to use is wrong, "love is (not) the only thing that matters". Parenting goes much deeper than that, on a psychological and emotional level, directly relating to the M/F bonding and image.

F... !! :auch: And why not let me deicide if I want confirm my love with ring or not? You (hetero) don't understand this problem, so just please don't talk about this. If you want to live without marriage, you just do so, if you want a marriage, you do so. But we don't have the right to choose. It is a very major issue, try thinking about this in a braod perspective, okay? Don't trivialise it.

Or by two women.. :D And what else matters? Please explain this to me, because I am far too stupid or too idealistic to understand you. Is it really important to have mum and dad to see the "right exemplar"? Having a family with mum and dad won't make you a good sane sociable person in advance. I suppose that more harm would bring having one of the parents who is drinking and abusing phisically/mentally the resty of the family.

So once again, please explain me what's wroing with having parents of the same sex? Les/Gays may be as good parents as hetero people. This is my opinion.

Areku
21-06-04, 16:16
As I said, I don't really have a problem with non-Christian gay marriages. But for Christian weddings, it really is under their jurisdiction.

Yes...I believe kids need hetero parents to develop properly, emotionally and psychologically. That's not being homophobic, it's just because I understand that there are issues with same-sex parents that go MUCH deeper than 'if they love the child it's ok'. Sure, kids need love, but there are much more complex relationships at work than just love. Care and love are just parts of the whole bringing up a child thing.

If you set aside the psychological issues for a start, what about the social issues? Would you want a child to be bullied at school for having gay parents? Kids can be very hurtful to each other and in today's society many would just jump on it for fun. "Look, there's that kid with two dads". It wouldn't be nice.

At the end of the day, it's unnatural. And it's not fair to bring up a kid in the environment. That's not being homophobic, it's just the way it is. Kids need a father figure and a mother figure for different reasons. Sorry to offend you. If you look through psychology books you'll see there's a lot of development kids go through relating to parents and sex. Single parents are bad enough (although understandably, this is unavoidable sometimes) but same sex parents is totally controllable...and thus, should be. Sure, having same sex parents would be a better deal for many kids with abusive/drunken parents, but that doesn't qualify it as being ok

Duo
21-06-04, 17:41
Personally, I think it's stupid to make legislature against gay marriage. If gay people want to get married, then they should be able to. Marriage nowadays is nothing more then a secular social status. Is just a piece of paper that binds you together under the law. It's stupid to waste all that effort and money to counter gay rights. It's their business and the Gov has no business in their private life.

nekosasori
21-06-04, 17:53
I think we need to seperate 'marriage' into Christian marriage, and normal marriage.

What about all the other marriages that are approved by other religions? Buddhist, Shinto, Muslim and of course Jewish... even within Christianity, Orthodox vs. Catholic vs. Mormon etc. - they're all just religious ceremonies that are, reasonably enough, optional for the couple to choose or not. I don't see any need to separate out definitions, since even a Wiccan handfasting ceremony is just that - a spiritually motivated ritual that symbolizes a union. The "normal" marriage is to do with rights. See below.


My main problem with the moaning about gay marriages is that if two people love each other, why are they so desperate to confirm it with a ring? It shouldn't be a major issue.

Well, perhaps you're not reading about the issues because you've made up your mind, but it's not actually about a ring. It's about inheritance, receiving your partner's pension after he or she dies, being an emergency contact in case of accident, receiving health insurance and other coverage via a partner's employers... a HECK of a lot of monetary and legal issues arise from being unable to get married.


I don't believe that gays should have mistreatment from anyone else because of their sexuality, and that they should be able to do what they want without harassment, but...allowing them to adopt/foster kids is very wrong.

Lots of gay couples have children that are biologically related to one of the parents. And now we have the technology to splice DNA from two eggs and combine them - in which case lesbians can be biologically related - both of them - to the child.


And if marriages are legalised, it's just one more step towards letting them have kids because of stupid political correctness.

And it's not politically correct to TEACH society to exercise tolerance, to not treat people who are different with a default and reasonable level of respect and understanding?


Before anyone jumps on me for saying that, stop for a second and imagine that you were brought up by two men. Unfortunately the clichťd phrase that some gay activists like to use is wrong, "love is (not) the only thing that matters". Parenting goes much deeper than that, on a psychological and emotional level, directly relating to the M/F bonding and image.

I think that male/female gender identity roles are far more flexible and arbitrary than you think. If you're criticizing gay parents for only having one kind of genitalia, what about "conventional" parents who both have the same roles at work and at home, who have very similar personalities, or have gender roles confused (e.g. playing opposite roles to the "norm"?) I think any stable couple has the right blend of similar and different personality traits, skills, and they have learned to bond well through communication, compromise, even trial and error - the genders of those partners is totally irrelevant to how happy and stable a home is. I totally agree that not just love matters; but this 'bashing' of kids happens no matter how homogenous the population sample is - even if ALL the parents in a given class of kids is at the same socioeconomic level and hetero, then the kids will make fun of someone for being fat, or slow, or a different culture, or being too tall, etc. Having gay parents alone does NOT mean that a child is absolutely going to be bullied MORE than some other kid who has a lisp or is of a different race, or is poorer than the others. I say that by using that as the main excuse for not supporting gay rights as parents, you're perpetrating the very discrimination that you claim to NOT condone.

It all starts with every single one of us CHOOSING to say it's okay (or not) to let this go on, and you're saying that things can't improve, so let's keep our backwards view. In that case, I don't see why slavery still isn't in effect, and women shouldn't be able to vote today. Fact is, things CAN and DO change, and I for one think that legalization of homosexual partnerships is long overdue.

Duo
21-06-04, 19:44
Lots of gay couples have children that are biologically related to one of the parents. And now we have the technology to splice DNA from two eggs and combine them - in which case lesbians can be biologically related - both of them - to the child.



Wouldnt that then mean that child could only be female since the egg has only the female chromosomes ? What about gay men, there is no technology for their unification of DNA.



I think that male/female gender identity roles are far more flexible and arbitrary than you think. If you're criticizing gay parents for only having one kind of genitalia, what about "conventional" parents who both have the same roles at work and at home, who have very similar personalities, or have gender roles confused (e.g. playing opposite roles to the "norm"?) I think any stable couple has the right blend of similar and different personality traits, skills, and they have learned to bond well through communication, compromise, even trial and error - the genders of those partners is totally irrelevant to how happy and stable a home is. I totally agree that not just love matters; but this 'bashing' of kids happens no matter how homogenous the population sample is - even if ALL the parents in a given class of kids is at the same socioeconomic level and hetero, then the kids will make fun of someone for being fat, or slow, or a different culture, or being too tall, etc. Having gay parents alone does NOT mean that a child is absolutely going to be bullied MORE than some other kid who has a lisp or is of a different race, or is poorer than the others. I say that by using that as the main excuse for not supporting gay rights as parents, you're perpetrating the very discrimination that you claim to NOT condone.


Legalization of homoseuxal partnerships is fine, but for them to raise a child should be considered a little more with further scrutiny. If the couple are gay men, who will breastfeed the child ? Also, children feel comfortable and secure around their mother, what if they dont have one at younger age ? Who will provide the maternal care for the child ? Negative expereinces in the youth can have ever-lasting consequences. To me it just seemse a little farfetched the idea of a gay couple raising a child. It's not about beeing backwards, it's about being reasonable. Slavery and the discrimination of women are not comparable to the a gay couple raising a child. We shouldn't think about the freedom of the couple, but about the rights of the child. Similarly, when children are not taken well care of in regular couples, they get taken away from them. I mean a child needs two different kinds of parental care, he needs both opposites.

nekosasori
21-06-04, 20:12
Wouldnt that then mean that child could only be female since the egg has only the female chromosomes ? What about gay men, there is no technology for their unification of DNA.

My point is that the urge to reproduce does not necessarily disappear in homosexuals, and that it is more common than not that the child has genetic ties to at least one parent. And yes, a female-female DNA merging can only produce female children. So far, all humans must have at least one X chromosome, but lots of gay men father children with a willing woman who either just becomes a surrogate or fertilizes her own egg with his sperm.


Legalization of homoseuxal partnerships is fine, but for them to raise a child should be considered a little more with further scrutiny. If the couple are gay men, who will breastfeed the child ?

Lots of women canNOT breastfeed, even if they know that "breastmilk is best". I was raised on formula alone because my mother didn't lactate (produce milk). I don't think of this as an issue. Besides which, for gay men who had a child through an amicable situation (e.g. with a lesbian mother) she could still have access to the baby while milk is needed, and breastfeed it.


Also, children feel comfortable and secure around their mother, what if they dont have one at younger age ? Who will provide the maternal care for the child ?

Are you saying that a male parent is automatically inferior to any woman? I totally disagree. And having two gay parents doesn't even mean that a child is automatically removed from any female presence. That's a false argument that I don't understand. There can be grandmothers, aunts, maybe even women living full-time in the house where the child grows up. Just because the parents are gay does NOT mean the child is completely isolated from the rest of society! Babysitters could be women (and most likely would be), schoolteachers... there will be plenty of role models that ANY child from ANY family accesses as they grow up.


Negative expereinces in the youth can have ever-lasting consequences.

Agreed - I'm just saying that I don't believe it's a fair assumption to make to equate being raised by a gay couple with having negative experiences. As mentioned before, abusive, dysfunctional hetero couples exist aplenty - children are, in my opinion, FAR better off with a stable, loving, homosexual couple.


To me it just seemse a little farfetched the idea of a gay couple raising a child. It's not about beeing backwards, it's about being reasonable. Slavery and the discrimination of women are not comparable to the a gay couple raising a child.

I don't think it's reasonable to discriminate on any human being's right to attempt to be a parent because of their sexual orientation. This is approaching the mentality of limiting every human's right to reproduce, and so far, that seems to be a basic human right. The right to freedom, and to vote are also pretty fundamental (even though it's not as basic). That's why I used it as a comparison.


We shouldn't think about the freedom of the couple, but about the rights of the child.

Okay, in which case we should take away gay children who grow up under the care of Christian fundamentalist parents. Or kids with no interest in academia, away from very academically-minded parents. Or introverted kids from extraverted parents.


Similarly, when children are not taken well care of in regular couples, they get taken away from them. I mean a child needs two different kinds of parental care, he needs both opposites.

I'm disagreeing with the premise that men and women are "opposites" of any kind. Men and women are NOT, in my opinion, very different at all. Many people ACT like gender roles when they think they're being watched, but when they're alone, they react the same (to visual stimuli). There've been studies, and I majored in cognitive and behavioural science - I know what I'm talking about.

I do think that children should be cared for by competent parents - I'm just not using any discriminatory criteria like race, religion, OR sexual orientation to make a blanket statement on whether a person would NOT be competent JUST based on those criteria. Just being able to impregnate someone or get pregnant oneself also, in my opinion, does NOT automatically mean that a person is a competent parent either, for that matter - but that's a whole other debate.

I think at the least that two gay men, with differing strengths, personalities, and with (probably) double the income can at least provide an adequate if not downright excellent environment for a child, compared to a single hetero father, or a single mother who's stretched to the limit by struggling to make ends meet, or by a hetero couple where one or both parents are abusive, or one or both are alcoholics or addicted to drugs or into crime (blue or white collar), or... you should get the idea.

And incidentally, just as many hetero couples who get married don't choose to have kids (like me, in fact), and many hetero couples don't exercise their right to get married, not all gay couples will choose to get married, and the rate of gays adopting OR procreating and raising children is unlikely to change. That's another false argument as far as I can see.

Areku
22-06-04, 04:00
What about all the other marriages that are approved by other religions? Buddhist, Shinto, Muslim and of course Jewish... even within Christianity, Orthodox vs. Catholic vs. Mormon etc. - they're all just religious ceremonies that are, reasonably enough, optional for the couple to choose or not. I don't see any need to separate out definitions, since even a Wiccan handfasting ceremony is just that - a spiritually motivated ritual that symbolizes a union. The "normal" marriage is to do with rights. See below.


My point is that if the Church doesn't allow it, it's in their control. I'm not religious and I don't support the Church and think it's full of hypocracy but at the end of the day, it's up to them. It's their religious texts which damns homosexuality, and hell if they're gonna change it.



Well, perhaps you're not reading about the issues because you've made up your mind, but it's not actually about a ring. It's about inheritance, receiving your partner's pension after he or she dies, being an emergency contact in case of accident, receiving health insurance and other coverage via a partner's employers... a HECK of a lot of monetary and legal issues arise from being unable to get married.


Two things here. Firstly I don't really oppose gay marriage on it's own, and secondly, what about a will?



Lots of gay couples have children that are biologically related to one of the parents. And now we have the technology to splice DNA from two eggs and combine them - in which case lesbians can be biologically related - both of them - to the child.

Yes and this I find completely disgusting and a violation of the child's human rights. Ideas like that come from one thing only - political correctness, the bane of a free thinking man. The people in control of the jurisdiction of such technology are blinded by buzzwords like 'rights' and 'equality', and they fail to see the blatant and unavoidable fact that it is not natural.



And it's not politically correct to TEACH society to exercise tolerance, to not treat people who are different with a default and reasonable level of respect and understanding?

There is a huge difference between treating gay people with tolerance and respect, and letting them raise children. It's a whole different kettle of fish.
The human rights of the child are worth more than the twisted concept of 'tolerance' that is preached these days about this issue.



I think that male/female gender identity roles are far more flexible and arbitrary than you think. If you're criticizing gay parents for only having one kind of genitalia,

No, it's not just about their genitalia, and I never implied it was limited to it. It's about the complex and deep relationships between the child and the parents that go unnoticed throughout it's years but show themselves later in life. Having a masculine father figure, and feminine mother figure. Having a "mum and dad". Having an image of a 'female' to compar others to, subconciously. Having a relationship model to base your own learning and experience on. Lots of inherent things that are not only missing in a same-sex parenthood, but innapropriate things that replace them.



what about "conventional" parents who both have the same roles at work and at home, who have very similar personalities,

There is no such thing as a proper male/female couple who act like two same sex parents. It's technically impossible. Even if the father is a little bit camp, or the mother is a bit butch (pardon the expression) it just doesn't come close to how twisted the impressions are from the same sex parents. If the parents both work all day and leave the child to a carer? It's proven that that disturbs the development of children and causes them emotional problems later on in life to a varying degree. I never said they were good. In 20 years time when the stories come out (no pun intended) of children raised by gay parents and the things they had to endure and suffer as a consequence, maybe the govts. will realise what a mistake political correctness was, in this case.



or have gender roles confused (e.g. playing opposite roles to the "norm"?) I think any stable couple has the right blend of similar and different personality traits, skills, and they have learned to bond well through communication, compromise, even trial and error - the genders of those partners is totally irrelevant to how happy and stable a home is.


How would you know this, considering there are very few (if any) adolescent/adult people who have grown up with gay parents? On the contrary, there's plenty of scientific study on children and their stages of development which directly ties in to the gender/behaviour of their parents to suggest that varying from the norm can produce adverse effects on the child's eventual psyche.

Things like communication, skills etc, these are the methods of parenting that are obvious, that people can directly influence. What I'm talking about is stages of subconcious development that isn't seen or heard, just the product of it is. Things like seeing your parents kiss. Things like observing the shape of your mother's hips/breasts. Things like this have subconcious effects that you can't control or understand until a later date.

In short - gay parenthood is intefering with nature to the detriment of the child's development.



I totally agree that not just love matters; but this 'bashing' of kids happens no matter how homogenous the population sample is - even if ALL the parents in a given class of kids is at the same socioeconomic level and hetero, then the kids will make fun of someone for being fat, or slow, or a different culture, or being too tall, etc. Having gay parents alone does NOT mean that a child is absolutely going to be bullied MORE than some other kid who has a lisp or is of a different race, or is poorer than the others.

I disagree. Teasing/bullying over looks/wealth is an age old happening and though it's bad, at least the kids know they're not alone. Geeks and that type of kid at least have geeky friends (I know - I was one). But having gay parents? A kid teased about that will feel more or less totally alone. It's embarassmnt on a whole new level. The kid will have to put up with thinking about how he isn't normal, how he wished to have normal parents, and at some point he's gonna realise his parents have gay sex, which his fellow students at school will no doubt relish in telling him about.



I say that by using that as the main excuse for not supporting gay rights as parents, you're perpetrating the very discrimination that you claim to NOT condone.

Gay parenting as a discrimination against human rights in itself. If what I've said means I discriminate against it, then so be it. But I have the child's best interests at heart in this argument, rather than mindless gay-bashing (I hope you can see that).



It all starts with every single one of us CHOOSING to say it's okay (or not) to let this go on, and you're saying that things can't improve, so let's keep our backwards view.

No, the view of gay parenting being ok is backwards. We've come so far in education and discovery about the human body and mind, and then we go back on this because of 'PC', which results in things like that.

I don't see how gay parenting be seen as an improvement? If you're talking about marriage here, ignore that statement.



In that case, I don't see why slavery still isn't in effect, and women shouldn't be able to vote today. Fact is, things CAN and DO change, and I for one think that legalization of homosexual partnerships is long overdue.

I agree. It shouldn't be illegal. Gay people can't help being how they are, and should be allowed the same rights about relationships as straight people. But not parenting.



Are you saying that a male parent is automatically inferior to any woman?


No, but two of the same sex are. There is a balance. We have evolved this way and look how it's got us. Evolution has done a far better job than us at parenthood and the system is fine (and important) as it is.



I totally disagree. And having two gay parents doesn't even mean that a child is automatically removed from any female presence.


True, but they are removed from the mother figure, of which no carer/relation can replace.



There can be grandmothers, aunts, maybe even women living full-time in the house where the child grows up.


It's still not the same. IF the carer/aunt is as close as the mother figure should be, then it would be different. But then, is it really a gay marriage scenario for the child?



Just because the parents are gay does NOT mean the child is completely isolated from the rest of society! Babysitters could be women (and most likely would be), schoolteachers... there will be plenty of role models that ANY child from ANY family accesses as they grow up.


again, let me stress the importance of a single, close mother figure.



Agreed - I'm just saying that I don't believe it's a fair assumption to make to equate being raised by a gay couple with having negative experiences. As mentioned before, abusive, dysfunctional hetero couples exist aplenty - children are, in my opinion, FAR better off with a stable, loving, homosexual couple.

That may be the case, but it's not a valid justification to allow it. Would you say, having drunken parents is better than physically abusive ones? Probably, but does that mean it should be allowed? Nobody said those types of parents were good either.




I don't think it's reasonable to discriminate on any human being's right to attempt to be a parent because of their sexual orientation. This is approaching the mentality of limiting every human's right to reproduce, and so far, that seems to be a basic human right. The right to freedom, and to vote are also pretty fundamental (even though it's not as basic). That's why I used it as a comparison.


What about the child's right to be born into a natural family? It's a violation of human rights to knowingly birth a child into a gay family and inflict the psychological and social issues onto it before it's even born. The unborn child has done nothing to deserve it.





Okay, in which case we should take away gay children who grow up under the care of Christian fundamentalist parents. Or kids with no interest in academia, away from very academically-minded parents. Or introverted kids from extraverted parents.


In a perfect world, yes, we should. But it would be impossible and impractical to coordinate. How would you judge whether or not parents were too introverted to raise a slightly extroverted child? How long would it take you to notice the child being an extrovert? 5 years? 15 years? How are you gonna tear a 15 yr old kid away from his family just because they don't match up perfectly? Not feasible.

However, you can protect the rights of children being raised by gay couples, because it's easy to disallow before the child is even conceived - because it's based on the parent's actions and not the child's.



I'm disagreeing with the premise that men and women are "opposites" of any kind. Men and women are NOT, in my opinion, very different at all. Many people ACT like gender roles when they think they're being watched, but when they're alone, they react the same (to visual stimuli). There've been studies, and I majored in cognitive and behavioural science - I know what I'm talking about.

They're not total opposites. But I'm sorry, in this world, gender roles play a huge part in society and people's development. Yeah, in a closed room, people might act very similiar. But this is the real world, and males and females in it are very different, and the social implications of sexuality are wide ranging. You can't apply closed-room theory to a scenario we have to consider in real life.



I do think that children should be cared for by competent parents - I'm just not using any discriminatory criteria like race, religion, OR sexual orientation to make a blanket statement on whether a person would NOT be competent JUST based on those criteria. Just being able to impregnate someone or get pregnant oneself also, in my opinion, does NOT automatically mean that a person is a competent parent either, for that matter - but that's a whole other debate.


But don't you see that we aren't questioning the competence of the parents? It's nothing to do with that, its about the rights of the child and the effect of merely having gay parents, however competent they are at caring etc.

Religion is another interesting debate (although again, an open and shut case for me). Religious people indoctrinate their children, which should be illegal. Forcing a child to believe in nonexistent entities, possibly pray to them, wear stupid clothes etc. it's practically the definition of 'backwards'. We ain't in the Dark Ages now :bravo:

by the way, I don't mean to offend you. It's nothing personal. I just tend to argue rather brashly over topics like this. Maybe one day I'll be a politician :P heh

Duo
22-06-04, 04:18
My point is that the urge to reproduce does not necessarily disappear in homosexuals, and that it is more common than not that the child has genetic ties to at least one parent.


The urge to reproduce is chanelled by us through sex right ? If a man is not attracted at the aspect of having sex with a woman, how can he still have an urge to reproduce ?



Besides which, for gay men who had a child through an amicable situation (e.g. with a lesbian mother) she could still have access to the baby while milk is needed, and breastfeed it.


Doesn't this sound ridiculous to you? A gay man and a gay woman getting together to have a baby. Where is the purpose in that ? Are they going to be a family? No!! They are having the baby simply for their own desire. It's a selfish act. In the end the baby will have two daddies, and two mommies. That's quite a predicament for a child to go through. Even if a woman donates her egg, or acts a surrogate, or whatever other way that a child can be artificially conceived, the family unit will still remain a problem. Our society is based on the family being its most basic and prime unit.



Are you saying that a male parent is automatically inferior to any woman? I totally disagree. And having two gay parents doesn't even mean that a child is automatically removed from any female presence. That's a false argument that I don't understand. There can be grandmothers, aunts, maybe even women living full-time in the house where the child grows up. Just because the parents are gay does NOT mean the child is completely isolated from the rest of society! Babysitters could be women (and most likely would be), schoolteachers... there will be plenty of role models that ANY child from ANY family accesses as they grow up.


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that each has a different and distinct role in raising a child. I'm not talking about a female presence, but a motherly or fatherly present. No one can act as a surrogate and fulfil that role, be it aunties, grandmas, teachers or whatever. What if a Lesbian couple have a boy and he begins to enter puberty, how are they supposed to guide him through this period when they themselves have no idea of what a man goes through during puberty. Same goes for two gay man and their daughter. How can they deal with her first menstruating cycle when they themselves have never experienced it and really have no idea of what the female body goes through at this stage. The care of a mother and that of a father is irreplaceable.



Agreed - I'm just saying that I don't believe it's a fair assumption to make to equate being raised by a gay couple with having negative experiences. As mentioned before, abusive, dysfunctional hetero couples exist aplenty - children are, in my opinion, FAR better off with a stable, loving, homosexual couple.


That's true, but let's admit it, we have the impression that gay couples are more understanding and loving and more stable than a regular couple, when in fact I don't think that's true at all. Gay couples like other couples have their issues and their quarrels, which is certainly normal.



I don't think it's reasonable to discriminate on any human being's right to attempt to be a parent because of their sexual orientation. This is approaching the mentality of limiting every human's right to reproduce, and so far, that seems to be a basic human right. The right to freedom, and to vote are also pretty fundamental (even though it's not as basic). That's why I used it as a comparison.


Personally I don't beleive in discriminating others who are different from us, be it race, gender, ethinicity, sexual orientation, or whatever, but the core of the matter is not the discrimination of gay people when it comes to children. The question is weather they are able to provide the necessities needed to raise a child. I will digress here a little by saying that the right to freedom is not the same as that of voting. Freeedom is an inhereted right, whereas the right to vote is a political right, therefore not fundemental. However, this is a different topic. :p

When it comes to the right to reproduce, only the "fit" are successful; it should not be taken for granted that each of us has the right to have a child. Gay people are certainly not "fit" to reproduce becuase their sexual orientation doesn't allow them to be attracted to the opposite sex, which has only one scope to it- reproduction. If one is not attracted to the opposite sex, he/she is not attracted at having sexual intercourse with the other sex, therefore exhanging genes and reproducing. Sex, in nature, has but one purpose- the continuation of a species. Homosexuals in past centuries have not been able to have children through artificial ways such as today. It is only because we have these ways that the demand has risen amongst the gay community. Having a child today is for some people like buying a new car. Now, maybe due to my limited intelligence, I don't understand how the want for a child arises in a gay couple. The want for a child can only truly arise between a man and woman. It is only the unification of the two sexes that produces a child in nature. It is my view that the want for a child is "induced" into a gay couple by what society expects of a couple, and by the need of gay people to prove to the others that they are normal just like them.
I might BE WRONG, if so I'm sorry, I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE



I'm disagreeing with the premise that men and women are "opposites" of any kind. Men and women are NOT, in my opinion, very different at all. Many people ACT like gender roles when they think they're being watched, but when they're alone, they react the same (to visual stimuli). There've been studies, and I majored in cognitive and behavioural science - I know what I'm talking about.


I'm am referring that women and men occupy opposite roles in nature. The penis is the opposite of the vagina, the sperm is the oppositte of the egg. Therefore, there are somethings that only men have, and somethings that only women have, not only in terms of physical appearance. It's know that women care more about feelings and emotions than men, so perhaps this aspect is very important in rasing a child seeing as how each of the parents is preoccupied with a different aspect of the child's growth. If the child has parents of the same sex, the other type of care will be missing.



I think at the least that two gay men, with differing strengths, personalities, and with (probably) double the income can at least provide an adequate if not downright excellent environment for a child, compared to a single hetero father, or a single mother who's stretched to the limit by struggling to make ends meet, or by a hetero couple where one or both parents are abusive, or one or both are alcoholics or addicted to drugs or into crime (blue or white collar), or... you should get the idea.


And why is that we always think of gay couples being sophisticated individuals of the middle class layer ? I think this is a big sterotype. Gay people are like any other normal person out there. Not all the gay couples are "functional"(whatever that means) and addiction free from drugs and alcohol. Abusive and irresponsible parents dont have a label on their forehad that lets us know their status. I'm sure that many abusive and irresponisble parents initially looked just as caring and loving as anyone else. So, gay couples, as loving and caring and nice and secure and stable they may seem, can also turn out to be neglective and abusive parents. Just like there are many stable gay couples out there, there is just as many middle class and rich couples who aren't able to conceive a child and are lookin for an adoption.

nekosasori
22-06-04, 08:53
@Areku - I'm against the concept of organized religion myself, so there's no debate there...

I'm giving up on quotes, but a few responses now to your latest post:

A will does not cover emergency contacts even if it deals with inheritance, and even the latter can and often is contested by relatives after the death - it's not as easy or the same as the default set of benefits that a legal marriage brings.

As long as gay couples can and do have children it's a moot point about children's rights to a set of hetero parents, etc -
In more repressed times - and even now - lots of gay people are living a "lie" as a hetero married person, raising children while not being emotionally fulfilled because they're not oriented to the opposite sex sexually. Mainly these people get married due to the urge to reproduce. In my view, the urge to have children is NOT related at all to sexual orientation. As stated before, I am straight, and I do not want children (never have, probably never will). Some subset of the gay population want children because of the biological imperative, NOT (and I was offended by this shallow view, Duo) as an accessory or a device to appear "normal". If gay people wanted to appear normal they'd try to blend into the majority of society (e.g. behave "straight"). I'm talking about openly gay couples here.

Besides which, I never said that ALL gay couples were white collar and well educated (though all the ones I know are, personally) - I know that there are dysfunctional and abusive gay couples out there - but just as we don't condemn ALL straight couples just because of the many that are dysfunctional and abusive, the right for all gay couples to raise children (bio or adopted) shouldn't be taken away. Let each couple be evaluated on their own merits and weaknesses.

Now, for some external links and quotes:

From Alt.politics.homosexuality:


Studies done of the children of gay parents show such children to be as or more well-adjusted then children of straight parents. A gay couple that loves each other and the child will certainly make better parents than a straight couple with an unwanted child, of which there are all too many. The most important factor in raising a healthy and happy child is whether the parents give the child ample love and support, not what sex the parents are.

As for "few" children growing up with gay parents - well in the US (population over 290 million total) there have been studies. I've never claimed that children of gay parents grow up to be "the same" as those with straight parents, but here's a quote from a recent (Mother's Day 2004) study:

http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=382


Stacey's study, published with co-author Timothy Biblarz in the American Sociological Review, concludes, "Contemporary children and young adults with lesbian or gay parents do differ in modest and interesting ways from children with heterosexual parents." The article reports the authors' findings from a re-examination of 21 existing studies of the children of lesbian and gay parents. "There is no evidence whatsoever of harm to kids according to the sexual orientation of their parents," Stacey said. In fact, the findings show that lesbian mothers and gay fathers may have an advantage over heterosexual couples because, for one thing, more lesbian parents plan their pregnancies. "We certainly know these are all wanted children, and there's plenty of research demonstrating that wanted children do better than unwanted children or even than accidental children," Stacey said. Her research indicates that children of lesbians and gay men exhibit levels of self esteem, anxiety, depression and other indicators of emotional well being similar to those of straight parents' children. Children of gays tend to function as well as other children cognitively and show higher levels of social popularity. The children of gay men and lesbians, especially girls, are more likely than others to depart from traditional gender roles in their dress, activities and occupational aspirations, according to Stacey.

As young adults, they are also more likely to have had or considered same-sex relationships, though they are not more likely to firmly self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Children of gays are just as likely as children of heterosexuals to wish they were a member of the opposite sex, the study concluded. Female children of gay parents are more likely to be sexually active as teenagers and young adults than children of heterosexuals, according to the researchers, while male children show an opposite trend. Male children of gays are also less likely to show aggression than other boys. Children of lesbians and gays do report experiencing peer stigma regarding their own sexual orientation at higher levels than children of heterosexuals.

Elizabeth O'Connor, Ph.D., a lesbian mother and co-author of "For Lesbian Parents," said she wasn't troubled by most of the findings. "What the differences found are what you might expect," O'Connor said. "Our daughters are more androgynous, more willing to consider fields in traditionally masculine fields, they're less sex-typed in their play-how can that be a bad thing? "And boys show some of the same patterns," she added. "They are more nurturing and caring, and that's also not a bad thing." O'Connor is not disturbed that children of gay men and lesbians are more likely to question their sexual identity. "Most of them decide 'I'm a straight kid,'" she said. "As a psychologist, I'd say thinking about all the possibilities before deciding who you are is also not a bad thing." Aimee Gelnaw, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, an advocacy group for gay and lesbian families, said she does not dispute the new study's findings. "I think the authors of the study have represented the truth," she said. "I've long been concerned about the defensiveness with which we describe our differences." Gelnaw said advocates for gay parent rights need to recognize that "difference is not deficit." Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a mother of two, is pleased to see evidence that children of lesbians and gay men are less likely to embrace rigid gender roles and limit their sexual expression to heterosexuality. "To say that there's something wrong with that or to defend it by saying, 'Oh no, that's not true,' or to have any response other than 'So what?' implies that there would be something wrong with a child growing up to be lesbian or gay," Kendall said.
Things like communication, skills etc, these are the methods of parenting that are obvious, that people can directly influence. What I'm talking about is stages of subconcious development that isn't seen or heard, just the product of it is. Things like seeing your parents kiss. Things like observing the shape of your mother's hips/breasts. Things like this have subconcious effects that you can't control or understand until a later date.[/quote]


The kid will have to put up with thinking about how he isn't normal, how he wished to have normal parents, and at some point he's gonna realise his parents have gay sex, which his fellow students at school will no doubt relish in telling him about.

There are many parenting resources for gay couples, and they address these issues early on and with the support of organizations (like the Family Pride Coalition, at least in the US):

http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=395&key=2058&navpath=topics/families/parenting

I'm curious, you're stressing the importance of a maternal figure more so than a father - so you personally object less to a lesbian couple raising children?
To me too, this is an open and shut case.

The mention of "what if gay male parents raise a daughter who starts to menstruate" - well, each woman has a different experience with menstruating - cramps, frequency, regularity, etc. - just because a mother exists doesn't mean that even she could identify fully with what her daughter is going through. As well, though I was brought up in a traditional two-parent household, personally I was brought up to be a boy (only wore boy's clothes, had a boy's haircut, learned "hard" subjects, played sports, played with boy's toys). Moreoever my father barely interacted with me because even as a neonate I didn't like him (I'd cry at age 6 months if he tried to hold me) - but despite that all I still turned out straight. I think there are a lot of households that aren't "ideal" - and considering that most gay parents PLAN their children, and prepare for raising them, this preparation and situation at least negates the disadvantage of having bigoted straight parents of their classmates teasing them in school.

In any case, gay parenting has always been a reality - and the percentage rate of gay chidlren coming from gay parents is the same as in straight households... I just don't think that it's a terrible thing for children to have gay parents.

Areku
22-06-04, 20:03
Bahhhh %^&£&^£ browser lost my reply. Gonna have to make this brief. :okashii:


@Areku - I'm against the concept of organized religion myself, so there's no debate there...

I'm giving up on quotes, but a few responses now to your latest post:

A will does not cover emergency contacts even if it deals with inheritance, and even the latter can and often is contested by relatives after the death - it's not as easy or the same as the default set of benefits that a legal marriage brings.


Fair point.



As long as gay couples can and do have children it's a moot point about children's rights to a set of hetero parents, etc -
In more repressed times - and even now - lots of gay people are living a "lie" as a hetero married person, raising children while not being emotionally fulfilled because they're not oriented to the opposite sex sexually. Mainly these people get married due to the urge to reproduce. In my view, the urge to have children is NOT related at all to sexual orientation. As stated before, I am straight, and I do not want children (never have, probably never will). Some subset of the gay population want children because of the biological imperative, NOT (and I was offended by this shallow view, Duo) as an accessory or a device to appear "normal". If gay people wanted to appear normal they'd try to blend into the majority of society (e.g. behave "straight"). I'm talking about openly gay couples here.


I agree, the biological desire to have children isn't sexuality related. Certainly sex related, to a degree (more females want kids than males), but not sexuality. Well maybe it is slightly, but not enough to matter in this debate.

but about the gay people who have kids in unhappy relationships, at the dnd of the day, it's their problem, and not their unborn child's. Traditionally, the rights of the children comes first. Be it about abortion, about child abuse, about bad surroundings, the child has rights that protect it from it's own parents.

If a gay person has a problem with his desire for children, it's on his head to sort it out, not bring a child into the world and force upon it gay parents.



Besides which, I never said that ALL gay couples were white collar and well educated (though all the ones I know are, personally) - I know that there are dysfunctional and abusive gay couples out there - but just as we don't condemn ALL straight couples just because of the many that are dysfunctional and abusive, the right for all gay couples to raise children (bio or adopted) shouldn't be taken away. Let each couple be evaluated on their own merits and weaknesses.

In a perfect world, you'd need a license to reproduce. Too many irresponsibly and badly influencing parents have kids these days. I tell ya, a birth license would cut crime in half within a generation or two.



From Alt.politics.homosexuality:

Studies done of the children of gay parents show such children to be as or more well-adjusted then children of straight parents. A gay couple that loves each other and the child will certainly make better parents than a straight couple with an unwanted child, of which there are all too many. The most important factor in raising a healthy and happy child is whether the parents give the child ample love and support, not what sex the parents are.


I really doubt the credibility of these 'studies', especially coming from alt.politics.homosexuality. There are no references to researches or to records of the methods/people/results involved. And to try and justify gay parents by saying they raise better kids than straight ones who don't wan their kids is an invalid argument, it's just an observation. Which further casts doubt on the study.


about this;

http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=382



The children of gay men and lesbians, especially girls, are more likely than others to depart from traditional gender roles in their dress, activities and occupational aspirations, according to Stacey.


Now that's a vague sentence if I ever saw one. That could easily mean 'they grow up to be transexuals/crossdressers' for all it says.

Again, I doubt the source of the article. By a 'gay-friendly researcher' the article says. Coulda guessed. Also, it says that the only opposition to claims of gay parents being as good as straight ones is from 'conservatives intent on stopping gays reproducing/having children' which is blatantly rubbish, there are plenty of scientists who condone it if you look hard enough, the trouble is I bet most of them are scared to 'come out' (hehe) for fear of being jumped on for being non PC / homophobic / other crap by the kind of peopel who write that article and have no real grasp of neither biology nor human rights, just the feel-good trash talk that gets fed to them by people every day.



As young adults, they are also more likely to have had or considered same-sex relationships


Which is bad. See, the parents are already rubbing off on the kids, in a bad way, which is unsuprising.



Female children of gay parents are more likely to be sexually active as teenagers and young adults


Well that's good for the blokes out there, but not for the rates of teenage pregnancies and STDs.



Elizabeth O'Connor, Ph.D., a lesbian mother and co-author of "For Lesbian Parents,"


lol....



Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a mother of two, is pleased to see evidence that children of lesbians and gay men are less likely to embrace rigid gender roles and limit their sexual expression to heterosexuality. "To say that there's something wrong with that or to defend it by saying, 'Oh no, that's not true,' or to have any response other than 'So what?' implies that there would be something wrong with a child growing up to be lesbian or gay," Kendall said.


YES there is and the sooner people realise that the better. Political correctness and pressure from pride groups has turned homosexuality into a vastly misrepresented phenomena. These days, it's a culture, a lifestyle, an expression, a challenge, fun, different...no, at the end of the day it's a disorder, a genetic abnormality in the brain. It's glamourised and the reality of what homosexuality is is avoided like the plague because people are so scared of the backlash that they'd get if they even attempted to say it's anything otherwise to what the hippy feminists over in america decide it is.

To expect people to say "so what?" to it is an obscene display of pc gone crazy and people who have no idea what they are talking about.



I'm curious, you're stressing the importance of a maternal figure more so than a father - so you personally object less to a lesbian couple raising children?
To me too, this is an open and shut case.


I was stressing the importance of a maternal figure because in that paticular part of the debate we were talking about female figures replacing the mother like aunts etc. I object to both same sexes raising children equally.

kirei_na_me
22-06-04, 20:16
In a perfect world, you'd need a license to reproduce. Too many irresponsibly and badly influencing parents have kids these days. I tell ya, a birth license would cut crime in half within a generation or two.

Thank you!!! :bravo:

That's what I've been telling people for years. "You have to have a license to drive a car, so don't you think you should have to have a license to have a baby?!" I couldn't agree with you more.

nekosasori
22-06-04, 20:55
I'll be even briefer then :-)

First, I agree with licensing - I've been saying that myself, for years also.

Second, since a certain percentage of homosexuals has always been found in all human societies, I think it's a stable part of the gene pool, for whatever reason. I would not call homosexuality an "abnormality" also because many animal species have demonstrated homosexual behaviour.

If we had continued to embrace "rigid gender roles" then a lot of women who have pioneered the way to accomplish great things in traditionally male-dominated areas of work and research would have never had the chance to do what they do best (my heroine has always been Marie Curie). That's the main reason why I oppose this notion of "we must behave within the confines of gender roles" rubbish. I think each person should be allowed to explore their talents and inclinations without being denigrated. Not every woman has even the skills let alone inclination to become a stay at home mother (which is of course an important path in life to take, for those who CHOOSE it). Not every man is ambitious or even competent enough to become a strong male role model, career-wise, for his son(s).

Living in Ireland as I do, gays are still very closeted (I don't know of a single "out" person in a company of several hundred employees). Yet they continue to be out there. Silence and being closeted is NOT the solution to this "aberration" - being gay is NOT a choice for many people - how many people would have chosen such a rocky path in life, especially when political-correctness wasn't a societal reality? Anyone who claims to "choose" a gay lifestyle is actually bisexual IMO. And sexuality is a continuum.

I hope that you see that I'm not being a knee-jerk PC liberal when I defend my views. It's a combination of exploring my own experiences, understanding the friends I have, and thinking about the individuals whom I know well as human beings (and who happen to be gay) that I've reached my decision to support their wishes, be they to get legally married, and/or to have and raise children. I would much rather see all my (well-educated, white collar) gay friends care for children personally, than some (well, many) of my un-self-aware, Irish work colleagues who seem to only have children because of familial or societal pressure - without their really wanting them or preparing to shoulder that burden in a responsible and committed fashion.

Areku
22-06-04, 22:26
I'll be even briefer then :-)

First, I agree with licensing - I've been saying that myself, for years also.

Second, since a certain percentage of homosexuals has always been found in all human societies, I think it's a stable part of the gene pool, for whatever reason. I would not call homosexuality an "abnormality" also because many animal species have demonstrated homosexual behaviour.


There are plenty of other mental abnormalities in animals too. And also, the rate of homosexuality in normal mammals (ie. not seahorses or asexually reproducing organisms) increases with the complexity of the brain. Basically you're more likely to see homosexuality the higher up you go. It's a correlation but really it just backs up the main argument, that is, humans wouldn't have evolved to have opposing sexual organs if they were meant to be homosexual. Out of the millions of sexually reproducing organisms on the planet, I'd say either all or 99.999% do it the male/female way, like with humans. It makes biological sense. In contrast, homosexuality serves no purpose. In fact from a genetic standpoint, it's a fatal flaw, because in a more regressed society (few thousand years ago) people didn't have the technology or the ability to forcefully reproduce homosexually.

Obviously in todays society people are on a higher mental level than just having kids. Lots of people don't even bother, so therefore homosexual can lead perfectly fulfilling lives.

But...it doesn't change what it is itself.



If we had continued to embrace "rigid gender roles" then a lot of women who have pioneered the way to accomplish great things in traditionally male-dominated areas of work and research would have never had the chance to do what they do best (my heroine has always been Marie Curie). That's the main reason why I oppose this notion of "we must behave within the confines of gender roles" rubbish. I think each person should be allowed to explore their talents and inclinations without being denigrated. Not every woman has even the skills let alone inclination to become a stay at home mother (which is of course an important path in life to take, for those who CHOOSE it). Not every man is ambitious or even competent enough to become a strong male role model, career-wise, for his son(s).


That's true and I didn't really mean there was a problem with that. My problem with her sentence as it's ambiguity, it sounds like it was said with the aim of veiling some undesirable consequences of being raised by gay parents. I mean, how can you depart from traditional gender roles about clothes if you're male? wear a skirt? well, ideally, nobody should have a problem with it, but you have to take into consideration the rest of society, who aren't going to treat someone who cross dresses as normal. If she was more clear about what exactly the depart from gender roles was I wouldn't be so suspicious.



Living in Ireland as I do, gays are still very closeted (I don't know of a single "out" person in a company of several hundred employees). Yet they continue to be out there. Silence and being closeted is NOT the solution to this "aberration" - being gay is NOT a choice for many people - how many people would have chosen such a rocky path in life, especially when political-correctness wasn't a societal reality? Anyone who claims to "choose" a gay lifestyle is actually bisexual IMO. And sexuality is a continuum.


I don't think anybody chooses it (except bisexual people, as you say). The brain has specific regions which are related to sexual urges and it makes no sense to be attracted to the same sex.

There are people who can be 'straight', but be aroused by gay sex, either having it or watching, and this doesn't mean they're gay. It's a kink. People have kinks for all sorts of things...fetishes etc. But to be properly gay I think you have to have a pretty firm attraction to the same sex from puberty, which is usually the case.



I hope that you see that I'm not being a knee-jerk PC liberal when I defend my views. It's a combination of exploring my own experiences, understanding the friends I have, and thinking about the individuals whom I know well as human beings (and who happen to be gay) that I've reached my decision to support their wishes, be they to get legally married, and/or to have and raise children. I would much rather see all my (well-educated, white collar) gay friends care for children personally, than some (well, many) of my un-self-aware, Irish work colleagues who seem to only have children because of familial or societal pressure - without their really wanting them or preparing to shoulder that burden in a responsible and committed fashion.

Heh totally, you're not like that at all. :haihai:

Kama
27-06-04, 18:25
Obviously in todays society people are on a higher mental level than just having kids. Lots of people don't even bother, so therefore homosexual can lead perfectly fulfilling lives.

Where? :? Not in my country, so please don't generalise.



I don't think anybody chooses it (except bisexual people, as you say). The brain has specific regions which are related to sexual urges and it makes no sense to be attracted to the same sex.

Oh... I chose my sexuality...? :souka: Well, I didn't (and I am/think of myself as bi), so I agree with Areku. :) No sense...? It makes sense!! Who would understand you better, if not the person who is of the same sex and share the same hardships and joys? Who would rather know what do you need? Of corse I'm not saying this is the reason for being gay/lesbian... XD

I didn't like the opinion that wanting to have child is sexually related... And about this puberty thing. I have never talked with my parents about sex and menstruation. And I knew what is menstruation and sex anyway. School/friends/magazines. It's enough, I suppose.

bossel
28-06-04, 00:44
homosexuality serves no purpose. In fact from a genetic standpoint, it's a fatal flaw
You're slightly mistaken here. Homosexuality can serve a purpose. Although, it is not yet clear how all this works out. But it is definitely not a "fatal flaw".

Areku
29-06-04, 14:27
You're slightly mistaken here. Homosexuality can serve a purpose. Although, it is not yet clear how all this works out. But it is definitely not a "fatal flaw".

Well you explain to me how the genes of a homosexual could be passed on, considering that we haven't always been this clever? From an evolutionary standpoint it's a genetic dead end.

I don't know how you can say it can serve a purpose, yet not know what the purpose is. One theory I've heard is that it evolved to cut down on the population, a kind of evolutionary taking-one-for-the-team for the human race to make sure there aren't too many people..and it's interesting but

a) it's a very strange and inefficient way of cutting down the population - being born sterile would do the job in a much better way
b) I've never heard of any other species having such a mechanism
c) the 'survival of the fittest' would cut down the population on it's own.

I'm not assuming that's what you meant, but just mentioning it anyway.

still, I maintain it's some form defect in the brain, until someone can prove otherwise.


Where? :? Not in my country, so please don't generalise.


Well ok in some countries gay people might get a LOT more hassle than others, but in most Western ones you can certainly get by. Basically I meant that compared to thousands of years ago, where a homosexual males probably didn't either live fulfilling lives or have kids, today, where they can meet and have relationships with other gay people, and even have kids in some places, they can live pretty much normal lives.



Oh... I chose my sexuality...? :souka: Well, I didn't (and I am/think of myself as bi), so I agree with Areku. :) No sense...? It makes sense!! Who would understand you better, if not the person who is of the same sex and share the same hardships and joys? Who would rather know what do you need? Of corse I'm not saying this is the reason for being gay/lesbian... XD

Lol there's definitely a lot of things you can only get from the same sex. I'm content with having some best (male) friends for that. We can share just as much without being in a relationship. When I say it makes no sense, I mean on a biological level. From a genetic point of view, it makes no sense to be attracted to the same sex, because it'll get the genes nowhere fast.



I didn't like the opinion that wanting to have child is sexually related... And about this puberty thing. I have never talked with my parents about sex and menstruation. And I knew what is menstruation and sex anyway. School/friends/magazines. It's enough, I suppose.

Yeah, I agree with you, I think it's a bad argument against gay parenting to say that they might not won't be told about puberty and sex from parents the same sex as them, because I learned from school/friends too, and so did most of my friends. It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

bossel
30-06-04, 02:58
Well you explain to me how the genes of a homosexual could be passed on, considering that we haven't always been this clever? From an evolutionary standpoint it's a genetic dead end.
Why should it be a dead end? Homosexuality is a continuum, it's not as if there could be drawn a definite line where it starts or ends. Lots of homosexuals had & have sexual contacts with the opposite sex, not too seldomly resulting in kids.
Furthermore, it's probably not only genetic but there is more to it.




I don't know how you can say it can serve a purpose, yet not know what the purpose is.
Well, in science there is a little something called theory. Having a theory doesn't mean that you know something exactly, but that you have an idea how it might work (or where it comes from, etc.) & research has to be done to verify this idea.
One theory is that homosexuality evolved for social reasons.
You can read more on homosexuality & evolution here:
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Evolution_doesn't_explain_homosex uality

Quote:
"# Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait, but exists as a continuum [Haynes, 1995]. Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.
The most extreme heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did non-homophobic heterosexuals [Adams et al., 1996]. Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propogated.
# Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too [Kirkpatrick et al., 2000]. After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans. "



Well ok in some countries gay people might get a LOT more hassle than others, but in most Western ones you can certainly get by. Basically I meant that compared to thousands of years ago, where a homosexual males probably didn't either live fulfilling lives or have kids, today, where they can meet and have relationships with other gay people, and even have kids in some places, they can live pretty much normal lives.
What makes you think, that thousands of years ago homosexual males didn't have kids?

Areku
30-06-04, 04:03
Why should it be a dead end? Homosexuality is a continuum, it's not as if there could be drawn a definite line where it starts or ends. Lots of homosexuals had & have sexual contacts with the opposite sex, not too seldomly resulting in kids.
Furthermore, it's probably not only genetic but there is more to it.


Well you can draw a line between whether you are turned on by men, or women.




Well, in science there is a little something called theory. Having a theory doesn't mean that you know something exactly, but that you have an idea how it might work (or where it comes from, etc.) & research has to be done to verify this idea.


I am aware of that, but you didn't mention what the theory was.



One theory is that homosexuality evolved for social reasons.
You can read more on homosexuality & evolution here:
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Evolution_doesn't_explain_homosex uality

Quote:
"# Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait, but exists as a continuum [Haynes, 1995]. Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.
The most extreme heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did non-homophobic heterosexuals [Adams et al., 1996]. Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propogated.
# Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too [Kirkpatrick et al., 2000]. After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans. "


Those studies don't really prove anything we don't already know. Of course gays can still contribute homosexual genes, because they can physically have sex with women, if they aren't heterosexual. But that's only because we've evolved to be so clever. It still doesn't answer the simple question - why do homosexuals exist, and why is it only 2-3% of the population?

The second study means nothing either, it's a well known fact that many extremely homophobic males are homophobic because they are in fact struggling to come to terms with being gay (to any extent) themselves.

The chimp study is not forthcoming either. The fact that a chimp species uses homosexuality has a social cement has nothing to do with whether the genes in humans are useful or not. It seems very flawed to me, because;

It's one chimp species being studied
The chimps may be heterosexual but exhibit homosexial behaviour as a form of bonding
The chimps may have homosexuality as a mental abnormality yet use it as a form of social cement anyway (the social cement is a consequence of the homosexuality, not the cause)
If it had 'evolved' to serve a purpose of social cement, why only 2-3% of humans are homosexual

To be honest virtually all the research on homosexuality that is propogated by gay rights groups is incredibly flawed and inconclusive, but it's worded in a way that liberal groups and gay rights people will lap it up because it's exactly what the public like to hear.

Similiarly, some of the research on homosexuality which concludes things the people *don't* want to hear are funded and spread by typically Christian groups who consider homosexuality a 'sin' so I'm very wary of either side of the research.

I prefer to stick to biology and scientific theory rather than case studies.



What makes you think, that thousands of years ago homosexual males didn't have kids?

Several reasons. If you go far back enough, humans probably weren't clever enough to actually overcome to attraction to males, and to force themselves to have sex with women. These days we have a clear understanding of reproduction, and can physically do it with the opposite sex, that is based on intelligence and not instinct.
Also, I can imagine that civilisations were much more strict on homosexuals back then.

I could be wrong on that account. But I'm pretty much certain homosexualit is tolerated a lot better now that it was in previous times.

Kama
30-06-04, 22:12
still, I maintain it's some form defect in the brain, until someone can prove otherwise.

Everyone always said that there is something wrong with my head.. :P Now I finally know why I like girls!

Currently, I'm looking for a doctor to heal me of:
*brain's malfunctioning
*inferiority complex

:blush: :D

Golgo_13
30-06-04, 22:54
Are we still on this topic?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml

bossel
01-07-04, 02:43
Well you can draw a line between whether you are turned on by men, or women.
Well, as has been said, it is a continuum. Actually, the whole human sexuality is a continuum, there are no clear boundaries. In some cases you may be able to say "clearly homosexual" & in others "clearly heterosexual", but there is a lot in between.



I am aware of that, but you didn't mention what the theory was.
Because there is not only one.




Those studies don't really prove anything we don't already know. Of course gays can still contribute homosexual genes, because they can physically have sex with women, if they aren't heterosexual. But that's only because we've evolved to be so clever. It still doesn't answer the simple question - why do homosexuals exist, and why is it only 2-3% of the population?
It is not clear in how far homosexuality is genetically induced & what role the environment plays (eg. hormones in the womb during pregnancy). Just because there is an easy question that doesn't mean there is an easy answer. Homosexuality may be latent in every human being but the genes are only activated under certain circumstances.




The second study means nothing either, it's a well known fact that many extremely homophobic males are homophobic because they are in fact struggling to come to terms with being gay (to any extent) themselves.
Yep, but a lot of those guys have children, don't they? Hence doing the homosexual gene-pool some good.




The chimp study is not forthcoming either. The fact that a chimp species uses homosexuality has a social cement has nothing to do with whether the genes in humans are useful or not. It seems very flawed to me, because;
There is a slight mistake in the article: bonobos are no chimpanzees! They are often called dwarf chimpanzees (this may be the reason why in this article they're called bonobo chimpanzees) but they are a distinct species.
Well, if homosexuality is useful as social cement that might explain why it has evolutionary value also for humans. It's an approach to find an explanation, that's science.



(the social cement is a consequence of the homosexuality, not the cause)
Like with the chicken & the egg?



I prefer to stick to biology and scientific theory rather than case studies.
Case studies are not scientific? Well, some maybe, but in general I heard of a lot of case studies used in science.




Several reasons. If you go far back enough, humans probably weren't clever enough to actually overcome to attraction to males, and to force themselves to have sex with women. These days we have a clear understanding of reproduction, and can physically do it with the opposite sex, that is based on intelligence and not instinct.
Not only males are homosexual.
Are you saying we are more intelligent now than 20,000 years ago?
If cleverness is needed for homosexuality, why is it that it exists in several other species who are not so clever as humans? Or do you think that eg. zebra finches are more intelligent than we are (well, OK, let's only talk about the average)?



Also, I can imagine that civilisations were much more strict on homosexuals back then.
Which would mean that homosexuals had to lead a normal life if they didn't want to be persecuted. Hence a lot of them would have kids just to show how normal they are. Pretty good for the homosexual gene-pool.




I could be wrong on that account. But I'm pretty much certain homosexualit is tolerated a lot better now that it was in previous times.
That depends on the time & the society. Compared to the old Greeks the US is not exactly heaven for homosexuals.

King of Tokyo
16-07-04, 00:37
I don't really care.. what's the big deal if they wanna get married.. let them.. doesn't affect me.. I'll be straight and they can be gay, It's all good.. lol

blessed
31-07-04, 12:49
I agree with King of Tokyo, in every way. :D :D

But did you know, that there have been studies made, nd it is possible that male homosexuality is in fact genetic?

yes, it is said that there is a 3% chance that a male is genetically gay, and for every older brother, that figure increases by 33% (i.e. from 3 to 4, from 4 to 5.3...). so you can't really blame them if you so wish cause its not really their "fault".

Glenn
05-08-04, 08:13
A question for Areku: you seem to be saying a lot about children's rights and even rights of unborn children. This seems to be in stark contrast to your views on abortion, namely that the parents have the right to kill their child until it can survive on its own, because until then it isn't alive and doesn't have rights. How do you justify this seeming dichotomy?

Rachel
12-08-04, 20:24
Ohh MY GOD ! Has anyone else seen this yet. I can't beleive it, HOW DARE THEY !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560050.stm

My blood is boiling

DragonChan
12-08-04, 22:16
Ohh MY GOD ! Has anyone else seen this yet. I can't beleive it, HOW DARE THEY !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560050.stm

My blood is boiling

That's horrible! If they're going to stop making them legal, they should at least leave the ones they already issued. How would those people feel if they were suddenly told that they were no longer considered 'married' to thier spouse?

Ugh. This is all so stupid.

People can't control what sex they are attracted to. I don't see any reason why they can't get married and have the exact same rights as everybody else.

akaisha
12-08-04, 23:08
Ohh MY GOD ! Has anyone else seen this yet. I can't beleive it, HOW DARE THEY !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560050.stm

My blood is boiling

Oh Bush can kiss my ass. Its a shame these things are happening, but I don't it will be outlawed any time soon. I'm lucky to be in a state that is considering to legalize it, but still a ban being in that many states as is is just stupid. I mean honestly, how the hell does this effect him? What kind of power does he have to make these choices? I could care less if the's the damn president. You can't change the constitution, america is a land of freedom, this limits the freedom we are born with by being on this soil. This is just stupid. Why must people even care? I mean honestly.

mdchachi
13-08-04, 01:31
It was a good ruling. We can't have local officials breaking the law every time they feel like it. If the laws preventing same-sex marriage are bad or illegal, then they need to be overturned. That mayor is no better than that stupid southern judge who insisted on posting the ten commandments in his courtroom.

antantrevolution
17-08-04, 21:38
To hell with Bush, he's as useless as a surplus condom from WWII.. which is where his ideals and beliefs are at now.

I can say for myself, I have several people that are gay around me that I feel should be able to decide for themselves where their life paths take them, not some tard trying to follow in his puppeteer's footsteps. If you are responsible enough to stay with one life partner and not mess around, jeapordising your health and that of those around you, then you should have every right to your marraige freedoms and not have to suffer the wrath of ignorance.

This country was founded on something that gave us the freedom to choose so, and God, even though there are those that seem to use his name for their own crusades (A.K.A. Bible belt..), obviously wouldn't have given us emotion, compassion, love and free will if he didn't deem it ok to choose who is best for us.

Let people be ******* happy.

Worry about things that matter in life, and our world.

Ant

Miss_apollo7
22-08-04, 00:24
I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexual couples. In fact, Denmark was the first country to allow gay marriages. LINK:
http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/


THE FIRST legal married gay couple was Axel & Eigil Axgil, who married together with 10 other couples in Copenhagen the 1st October 1989. It was a worldwide media event. But at this time Axgils had been together for nearly 40 years, 32 of which under a common name.

Axel and Eigil had in 1957 combined their first names into the family-name Axgil when they were in prison for gay right activism. So many gay couples also changed their names that the government soon stopped this early precursor to civil union. In 1989 the Partnership Law again made such name changes possible.

Satori
22-08-04, 02:43
This might shed a little bit of light on the recent decision in California and where it's headed:

Gay Marriages Voided, But Questions Remain:

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040813/b48ac6ef8578223c690324df5a5c856f_1.html

Next Gay Marriage Fight Could Move Fast:

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040817/3a9096bcad58fa3c0e656fe69aa236d1_1.html


Hopefully, they will get this matter straightened out as quickly as possible. What they did to all of those marriages is just terrible ...

Kala
22-08-04, 10:43
OK, I get here a little late, so many things has already been said. I have to admit it was too long to read absolutely ALL of what it have been posted, but I read a big part of it, and I have some things to say.
Personally, I think gay marriage it's ok, I don't really think there's a problem with it. Though I don't think marriage it's important, I do think it's important to have the right of getting marriage, that’s the whole point (I say this because there was a person who say marriage it’s not so important, and someone answered that straight people doesn’t understand…) I’m bisexual, I believe I have the right to have that “option” either I fall in love with a man or a woman. In the other hand, we have to understand there’s a lot of things beyond the simple fact to be united to the person you love. Getting marriage gives you a lot of rights that other way wouldn’t be there, like with life insure and stuffs like that. It also makes you legally related to the other person, and that’s important in so many ways too (like when a person is hospitalized and only admit relatives, in that case, sometimes the one that person shares her/his life with can see him/her just because “it’s not a relative”-we’re talking about same sex partners, of course-).
I have to say to me the marriage it’s more important legally than religiously. Actually I think religious shouldn’t be so involved with the countries and their societies, but I’m not stupid, and I know they are, luckily, not so much now a day, but they still influence a lot, especially the catholic one in west. Religions are something that goes with each one, it’s something each person believe on, so each one decides what to believe, and what not to, with out impose your beliefs to the others. So, you either can try to impose changes to the religions because you think they are good (say this because it was also said in some part something about catholic gay marriages) Anyway, what I’m trying to say, it’s that the religious part, no matter how stupid it’s, or it’ sound, it’s understandable to exist.
Something that didn’t sound me understandable was comparing the gay marriage with incest marriage or animal-human marriage!! God!!! What are you talking about!! It’s absolutely not the same!! There’s a lot of reason, let’s start with: 1) both parts involved in it have conscience of what they are doing- 2) none of the part can get psychologically damage from it (no matter what, that always happen with incest), and the reasons go on but this thing it’s long enough- -”…
… I think one of the most important reasons against this kind of marriages, it’s the fact of the children. Personally, I think that’s something to be treated separated. Though, for one side, I think a gay couple can raise a child (sometimes better than some heterosexual couples), the reasons why other people don’t think like I, seem pretty reasonable and I really believe it has to be treated separated. We have to think, that something very repeated it’s that thing of “as well they don’t bother anyone else, as well they don’t mess with anyone else…” Yeah, yeah I know the couple wouldn’t be “bothering” the child, but what I mean it’s that topic it’s already included another human being whose life will depend exclusively of all this, so…
Well, there are a lot of things to say about this if you think on this through… so, I guess I’ll post something else eventually…
:sorry: :relief: Sorry for the long, and sorry it something doesn’t make sense. :relief:
:-) Bye & Good Luck :-) (let`s put this nice face, it was all too serius... :p )

Rest in Peace. Nade-Ka’

meme9898
04-09-04, 23:49
I believe they should have equal rights , but i believe that the word "marriage" should stay with a man and a woman. Gays should get the most of the same benifits as married couples but i want the definition protected its sacred. On health care they should get the same benifits exept for aids or something, that happened during there civil union, cuase thats there own fault. Same with hteros but before the marriage.

Kama
09-09-04, 08:59
I believe they should have equal rights , but i believe that the word "marriage" should stay with a man and a woman. Gays should get the most of the same benifits as married couples but i want the definition protected its sacred.

Maay I ask why? What's so special? Marriage is marriage. :) Giving birth to children isn't sacred... XD There is civil and religious wedding... Let it be. XD


On health care they should get the same benifits exept for aids or something, that happened during there civil union, cuase thats there own fault. Same with hteros but before the marriage.

I don't unbderstand. Could you explain it to me?

digicross
10-09-04, 21:00
The whole marriage controversy is nothing more but just something to make people fight each other. They're not fighting for the rights of the homosexuals, they're making people fight each other.


Really, homosexuals probably can arranged something that resemble a marriage contract using normal laws, and they have being doing these things for years.

The same goes for heterosexuals who have their prefered ways being unlawed, like being polygamists. They usually arranged something on their own ways.

Japanimaniac
14-10-04, 20:07
I believe they should have equal rights , but i believe that the word "marriage" should stay with a man and a woman. Gays should get the most of the same benifits as married couples but i want the definition protected its sacred.

The word "marriage", in this day and age, is the union of the net worth of the two parties involved (not stepping on any moral toes here, just saying). Otherwise, prenuptual agreements would not exist.

Homosexual couples should have every right to be married, and be entitled to every benefit and hardship that comes with it. Looking at this subject from a purely economical view, there is no difference between two men/two women being married than there is for a man and woman being married.

Who is to judge who can love who, anyway? I'm all for being married because of love, and it is the reason I hope to be married, but I would not want someone saying "No, you can't, because it isn't right". Unfortunatly, the government likes to contradict itself quite a bit, claiming to not be religion biased, yet continually bringing up the morality issue.

Fantt
14-10-04, 21:19
This is one of those issues that people will look back on in 30 years and wonder why the conservatives were fighting so hard against it. Kind of like the fight to stop women's sufferage or civil rights for blacks or the fight to keep the work week 12 hours a day 6 days a week.

Maciamo
06-11-04, 05:00
Reply to a PM I received from Antifederalist



Right now, marriage is between man and woman either by law and/or value system. By allowing gay people to claim life partners and call it marriage is what people are against.

Since when does marriage bind people for life ? Are divorces also banned in the US ? Actually, I though the US had the higher divorce rate in the world.


This wouldn't be an issue of state if gov't hadn't decided to use marriage as a basis to tax us on.

Don't civil union act the same way as marriage for tax rebates ? Anyway, is it better to have a gay and a lesbian getting married for a tax rebate, while having sex with somebody else ?


After all, to most Americans, marriage is the union of man and woman before God (where man and woman become one flesh--this really shows when a man and woman have sex there's a really good chance a baby will come about, making the concept of one flesh tangible)--not Uncle Sam.

In Europe there is no legal difference between having a child while being married or not being married.


To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin.

How could it be a sin when people are born like that ?
Please read this post of mine in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68644&postcount=85)


I have no problems with civil unions and gays couples receiving the benefits that a married couple gets (to be able to claim the "spouse" as dependent, etc.) but for religious purposes, I do not want it called marriage.

But marriage on paper and the wedding ceremony at the church are completely different things. If the government bans gay marriage that will only be on paper, refraining them from having benfits. However, they CAN still marry at a church if that church accepts gay marriages (and some do). The goverment has no power to change the rules of religious organizations. Which is why I don't understand why American people want to block gays from social benefits by voting for Bush, knowing they can still get a religious marriage.

No-name
06-11-04, 09:43
Newsflash: Homosexuality is a sin. Lots of behavior is "sinful." All sin is natural- as is death, bad gas, decay, and sitcoms that aren't funny. Every single person alive has sinned. It is human nature. (The whole point of Christianity is saving you from this nature.)

As for gay marriage. Making it legal won't make anyone gay. Making it illegal won't make anyone straight. So what if Carl and Bob want to wed? It doesn't bother me. It shouldn't concern me at all. (unless they forget to invite me.) Gay people have enough problems already without legalized discrimination. Isn't this country founded on some kind of freedom and liberty thing? Didn't someone say something about leting people do whatever floats their boat unless it adversely affects someone else. Can't we leave them alone?

Antifederalist
06-11-04, 14:09
What was said to Maciamo:


To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin. But then don't we all live in sin?

Posted by Maciamo:


To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin.

*edit:

The first quote, while many of you may still find it amazing people still talk about sin in such an enlightened age as this, makes me sound tolerant to homosexuality (which I am). For me to point a finger at them and yell 'Sinner!' would be hypocritical--which is what Maciamo tried to paint me as by leaving out the rest of what I said.

F*ck it, even though it was a PRIVATE message, I will post it here:


By saying "forced" on the populace didn't mean to force people to become gay and get married. What it meant is:

Right now, marriage is between man and woman either by law and/or value system. By allowing gay people to claim life partners and call it marriage is what people are against.

This wouldn't be an issue of state if gov't hadn't decided to use marriage as a basis to tax us on. After all, to most Americans, marriage is the union of man and woman before God (where man and woman become one flesh--this really shows when a man and woman have sex there's a really good chance a baby will come about, making the concept of one flesh tangible)--not Uncle Sam.

To me, I think homosexuality is immoral and is a sin. But then don't we all live in sin? I have no problems with civil unions and gays couples receiving the benefits that a married couple gets (to be able to claim the "spouse" as dependent, etc.) but for religious purposes, I do not want it called marriage.

Oh well, I guess I am still a troglodyte for even having religion and conservative values.

Have a great weekend.

bossel
06-11-04, 23:07
Newsflash: Homosexuality is a sin.
How can it be a sin if it's not your choice? If I understand the concept of sin correctly, your god gave humans the opportunity to choose between good & evil. Since people are born homosexual, how can they choose?

december
07-11-04, 00:23
Damn, I'm tired of gay folks. Go back into the closet, PLEASE!

That's how I feel.

King of Tokyo
07-11-04, 00:50
Damn, I'm tired of gay folks. Go back into the closet, PLEASE!

That's how I feel.

First discriminations against asians, now against gays, you're on a roll buddy.

december
07-11-04, 05:09
Since when I have a discriminated against Asians? Dude, you definitely don't know me. I love the Asian race.

Unfortunately, I do support homosexuals because I feel that it is wrong and unnatural. I do not, in any shape, form or fashion, discriminate against gays since I happen to personally know a few gay people. In fact, my road dog from high school happens to gay. It was a shock, yes - it was, but I'm not the type of person to abandon my friends because of their sexuality.

However, I do not support their chosen lifestyle.

TwistedMac
07-11-04, 06:33
Since when I have a discriminated against Asians? Dude, you definitely don't know me. I love the Asian race.

Unfortunately, I do support homosexuals because I feel that it is wrong and unnatural. I do not, in any shape, form or fashion, discriminate against gays since I happen to personally know a few gay people. In fact, my road dog from high school happens to gay. It was a shock, yes - it was, but I'm not the type of person to abandon my friends because of their sexuality.

However, I do not support their chosen lifestyle.
sounds like that run-of-the-mill excuse people that are accused of being racist use "I'm not racist, I have a black friend!" uh-huh... sure.

but you know, damn, I'm tired of you! get off the internet, PLEASE!

... I'm not discriminating against you. I have friends that aren't too bright! in fact, my friend from high school turned out to be quite the dope.

King of Tokyo
07-11-04, 07:05
Since when I have a discriminated against Asians? Dude, you definitely don't know me. I love the Asian race.

Since when? Since the other thread you said that Asians shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't, and can't rap. You love the asian race alright, as long as they are doing what you stereotype them to do, and don't cross over into things that are, in your mind, specially reserved for other races.


Unfortunately, I do support homosexuals because I feel that it is wrong and unnatural. I do not, in any shape, form or fashion, discriminate against gays since I happen to personally know a few gay people. In fact, my road dog from high school happens to gay. It was a shock, yes - it was, but I'm not the type of person to abandon my friends because of their sexuality.

However, I do not support their chosen lifestyle.

You know a couple of gay people? Wow, I'm sorry.. I didn't know.. I was wrong about you..

december
07-11-04, 08:40
but you know, damn, I'm tired of you! get off the internet, PLEASE!

You don't know me... :?


... I'm not discriminating against you. I have friends that aren't too bright! in fact, my friend from high school turned out to be quite the dope.

That's hot. :okashii:


You know a couple of gay people? Wow, I'm sorry.. I didn't know.. I was wrong about you..

I don't really sarcastic people either cause I'm sarcastic myself...

But...

Why is it so hard to accept people's opinion? If a white person dislikes all blacks based solely on their skin color, then I respect that person's OPINION. However, I do not support it.

If a person wants to be gay, then I respect that person's choice. However, I do not support it.

Hell, if a person wanted to jump off a mountain without a parachute, then I will accept his decision. However, I won't support it!

Does that make me racist? Does it me wrong? Does it make me deserving of a verbal (or in this case written) attack? And yes, I use the word attack because that's what it becomes when you throw in personal insults. It's ashame one can't fully enjoy a debate without having to be belittled by others.

Somebody, ANYBODY , explain to me because I don't understand, why do people have such a difficult time accepting someone elses opinion. If you disagree with me, fine. Say you disagree, state your reasons intelligently, and leave the childish and stupid insults elsewhere. Nothing pisses me off more than people who think they are right and anyone else who disagrees is wrong.

An opinion is just that - a view that is neither wrong nor right, a statement that is neither be true nor false.

TwistedMac
07-11-04, 18:36
You don't know me... :?

you don't know all gay people, yet you see fit to tell them to get back in the closet.



Why is it so hard to accept people's opinion? If a white person dislikes all blacks based solely on their skin color, then I respect that person's OPINION. However, I do not support it.

If a person wants to be gay, then I respect that person's choice. However, I do not support it.

Hell, if a person wanted to jump off a mountain without a parachute, then I will accept his decision. However, I won't support it!

Does that make me racist? Does it me wrong? Does it make me deserving of a verbal (or in this case written) attack? And yes, I use the word attack because that's what it becomes when you throw in personal insults. It's ashame one can't fully enjoy a debate without having to be belittled by others.

Somebody, ANYBODY , explain to me because I don't understand, why do people have such a difficult time accepting someone elses opinion. If you disagree with me, fine. Say you disagree, state your reasons intelligently, and leave the childish and stupid insults elsewhere. Nothing pisses me off more than people who think they are right and anyone else who disagrees is wrong.

An opinion is just that - a view that is neither wrong nor right, a statement that is neither be true nor false.
It's pretty hot how you compare being gay to racism and suicide. Smooth.
It's their opinion that they should get to get out of the closet, it's your opinion that they shouldn't and it's my opinion that you should stfu. all opinions...

you can't state your own opinion and the fact that you have every right to have it, and then get sad when someone else responds to it.

Flashjeff
07-11-04, 18:52
I may have mentioned something like this here previously, but in my mind, the only reason why gay marriage is controversial in the first place is because narrow minded and bigoted conservatives have made it so.

To anyone with even half a brain, the real enemy to the so-called institution of marriage are----GASP----heterosexuals! Between adulterers, abusers and polygamists, straights have done a bang up job of wrecking the sanctity of marriage, and have done so for decades. But is that ever mentioned by the holy rollers and the gutless politicians (like Bush) who are in their back pockets? Of course not. It's safer, not to mention easier to go after a soft target like gays and unfairly demonize them for everything that's gone wrong about marriage. To attack the real culprits harming marriage would be to admit that straights, not gays are the cause of all the problems, and that's something conservatives will never do.

America is supposed to be a land of inclusion, but conservatives and their Bible slanted agenda have made it a land of exclusion, denying rights to an entire class of people because some hackneyed book that's insanely out of step with today's world says so. People come in all colors and all mindsets, to shun one class of people because they don't jibe with the words in a book that turns people into mindless lemmings is just plain wrong. Gays should be allowed to marry if that's what they want. I mean really, where's the outrage in that?

PaulTB
07-11-04, 19:04
An opinion is just that.
Er no.

An opinion is not _just_ an opinion if it is also, say, defaming, inciting racial hatred etc. At least in the UK 'an opinion' of that sort can be actionable in court.

Also saying "In my opinion 1 + 1 = 3" doesn't make you any less wrong and you shouldn't expect to not be told you're an idiot just because you precede idiotic statments with "In my opinion".

Fantt
07-11-04, 21:39
I just now discovered this thread, so I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. I think a lot of the controversy surrounding gay marriage is due to bigotry, hatred and fear of homosexuals. That said, though, I don't think that that's the only reason why people oppose gay marriage. Obviously the very religious people in this country are tolerant of gays or else we'd have laws similar to other religiously dominated countries which imprison or execute homosexuals. We don't do that too much here. I know they tried that in Texas, but well, that's Texas. In Texas you can be pro-life and still execute retarded people (for murder).

I think a lot of people are opposed to gay marriage because, for them, it will change the very definition of marriage. Marriage, in most all human societies, has always been between a man and a (one or more) woman/women. In allowing gays to have a "marriage" ceremony, we are changing a tradition much older than slavery, racism, subjagation of women and other long held traditions, and lots of people are uncomfortable with that - even people who aren't bible thumpers.

However, for the life of me, I can't see why tolerant people would be against allowing homosexuals to obtain civil unions and get the same rights that heteros have. The only reason I can see to deny them those basic rights and responsibilities is, sadly, fear, hatred and ignorance.

Eventually, we're going to run into a freedom of religion thing here. There are at least a few religions which would gladly marry gays if allowed. The Unitarian Universalists come to mind. By denying the Unitarians from marrying gays, we're denying them a bit of their religious freedom. The Universal Life Church will grant ministerial status to anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs (as long as they agree to a very basic and mild moral agreement) and many of those ministers (who have full legal rights to marry people in every state) would gladly marry gays as well.

Society is changing quicker than the moral conservatives like. Eventually, the moral conservatives (who are now in power) will have to chose whether to remain tolerant or turn our country into repressive theocracy. I'm betting on tolerance.

Kamisama
07-11-04, 22:53
It's genetic. It's as simple as that. If you want to call anything a sin call your hate a sin. Bisexuality is not genetic. Hating someone because they are homosexual is like hating a black man because he is black. You can't hate people because their DNA came out the way it did. You can dislike the immoral sins they create against others, such as adultry,necrophilia,pedophilia. I find it very stupid for many Christians to have hate against homosexuals. I think abortion is a greater issue than homosexuality.

I have known many homosexual people. Funny enough when I run across them they are very intelligent. They know a hell of a lot more than I do which makes me wonder why they have a great intelligence. Perhaps it's because they need a greater intelligence to be respected in this world because they are not respected enough like regular people.

I do find problems with many people who are bisexual though. I find a lot of the time they have something wrong in their head. Many of them like children. I knew a bisexual female who was 19 and liked 13 year olds. I have known a bisexual who was into necrophilia. That is one of the sickest things I have known.


I find that many people who actually come bisexual because of abusive males or their past of abuse from people(childhood). There was this singer I once knew from New York. She had been ganged raped and treated wrongly by her crackhead father. She may have had an attraction to men, but she was only shown a completely negative image of man growing up. Thus she met her girlfriend Star and they have been dating ever since. Which makes you wonder if she is actually bi-sexual, or else homosexual.

Is this a sin? Is it a sin to decide against or to ignore part of the human race because you have been treated wrongly by it, or else you feel no attachment to it? People do that everyday.

In truth, I can't judge on such issues. Nor should anyone else. For we are just people, living a life, and trying to obtain some happiness through it.

Although, I would like to say lots of people come out cold 13itches in the end because they can't have what they want.

Fantt
07-11-04, 23:19
I don't think there's ever been any conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuality is a genetic trait. If you have a link to some, I'd be interested in reading it. Even if we agree momentarily that homosexuality is purely a choice, then I still can't see why people have such a hard time with dealing with it. It's just a different choice.

Part of the problem with Moral Conservatism is that a lot of the things they are against are things that are victimless. As long as a homosexual relationship is voluntary between both partners then no one is getting hurt - no one's freedom is being impeded.

Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:

Sale of sex toys is illegal in many states - where's the victim. Oh my god! Sally may have an orgasm ALL BY HERSELF! We can't have that! In fact, we'd rather pretend Sally can't even have one. Sex is just a procreative duty.

Orgies, swinger's clubs, etc. - where's the victim?

Pornography - this is a bit trickier, because some women have been coerced into entering the world of smut, but by far the majority are volunteers. Now, if a man knows he has a sexually transmitted disease and he continues performing in pornography, then, yeah - that seems like a crime.

Something much simpler - riding a motorcycle without a helmet - where's the victim? Seat belt laws - the same thing. Do we need to be protected from ourselves? If so, why?

There is an argument that if the majority of people in one area feel something should be forbidden then it's ok for them to forbid it. This however, still abridges personal freedom. I would rather be free and live with other people doing things I find distasteful than put them in jail to take up space where real criminals should be.

Kamisama
07-11-04, 23:53
If you don't think it's genetic, then it must be psychological, whichever the case it's embedded into people at a young age. Most people i've spoken to who became/were homosexual actually learned it through childhood. They would begin to notice more and more they were attracted to the same sex. If this is not genetic, then it must be psychological. But the thing is many of them have never had cruel abuse or a cruel past. Sure you can say homosexuality is by choice because all beings have free will, but I think it's embedded into you before you come out of the womb. If it's not, there would be a lot of interesting universal factors that come into play to make a person homosexual.

Glenn
07-11-04, 23:59
Something much simpler - riding a motorcycle without a helmet - where's the victim? Seat belt laws - the same thing.

I think here the victim is the average taxpayer, who has to foot the bill because of someone else's irresponsible acts. At least I've heard that smoking raises health care costs for everyone, so I would assume that it would be the same for the cases that you mentioned.

Fantt
08-11-04, 01:03
If you don't think it's genetic, then it must be psychological, whichever the case it's embedded into people at a young age. Most people i've spoken to who became/were homosexual actually learned it through childhood. They would begin to notice more and more they were attracted to the same sex. If this is not genetic, then it must be psychological. But the thing is many of them have never had cruel abuse or a cruel past. Sure you can say homosexuality is by choice because all beings have free will, but I think it's embedded into you before you come out of the womb. If it's not, there would be a lot of interesting universal factors that come into play to make a person homosexual.

Kami, at any moment I can choose to be homosexual or not. I decide for myself what I find sexually stimulating at any given time. When we get down to it, an orgasm is an orgasm. Why do people have to be so obsessed with labels?

I didn't say that homosexuality wasn't genetic. I said that I didn't think there was any conclusive evidence which supported that thought.

Again, it's amusing to me that we have to be so obsessed with something which boils down to with whom would you like to make the silly face.


I think here the victim is the average taxpayer, who has to foot the bill because of someone else's irresponsible acts. At least I've heard that smoking raises health care costs for everyone, so I would assume that it would be the same for the cases that you mentioned.

Instead of outlawing riding a motorcycle without a helmet, why not have a law requiring riders who choose to be less safe to carry more insurance? That way, those rider's freedom is less restricted while also saving taxpayers.

When government tells you that you can not do something, it's backing up that demand with potentially lethal force. I don't think coercing people into doing things for their own good (when such things involve no one else) is conducive to a free society.

Duo
08-11-04, 01:12
Oh noooo, this thread opened up again.
*sigh another pandora's box this is.

What is there 2 discuss, why can't we all just mind our damm business and not care what people want to as long as they are happy and dont hurt other people. If gay people want to get married, they have my blessing, it has nothing to do with me, they don't affect me, they should be allowed to be happy like the rest of us. Marriage between man and a woman is sacred. YEAH RIGHT, not now it is, ppl get married, cheat break up, bak together, divorce, leave their familes and what not. Hardly anything sacred. Just because you choose some priest to tell you that you are now married, it doesnt mean that you have something sacred. I mean c'mon its the 21 first century, I can't beleive we have to sit here and discuss such stupid issues that are made out of nothing. People are gay,that's just the way it is, just you look at your own life and worry about saving yourself from hell or whatever you beleive and let others beleive in their own salvation. Life is too short to argue about things that are made into an issue uncesarily. You beleive god gondems gay ppl? Fine go to church and pray for them, but dont try to forcefully save them.

that's my 2 cents on the issue, not directed at anyone in particular, just basic stuff.

Glenn
08-11-04, 01:47
Instead of outlawing riding a motorcycle without a helmet, why not have a law requiring riders who choose to be less safe to carry more insurance? That way, those rider's freedom is less restricted while also saving taxpayers.

When government tells you that you can not do something, it's backing up that demand with potentially lethal force. I don't think coercing people into doing things for their own good (when such things involve no one else) is conducive to a free society.

I wouldn't argue against that; my point was to show where the victims could be. Remember, you listed this under the


Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:


Something much simpler - riding a motorcycle without a helmet - where's the victim? Seat belt laws - the same thing.

My post was merely to answer the highlighted question (I'm assuming that the second highlighted part was in reference to the first hightlighted part), and didn't mean to say that people should be restricted. I don't really care if anyone rides a motorcylce without a helmet, even though I think that it's reckless and stupid.

Fantt
08-11-04, 03:01
Why does whether or not homosexuality is genetic matter so much to some people?

december
08-11-04, 03:12
Call me racist. Call me a bigot. Call me whatever the f*ck you want. The fact is no one on this board knows me or a thing about my life. If you're gay or support gay rights, fine whatever. But don't try to make everyone accept that because you do.

All I've been hearing and all people have been talking about are gay folks getting married. And quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about this issue.

And as well, I don't talk to people who are not open-minded and accepting of others. So I've stated my opinion and I have nothing left to say.

Maciamo
08-11-04, 04:35
I don't think there's ever been any conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuality is a genetic trait.

I posted in this thread an explanation about that. DNA can have an influence, but through hormonal levels. Homosexuality is due to a lack of male hormones (for men) or an excess of it (for women) during the period of pregancy when the barin was formed. Few are the cases like Kami-sama cited with the gang-rape when someone changes sexual orientation after birth (because of a trauma against one sex).

For some reasons, I feel it is easier for (beautiful) women to become bisexuals (even just kissing or caressing other female friends) because women have easier to create deep emotional contacts, are warmer and more seductive. That is just my impression based on my observations though.



Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:


"Vitimless" crime, as you call it, is usually referred to as "offence". I suppose that Amercian people also make this distinction. For example, riding without seatbelt, speeding, foreigners overstaying their visas, etc. are all offences and not crimes. The difference is that punishments are much milder for offences and almost always limited to a fine, and no emprisonment (or execution), justly because their was no victim.

These laws are generally intened to protect people against themselves. Forcing motorcyclist to wear a helmet is for their own safety, and the law exist because many people are not responsible enough to do it otherwise. Same for setting a legal age for alcohol and driving, banning dangerous drugs, etc.

Visas and tax laws are a bit different as they aren't really protecting anybody, and nor respecting them is plainly defying the government.

In the case of moral laws that conservative want to impose on the whole population, it is yet another category. These laws aren't really protecting people from themselves (where is the risk in buying pornography or sex tools, or being gay and getting married ?). These are subjective values based on a particular religion and shouldn't be imposed on the whole population. Otherwise they become breach of liberties, and the government turns into an authoritarian one that care more for its self-satisfaction than for the good of its people.

This said, if people who strongly believe that all these sex-realted issues are immoral by their standards, they are still free not to do them. But if it becomes illegal, the rest of the population won't be free to do them anymore, because of a some people's selfishness.


Kami, at any moment I can choose to be homosexual or not. I decide for myself what I find sexually stimulating at any given time. When we get down to it, an orgasm is an orgasm. Why do people have to be so obsessed with labels?

I don't think you can do that, except if you are borderline gay-straight, and therefore have a high chance of being bisexual. Actually, gayness can be tested with simple questionaires (as in the book Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0767907639/maciamojapan-20/104-6066459-7917524)), because being gay just mean having a brain like the other sex. So if you are a man but think and feel like a woman (good at fashion, good at listening to people's problems, more emotional than logical, poor sense of directions, etc.), you are surely gay. And it's not something you can change.

Glenn
08-11-04, 04:47
But that's almost to say that there aren't gay men who are "manly" (like sports, don't care about fashion, etc.). There also seem to be some effiminate men who aren't gay.

Maciamo
08-11-04, 05:01
But that's almost to say that there aren't gay men who are "manly" (like sports, don't care about fashion, etc.). There also seem to be some effiminate men who aren't gay.

Of course, few straigth people are the perfect archetype of their sex too. Many women like sports (even boxing) and cars, and many straight men like cooking or having long baths. Rather than the interest people have, it is the way their barin work (how they solve problem, communicate, react emotionally, etc.) that give clues on someone's "brain gender", so as to determine whether they are (or could be) gay or not. The advantadge of these tests is that homosexuality can be detected in children before puberty and the rise of sexual desire.

A manly body does never determine one's gayness as the hormonal level that counts is that of the mother during pregnancy. So indeed many gay men can look very manly, sometimes even more than straight ones.

Fantt
09-11-04, 04:30
Maciamo, do you have links for your research? I've heard stuff like that before, but it has usually been shown to either be inconclusive or of questionable quality. Either way, I'm still not sure why people care if being gay is a choice or not.

By your definition of homosexuality, were the samurai gay or did they just like having sex with boys because that's all they could get? The same question could be asked about many of the more sexually repressed Islamic countries where (supposedly) non-homosexual same sex copulations occur.

I think that most people who feel that sexual orientation is a simple binary switch (trinary for bisexuals I guess) which can't be changed once set are fooling themselves. Imprinting in humans is very strong, but there are ways to remove any imprint. Just as others have discussed about very strong physical/emotional triggers, altered consciousness caused by drugs or meditation will also suffice for changing mental states.

There are those who are able to change their mental states at will, going from straight to gay, Republican to Democrat, atheist to pious Christian at the drop of the hat. I personally have some experience with this, though I'm not all that skilled at it yet. there are also those who claim that such distinctions are all illusions and simply stand in the way of reality. I have some experience with that as well. :D

bossel
09-11-04, 06:22
I think that most people who feel that sexual orientation is a simple binary switch (trinary for bisexuals I guess) which can't be changed once set are fooling themselves.
Quite a good point actually.
But just as with human races, a missing clear borderline does not mean that there are no distinctions. The borderline may be blurry, but the further away from the borderline (IE the less bi-sexual you are) the clearer the distinction is.

Human beings are not binary (or trinary), not everything is black or white. There is a lot of grey.

Fantt
09-11-04, 06:45
Human beings are not binary (or trinary), not everything is black or white. There is a lot of grey.

It's just a whole lot easier, less taxing on the brain, and a lot more comforting if you view everything as black and white. Sadly, most people choose not to think for themselves and just latch onto an alpha male to tell them what to do and what to think.

Mooooooo!

The AnteLyfe
23-11-04, 03:47
I am against gay marriage in the united states not because I am against gays but because I think it would cause tremendous problems for their children if they were to adopt some (as a few people have already mentioned here). I think the problem is that our society is still not completely accepting of gays, and because of this any child who has two mothers or two fathers will be the constant target of laughter and ridicule throughout their young elementary school life. Elementary school is really the first (official) situation where a child has to meet other children his/her age and learn how to mingle, and at that young age such constant teasing (when a child doesn't understand the concept that those years are quick and fleeting) can be extremely detrimental to their social growth and development. Of course, this wouldn't happen if our society were more tolerant of gays, but I think there are other steps we need to take to ensure tolerance before we just let loose 100% and allow gay marriage.

Sr Pasta
11-12-04, 14:59
Well ok since I work at a zoo I know animals can be gay. I know female goats who are confused and try to mate with other females. These gay female goats think they are male.


Or maybe they're just not strictly heterosexual? Why do you believe they are 'confused'?

Genetically, it doesn't have to be very complicated. If noone cares who they have sexual relationships with, the end result will still be a steady stream of little babies. Evolution doesn't have to choose between hetero- and homosexuality: there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality.

Greek society shows that's our genes makes it fully possible to make us all forget about strict heterosexuality. If puritanism is "natural", why does it need laws for people to follow it? Unless you believe in Satan, which is quite a medieval concept, these laws should be quite unnecessary.

bossel
19-12-04, 03:48
Genetically, it doesn't have to be very complicated. If noone cares who they have sexual relationships with, the end result will still be a steady stream of little babies. Evolution doesn't have to choose between hetero- and homosexuality: there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality.
Actually, it's not quite so easy. There is a certain evolutionary advantage if you concentrate you reproductive efforts where they have the greatest probability of success. If you waste your energy on sex without reproductive success, you have less chance of spreading your genes.
If you look at Bonobos, you can see that a rather ambiguous sex life doesn't need to be disadvantageous for a species. But, well, how many species are as ambiguous? As I said, not so easy.

Sr Pasta
21-12-04, 18:47
The key point is _strict_ heterosexuality. Having sex doesn't necessarily "waste your energy" very much - at least not more than playing around in other ways does.

Non-reproductive sex is very common among animals, and the variety of sexuality is wide:
http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

Fantt
21-12-04, 21:07
I think animals mating (or attempting to mate) with dead animals and animals which aren't of their own species (horse + donkey == mule ) is relatively common as well. I think anyone who looks at the actual behavior of other animals would have a difficult time saying that homosexuality is an unnatural animal behaviour. However, I'd guess people can believe whatever they'd like from their religious faith. The only problem with that is when they feel they have to enforce their own religious beliefs on other using coercion.

Japanimaniac
21-12-04, 21:19
I'm for gay marriage, but I do see a flaw in the "animal homosexuality" argument. Animals (as in, non-human) do not make a conscious decision about "I want to mate with a male". At least, not as far as anyone can tell. They simply mate with what they see because they're...uumm..."happy".

Example? I own two male guinea pigs, and for the longest time the one tended to...how should I put this..."enjoy the other's head". It wasn't because he consciously knew what he was doing, it was because he was in the moment.

Sr Pasta
21-12-04, 23:07
I'm for gay marriage, but I do see a flaw in the "animal homosexuality" argument.

I didn't intend to say "Animals aren't heterosexual, therefore all marriages should be allowed." Animals do all sorts of stuff, some that definitely should be considered criminal for humans. Killing each other for example.

I do believe the sexual variations among animals means the arguments of heterosexuality as something "natural" are wrong though.

bossel
22-12-04, 00:56
The key point is _strict_ heterosexuality. Having sex doesn't necessarily "waste your energy" very much - at least not more than playing around in other ways does.

Non-reproductive sex is very common among animals, and the variety of sexuality is wide:
http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/
To quote your original message again:
"there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
& that's simply not as easy as you put it. Evolutionary there is a certain advantage for heterosexual animals. Having non-reproductive sex is a waste of energy & time, unless there are other advantages earnt through it (as in the case of Bonobos: social coherence).

To say that non-reproductive sex is very common is quite misleading. It occurs, but "very common"? Nope. Just because someone has seen male frogs mating male frogs doesn't mean those are homosexual. You have to differentiate.

Anyway, this whole "natural"-argument is crappy for both sides. Natural doesn't mean that something has to occur in more than one species. Certain traits can evolve in just one species & yet it would be natural. Hence heterosexuality & homosexuality both are natural, whether occurring only in humans or in other species as well.

Sr Pasta
22-12-04, 02:32
To say that non-reproductive sex is very common is quite misleading. It occurs, but "very common"? Nope. Just because someone has seen male frogs mating male frogs doesn't mean those are homosexual. You have to differentiate.


Non-reproductive sex is much more than homosexual relationships. Masturbation, oral sex or what have you.


Having non-reproductive sex is a waste of energy & time, unless there are other advantages earnt through it (as in the case of Bonobos: social coherence).

So is playing around with a bone. And still, dogs do it all the time. Call it training - why wouldn't sexuality need training? Or you could just say that it's evolutionary beneficial to have some strong urges - to run around, to play with things, to have sex - even though these urges will often be a waste of energy.

I see very little evolutionary reason to go from a tendency to heterosexuality to strict heterosexuality. Homosexual relations are no more a "waste of energy" then masturbation.

ragedaddy
22-12-04, 04:29
I don't have a problem with gay marriage, that is strictly their business and not mine. They can go do what they want to do, and that is cool with me. Many argue that being gay is a choice, but I still think that people are born with what types they are attracted to, and so I'd say it has a little to do with being biological. I know that I am not attracted to guys, and there is no possible way for me to be like that, because I have no desire or passion for this type. Therefore, I do not have opposition toward gay people and their rights. I especially oppose a constitutional ban on this, because the constiution should not be manipulated. If states want to ban these types of marriage, then that's their choice, but don't bring the constitution into this.

I guess the question is why fight it? I mean look at before, when interracial marriages were looked upon as being the eptiome of wrongfulness. That finally became an obsolete observation. The gay population keeps increasing, and so you can only freeze their rights for so long. You can say it's wrong, and that the sanctity of marriage should be preserved, but what is marriage anyways? I see it as a union of two people who want to be exclusive to each other until the day they die. I am a Catholic myself, but I don't agree with everything the bible says. It all comes back to a person being born that way, and so that is my opinion.

Maciamo
22-12-04, 06:10
Non-reproductive sex is much more than homosexual relationships. Masturbation, oral sex or what have you.

Not to mention heterosexual sex with condom, pill or other contraception method.

bossel
22-12-04, 07:05
Non-reproductive sex is much more than homosexual relationships. Masturbation, oral sex or what have you.
How many species have oral sex? How many species masturbate?


So is playing around with a bone. And still, dogs do it all the time. Call it training - why wouldn't sexuality need training? Or you could just say that it's evolutionary beneficial to have some strong urges - to run around, to play with things, to have sex - even though these urges will often be a waste of energy.
Dogs are a bad example since they have been messed with for ages.
BTW, playing actually serves a purpose in nature, but again even here you have to differentiate.


I see very little evolutionary reason to go from a tendency to heterosexuality to strict heterosexuality.
To quote your original message yet again:
"there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
& again I say it's not as easy as you put it. You can keep hammering on your "strict" heterosexuality point as much as you want, it doesn't get easy. You need to differentiate.

Japanimaniac
22-12-04, 08:14
I didn't intend to say "Animals aren't heterosexual, therefore all marriages should be allowed." Animals do all sorts of stuff, some that definitely should be considered criminal for humans. Killing each other for example.

I do believe the sexual variations among animals means the arguments of heterosexuality as something "natural" are wrong though.

No, not at all. I didn't mean to imply that that you meant that. I was just making an argument that I know someone who opposes homosexuality would eventually make. Putting the theory that your sexual orientation is programmed at birth aside for a second, humans consciously know that they are with the same sex, whereas animals are simply looking for release of their sexual tension. They don't wake up planning to go find a mate of the same sex.

Sr Pasta
22-12-04, 17:20
How many species have oral sex? How many species masturbate?

Well, according to Bruce Bagemihl, a lot of them. AFAIK animal sexuality hasn't been studied enough so far, but his compilation of studies is quite large. I'd guess most species that have the possivbility to masturbate do it.

There is in either case no reason to assume strict heterosexuality is the norm for animals. Strict heterosexuality in a species has to be proved (which of course is a difficult thing).


To quote your original message yet again:
"there's just no reason for animals to evolve a strict heterosexuality"
& again I say it's not as easy as you put it.

Saying "it's not that easy" is not much of an argument in itself. You need to explain why it isn't.

The only argument you've raised so far is the "waste of energy", but you seem to recognize my counter argument that non-reproductive sex is no more a waste of energy than many other common activities.


...humans consciously know that they are with the same sex, whereas animals are simply looking for release of their sexual tension. They don't wake up planning to go find a mate of the same sex.

Hehe, yep, you're right. But the question is, do they ever plan to go find a mate of the opposite sex?

bossel
22-12-04, 18:31
Well, according to Bruce Bagemihl, a lot of them. AFAIK animal sexuality hasn't been studied enough so far, but his compilation of studies is quite large. I'd guess most species that have the possivbility to masturbate do it.
Ah, Bagemihl. Sadly, his book is not available in any of the local libraries (not too surprising, from the reviews I read). He, too, makes a too simple case of it. Eg. just because 2 male swans together bring up their kids, doesn't mean that they are homosexual. Sorry, again, it's not that easy.

If I'm correctly informed, he quotes some 40 species as having something like what you'd probably call strict homosexuality. 40, hmm... There are 1.5m known animal species, perhaps millions of unknown. 40 of 1.5m is not what I would call the norm. Even if you take the 450 of the website you quoted before, it's still far from that.

Since I haven't found any references, could you provide me with some examples of masturbating animal species & with the number of species that allegedly do it? Same goes for oral sex.


There is in either case no reason to assume strict heterosexuality is the norm for animals. Strict heterosexuality in a species has to be proved (which of course is a difficult thing).
Strict heterosexuality has to be proved? Since it is assumed the norm & there are only few counter examples, I can't see why that should be so. You want to show that it's not the norm, then you have to prove that a majority of animal species differs.


Saying "it's not that easy" is not much of an argument in itself. You need to explain why it isn't.
It's not so easy because you have to look at the circumstances under which allegedly homosexual behaviour occurs.


The only argument you've raised so far is the "waste of energy", but you seem to recognize my counter argument that non-reproductive sex is no more a waste of energy than many other common activities.
For most species it would be a waste of energy because they couldn't earn any advantage through it.
Another argument is that homosexuality needs to spread the related genes. If you don't have offspring there is no such spread. & again this is a point which shows that it's not as easy as you picture it, since different species have different survival strategies & you have to look at the specific circumstances to see if a behaviour is homosexual & if so, how the behaviour survives into the next generation.


BTW, I can't really see the point in this argument, since it's completely unrelated to gay marriage. What's more, as I already said, it's a crappy argument for both sides of the "morality" discussion.

No-name
22-12-04, 21:10
I'm not certain I understand the logic of bringing up animal behavior here. We are not mice or swans or fruit flies or monkeys. Animal behavior does not justify human behavior or should it relate to the rules we write for our societies. Animals do all kinds of strange things. Some animals consume their dead. Many abandoned their own young or kidnap the young of others. Most animals are not monagamous and don't have "marriage." Animals have been known to kill members of their own species (eg. cats kill the offspring of rivals, chimpanzees kill infants from other clans...) My dog likes to lick himself...

Morality, ethics, behavior, and nature are all separate things. Because something is natural does not make it moral. Because a behavior exists does not make it ethical. Because something is "normal" does not make it moral. Morality is more about the social, political, cultural, and religious constructs of a society. I don't think it is actually related to genetics, natural selection, animal behavior, or anything from the hard sciences.

I think we are all big people here. Each community should decide on their own what a marriage is and who it involves. This may mean prohibiting gay marriage. (We didn't let the Mormons have polygamy) I personally like the idea of civil unions. In large communities of gay people, like we have in West Hollywood and San Francisco, I think this provides a better sense of stability and fosters stronger community.

bossel
22-12-04, 22:39
Right on, Sabro! But I can't withhold myself from commenting on 2 things.


I don't think it is actually related to genetics, natural selection, animal behavior, or anything from the hard sciences.
Morality actually is related to genetics. Frans de Waal has written some good stuff about morality in non-human animals (you should have a look at it).
But human morality is highly flexible, dependent on culture, character, mood aso. Non-human morality is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Hence we have to find solutions in regard to our circumstances. I would always take the stance "equal rights to everybody" & everything is allowed as long as nobody is hurt against their will. Long live the ZAP!


This may mean prohibiting gay marriage. (We didn't let the Mormons have polygamy) I personally like the idea of civil unions.
But wouldn't that go against one of our cultures' most important principles: equal rights?
Polygamy is another interesting example of denied rights.

Sr Pasta
23-12-04, 01:45
Sorry, double post.

Sr Pasta
23-12-04, 01:45
I'm sorry, but it's kind of pointless repeating the arguments once more. This is a sentence without any form of meaning (emphasis added): "For most species it would be a waste of energy because they couldn't earn any advantage through it."

Assuming strict heterosexuality as a norm for animal behaviour is an assumption just as silly as those underlying race theory once upon a time. The point of Bagemihl is that there is no scientifical evidence underlying that assumption.

Assuming that homosexuality needs to be determined genetically is not as silly, but still dubious. It's an idea for people who firmly believe that the concepts of their current cultural environment (and not say, ancient Greece) forms the basis of how evolution works. But evolution didn't invent homophobia - humans did.

Sabro: If you try reading the posts, you'll see we agree that animal behaviour is not a reason to form laws. Though many people believe so. Misconceptions of what is natural often forms a part of peoples moral beliefs.

No-name
23-12-04, 02:19
Agreed and agreed again. RE: morality and human behavior.
I read the posts, and they seem to miss a basic foundational argument. Fruitfly morality, swan morality and bird migratory patterns shouldn't have anything to do with marriage laws.

We do have laws prohibiting sex and marriage between close relatives, minors, and pets. (They're on the books in many states.) As well as prohibitions against homosexuality and polygamy. There does seem to be a movement to trace the behavioral evolution of taboo's back to some kind of natural selection process. i don't have sources in front of me, but I read somewhere that people have taken Claude Levi-Strauss' work and extrapolated all kinds of moral theory from it. These theories are beyond me, but These taboos would seem to be based upon some natural law especially since they make good genetic sense in some cases, but I think again that intelligent adults can get together and make good laws.

bossel
23-12-04, 07:04
I'm sorry, but it's kind of pointless repeating the arguments once more.
Then why do you?


This is a sentence without any form of meaning (emphasis added): "For most species it would be a waste of energy because they couldn't earn any advantage through it."
Too bad that you don't understand it. Maybe your English is even worse than mine.


Assuming strict heterosexuality as a norm for animal behaviour is an assumption just as silly as those underlying race theory once upon a time. The point of Bagemihl is that there is no scientifical evidence underlying that assumption.
Wrong. Heterosexual behaviour has been observed over & over again. Homosexual behaviour only occasionally.


Assuming that homosexuality needs to be determined genetically is not as silly, but still dubious.
I don't, most scientists don't. It's still an open question, but if it's not directly linked to our genes, there is at least an indirect link. Evolution in either case has an influence.


But evolution didn't invent homophobia - humans did.
How do you know? Most behaviour is somehow influenced by our genes, hence evolution can't be ruled out at least as a partial cause. Our brain is simply an organ, our mind a bodily function. Evolution plays a role in our thinking, in our morals, in our behaviour, wherever.