Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Wow. Just wow. Your ignorance might be appropriate when you argue with kthx but i have to ask you to give me alternatives. Otherwise ill just assume you never thought about the issue. Ill even help you.

Right, no one's ever thought about the issue as much as you obviously have. My first reaction is to identify you as some sort of pseudo-Christian who thinks that homosexuality somehow "dilutes" heterosexuality--a stance which is almost completely baseless and totally useless. I'll go ahead and bite because I'm bored, but know that you should really:

- Actually talk with homosexuals. Become friends with them. I promise they won't try to secretly turn you gay or give you gay germs.
- Educate yourself. Not just about the gay/straight issue, but also in general terms. It's hard to convince someone (in this case, me) that you know what you're talking about when your prose is riddled with spelling mishaps and grammatical errors. I know you'll respond to this with that same old, Internet-tired response of "Grammer and speling don't matter, you got my point!", but no, actually I think I might be missing something. It's that bad.

But anyway, whatever, let's see what you've got to sell.

People become gay because:

Oh, this is gonna be a doozy, isn't it?

- They are born with a gene that forces them to undertake gay actions. I disagree.

You disagree to what? Yourself? You disagree to the whole statement? Again, this "argument" is compeletely moot, because I have no idea what the hell you just said.

Okay, let's assume that you disagree with the idea that homosexuality isn't defined genetically. Please tell me how you KNOW enough to "disagree" with it. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it correct.

- They were forced into their role - and can not escape it - because of their past. A dangerous argument, someone could say being gay is a disease like depression. Obviously i disagree again.

Who actually says this anymore? No one, post-1973. In 1973, after intensive debate and numerous disturbances by gay activists, the American Psychological Association decided to remove homosexuality from it’s next manual (DSM IV) completely.

- God made them fall in eternal love but took them their possibility of reproduction. Great God, i disagree once more.

You make absolutely no sense. THIS is why I typed "Wow," because you're not only completely bigoted, but absolutely incoherent most of the time.

- People fall in love out of free will. Judging by the amount of bi sexual persons; judging by the increased age some people are before they find out what they like; judging by how fast you fall in love when you are single and how slow you fall in love during a serious relationship i do think free will plays a major role when you try to fall in love.

Are you married or engaged? Honestly, when I fell in love, I didn't have to "try," it just happens. If you're engaged/married, it's probably just "happened" to you too. No one "tries" to fall in love.

Regardless, we live in society that stresses uber-heterosexuality. We make every effort from the day of a child's birth, onward, to stress "boys like girls, girls like boys." Is it any wonder that it takes homosexuals time before they have to reckon with themselves about their sexual preference?

Let's say you were born a gay male. Obviously, you don't believe this, but for your sake, let's make it a hypothetical question. Now, ever since you can remember, you've been told that one day, you're going to fall in love with a girl and live happily ever after. Your parents, your peers, your friends, the television/movies you watch, the advertisements you see, the books you read... everything you come in contact with adds a heavier underline to the standard refrain.

Now, at 16, after your whole lifetime has been spent learning that you are "meant" to be a heterosexual being, you find yourself attracted to another boy. How would you come to terms with that? If you're conditioned to a hyper-heterosexual life from day one, how do you confront feelings you have about something that flies directly in the face of that? I can't imagine it's easy, or something that's taken lightly.

If i forgot anything feel free to express yourself. Never mind the fact that you completely ignored my point.

I don't think I ignored your point at all. I'm just floored by your lack of understanding, that's all.

When the relationship of gays and the traditional marriage get combined the resulting law is a compromise. Both sides lose a chunk of their ideology just to give people an easy way to accept each other.

How? How do two people (neither of which I will probably ever meet) getting married somehow make my marriage lose "ideology?"

[Fluffz]

unborn babies are subject to certain chemical processes in the womb that affect the sexual preference of a child. [...] Have you ever considered that?

i did when i rejected the thought about homosexuality being a disease. If you were right and a pill for the mother could make sure the child would grow up straight i would say the mother has no right to steal her kid the option of reproduction with its future partner. The kid needs to be the one that picks its lifestyle, if science explores this is not the case it needs to be medicated.

Cluster fuck

I see you read the newspaper, good for you.

Right, no one's ever thought about the issue as much as you obviously have. My first reaction is to identify you as some sort of pseudo-Christian who thinks that homosexuality somehow "dilutes" heterosexuality

I hope you understand that i quit reading right here.

[Izor]

If you knew your baby was going to have some disease like down syndrome and you could cure it before it came out of the womb would you do it? Same with homosexuality then...

[Nycle]

i did when i rejected the thought about homosexuality being a disease. If you were right and a pill for the mother could make sure the child would grow up straight i would say the mother has no right to steal her kid the option of reproduction with its future partner. The kid needs to be the one that picks its lifestyle, if science explores this is not the case it needs to be medicated.

Sometimes you confuse me, Fluffz. If I understand your post correctly then you're actually actually admitting that you're not fully sure whether homosexuality is something you're born with or something you choose for. It seems to me that this contradicts with one of your previous statements:

Being gay is a choice like getting successful or criminal.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I hope you understand that i quit reading right here.

I understand that it's exactly how you remain bigoted.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Hey guys! All genetic differences are apparently diseases!

Got green eyes? You've got a rare case of Visiogalbinus!

Are you tall? I'm so sorry. You apparently never knew you were diseased.

Seriously. How do you guys function in society?

[Kolar]

i did when i rejected the thought about homosexuality being a disease. If you were right and a pill for the mother could make sure the child would grow up straight i would say the mother has no right to steal her kid the option of reproduction with its future partner.

Gay couples have many options if they choose to have a family.

The kid needs to be the one that picks its lifestyle, if science explores this is not the case it needs to be medicated.

Lifestyle is not the same as sexual orientation. A person may be LGBT and grow up without ever "coming out", that is they repress their true feelings and conform to a society the pushes heterosexuality. You can choose your lifestyle just like any other life choice you make. But as far as we know today human beings do not choose their sexual orientation, there is no known biological process which is the ultimate deciding factor. An educated guess at this point is that it is both a result of biological and environmental factors. Not a conscious choice you make.

If a child is effected by some kind of chemical process in the womb then interfering with that process may have other unforeseen consequences, in either case it wouldn't be natural. Which is the basis of pretty much all arguments for discrimination of gay people to date.

[paradise!]

That is because women aren't as good as men though, it has nothing to do with sexism.

lol. What does this mean. "good" what is good? isn't good a subjective word? nicer? providers? WHAT IS "GOOD"?

[Cops]

I've got a question for the forum Smods, at what point do you realize Izor and Wark are habitual line crossers and that by not banning them you send a message to everyone else that their behavior is acceptable on this forum.

They keep getting banned and unbanned, nothing changes. Trolling threads and making wild accusations is one thing but comparing homosexuality to a disorder is completely different. The sexist comments are also highly offensive. For two guys who seem to treading water in a deep ocean it blows my mind that they get away with half the shit they say.

[Nycle]

But as far as we know today human beings do not choose their sexual orientation, there is no known biological process which is the ultimate deciding factor. An educated guess at this point is that it is both a result of biological and environmental factors. Not a conscious choice you make.

I really don't think homosexuality can be caused by environmental factors (except for those before birth) at all. If that were true, then I think we would have found empirical evidence for that by now. Things that happen after birth can be so thoroughly described, documented and understood and as of yet no one has truly managed to find any correlation between similar backgrounds or actions of people that could have caused them to become gay. No seemingly relevant indicators ranging from child abuse to alcohol consumption have shown to play a causal role.

Contrary to after-birth life, we still don't fully understand everything there is to know about pre-birth life. Our knowledge about genetics or the process that takes place from conception to birth is still very limited, which leads me to believe that the true "cause" of homosexual orientation lies in the biological field and not the social, cultural or whatever environment.

Edit: I think it's good that you're drawing a line between lifestyle and sexual orientation. People mix them up far too often in this thread.

[Summa]

• They are born with a gene that forces them to undertake gay actions. I disagree.

Actually it is. Like the boner example I stated above. You'd pop a massive hard on if you were in a room with Jessica Alba in the buff. Would you actively think about that boner? Would you command it to come? It does on it's own because you are attracted to Jessica Alba/women in general.

Gays are the same except they are attracted to their own sex (the one's that aren't being vain about it anyway). In that sense it's completely natural for them

Let's just refute your central point here and watch the rest of your whackadoodle uninformed philosophy come crashing down.

I will go looking for studies and articles if you choose not to just accept this explanation. It is common knowledge in the scientific world that there are genetic I guess "malformations" in the x chromosome, particularly xq28 (I'll look into that to make sure I'm right) coupled with exposures to certain amounts of chemicals particularly the levels of estrogen and testosterone and the stress and anxiety levels of the woman giving birth. There is no current evidence that states 100% conclusively that homosexuality is genetic, however there was an article in newsweek a little while back that you should do well to read. A scientist who was one of the largest skeptics of homosexuality being genetic conceded that sexual orientation was 99.5% determined prior to birth. He then went on to say that the other .5% was determined in your youth and infantile stage by your upbringing and parents most likely. I don't know about you but until about age 9 all I knew how to do was grab crayons and color stuff, much less choose my sexual orientation consciously. So there you have it, you can feel free to disagree with the fact that homosexuality is genetic, however you will be standing on the opposite side of most if not all of those in the intelligent world.

[Fluffz]

Sometimes you confuse me, Fluffz. If I understand your post correctly then you're actually actually admitting that you're not fully sure whether homosexuality is something you're born with or something you choose for.

I dont think any biological factor forces a person to engage in a gay relationship, it is definitely a choice. We all have our desires and wishes. Living with a gay partner is no reason to request the same treatment as the mixed gender couple gets. If a person want to become rich he has a right to do his best at it. If this person requests the same tax bracelet like a poor he is a lunatic.

Gay couples have many options if they choose to have a family.

Great. So does or does not the mother have the right to take her kids possibility of biological reproduction with its favored partner? My answer is no. Yours is what i quoted?

But as far as we know today human beings do not choose their sexual orientation, there is no known biological process which is the ultimate deciding factor. An educated guess at this point is that it is both a result of biological and environmental factors. Not a conscious choice you make.

If you can not control your actions by conscious choice this is a problem that needs to be solved. Please note that unlike being black being gay is an action. You can not seriously request equal treatment for different actions. While your desire might or might not have a biological origin your action has not. We dont talk about being attracted to the same gender, we talk about marrying the same gender

If a child is effected by some kind of chemical process in the womb then interfering with that process may have other unforeseen consequences, in either case it wouldn't be natural.

As unnatural as curing any disease. But i do not consider being gay a disease at all. There is no reason (that i want to argue about) to cure the desire. But there is also no reason to equalize 2 different actions.

[Squeezer]

Let's just refute your central point here and watch the rest of your whackadoodle uninformed philosophy come crashing down.

I will go looking for studies and articles if you choose not to just accept this explanation. It is common knowledge in the scientific world that there are genetic I guess "malformations" in the x chromosome, particularly xq28 (I'll look into that to make sure I'm right) coupled with exposures to certain amounts of chemicals particularly the levels of estrogen and testosterone and the stress and anxiety levels of the woman giving birth. There is no current evidence that states 100% conclusively that homosexuality is genetic, however there was an article in newsweek a little while back that you should do well to read. A scientist who was one of the largest skeptics of homosexuality being genetic conceded that sexual orientation was 99.5% determined prior to birth. He then went on to say that the other .5% was determined in your youth and infantile stage by your upbringing and parents most likely. I don't know about you but until about age 9 all I knew how to do was grab crayons and color stuff, much less choose my sexual orientation consciously. So there you have it, you can feel free to disagree with the fact that homosexuality is genetic, however you will be standing on the opposite side of most if not all of those in the intelligent world.

I could care fuck less if it's genetic or not. Even if homosexuality is a choice, it's a rational choice made by a large enough group of people that it can't be disregarded any longer. Gays are perfectly capable of raising families and deserve the same economic, social and professional status as other HAPPY couples. Guys like Izor and Wark would see that addition to our culture as a negative. That's one point that we disagree on.

I choose which girls I want to date and I appreciate that no one gives me shit. Why should I criticize others for their choices?

If someday it's proven that homosexuality is genetic I suppose that would help gays gain their due civil rights since they could call it a medical condition but I don't think it should come to this.

It's not the same as supporting adults marrying children/animals either. That's an unfair comparison -_-

[Summa]

I dont think any biological factor forces a person to engage in a gay relationship, it is definitely a choice. We all have our desires and wishes. Living with a gay partner is no reason to request the same treatment as the mixed gender couple gets.

1st sentence: You are wrong, and now since they are gay they can't be in a relationship? Are you shitting me? That is a human being you're talking about and just because they were born that way you don't want them to be in a relationship? Wow....just wow.

2nd sentence: Yet you tell them they cannot fulfill their desires and wishes by engaging in a relationship?

3rd Sentence: Why not? They are two people most likely in love. I understand that they have no potential to produce children, but most go through the surrogate mother program or the adoption system. So once more, why not? They are simply two people in love, and you want to perpetuate a double standard on them? You are just fucking ridiculous.

[Summa]

I could care fuck less if it's genetic or not. Even if homosexuality is a choice, it's a rational choice made by a large enough group of people that it can't be disregarded any longer. Gays are perfectly capable of raising families and deserve the same economic, social and professional status as other HAPPY couples. Guys like Izor and Wark would see that addition to our culture as a negative. That's one point that we disagree on.

I choose which girls I want to date and I appreciate that no one gives me shit. Why should I criticize others for their choices?

If someday it's proven that homosexuality is genetic I suppose that would help gays gain their due civil rights since they could call it a medical condition but I don't think it should come to this.

It's not the same as supporting adults marrying children/animals either. That's an unfair comparison -_-

Don't get me wrong, I agree here, but when arguing with idiots you have to hit them in the head with something more rock solid than this argument.