The Gay Marriage Controversy

How do you feel about gay marriage?

  • I feel it is wrong and should be banned.

    Votes: 62 26.1%
  • I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

    Votes: 152 63.9%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 24 10.1%

  • Total voters
    238
Fantt said:
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

Fantt said:
Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:

Fantt said:
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.
 
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.
 
Fantt said:
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.

Fantt said:
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.

Fantt said:
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 ), 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.
 
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.
 
Glenn said:
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.
 
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
 
Fantt said:
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.
 
bossel said:
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!
 
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.
 
neptunemoon said:
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.
 
Sr Pasta said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Japanimaniac said:
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.
 
Sr Pasta said:
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.
 
bossel said:
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.

bossel said:
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.
 
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.
 
Sr Pasta said:
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 387353 times.

Back
Top