The Gay Marriage Controversy

[Areku]

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_homosexuality

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]

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.. 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:

 

[Golgo_13]

Are we still on this topic?

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

 

[bossel]

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]

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]

I agree with King of Tokyo, in every way.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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... )

Rest in Peace. Nade-Ka’

 

[meme9898]

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]

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]

This whole controversy is nothing more but a plot to make people fight each other.

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]

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]

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.