gay marriages - Page 9

gothictuesday · 12-07-2005, 09:12 AM

Bach, many gay people do in fact want the legal institution of marriage. They want their partners to be covered by their spousal health benefits. They want to be able to make decisions for sick partners who are unable to do it for themselves. They want to be considered the legal family in every way that straight couples are.

Granted, some of them want Christian marriages as well, but that's between them and their church.

We, as a nation, have the power to change the legalities surrounding the legal institution of marriage, but religions make their own decisions and people find the religions that best suit their own needs and beliefs.

angel_dark_demon_bright · 12-07-2005, 09:16 AM

First off i want to say that i am not a homophobe and that i do support people who make the choice to homosexuel. I know several people who have and am still friends with most of them.

However i dont think it is right that they get married. Marriage is something that should be held between a man and a woman. The whole idea of marriage was founded with the idea of it being just that. I just think its immoral to allow the term marriage to two people who do not choose to follow that definition. Yes i think we should give certain rights to two men or two women who want to spend the rest of their lives together. Just give them a different title. If they love each other enough why is it so important that they use the title marriage? Honestly be creative and call it something else.

Marriage is a religious thing. Unless im mistaken it has been for all time. Give me a major religion (christian, hinduism, muslim, etc) that allows a man and a man or a woman and a woman to marry. I actually do hate the idea of debating this whole topic to be a PURELY religious topic. I dont think this is a battle either side would or will ever be able to win. Give it a compromise, isnt that one of the great things that made this country great?

I am a christian, but i am not anti-homosexuel. Im just anti-this whole fucking debate. flame this all you want i dont think i care anymore.

gothictuesday · 12-07-2005, 09:21 AM

Actually, the original definition of marriage was a man and many women, all his concubines, and his slave girls, and his wife's slave girls...

gothictuesday · 12-07-2005, 09:26 AM

Not to be contrary, but, while I agree that some people are born gay, I think some people do make the choice to be gay for a variety of reasons, and there's nothing wrong with that. (As a current example, Sheryl Swopes the pro basketball player who recently came out.) Being straight's not necessarily preferable to being gay. You're right on about things evolving and being better for it though! *shudders to think about how it would be if these things DIDN'T evolve!*

rockandrose · 12-07-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angel_dark_demon_bright

However i dont think it is right that they get married. Marriage is something that should be held between a man and a woman. .

You must truely believe in the story of "Adam and Eve".

Quote:

Originally Posted by angel_dark_demon_bright

The whole idea of marriage was founded with the idea of it being just that. I just think its immoral to allow the term marriage to two people who do not choose to follow that definition. Yes i think we should give certain rights to two men or two women who want to spend the rest of their lives together. Just give them a different title. If they love each other enough why is it so important that they use the title marriage? Honestly be creative and call it something else.

Ever heard of equal rights?

Who are you to say "we should give certain rights to two men or two women"?

You deserve a slap on the cheek!

Quote:

Originally Posted by angel_dark_demon_bright

Marriage is a religious thing. Unless im mistaken it has been for all time. Give me a major religion (christian, hinduism, muslim, etc) that allows a man and a man or a woman and a woman to marry. I actually do hate the idea of debating this whole topic to be a PURELY religious topic. I dont think this is a battle either side would or will ever be able to win. Give it a compromise, isnt that one of the great things that made this country great?

I am a christian, but i am not anti-homosexuel. Im just anti-this whole fucking debate. flame this all you want i dont think i care anymore.

You're an idiot!

Blushing Heliophobe · 12-07-2005, 11:48 PM

I thought of something last night.

I think it's kind of like going to your Jewish friend's house and asking if they'll make you a hot dog. It's not against the law for you to enjoy a tasty hot dog. But it may or may not be something your Jewish friend may want to do because of Kosher laws. It's his right not to make you a hot dog in his home if he wants. You can go to Weinershnitzel and buy one, though.

See? Hot dogs can solve everything, or at least make it simpler...

yay for phallic symbols!

Blushing Heliophobe · 12-08-2005, 07:39 AM

No, not my intended meaning!

I was comparing the significance of Kosher Laws within Judaism to gay marriage within a church.

That just as you would expect someone who follows Kosher Law to not wanna make you a sausage, you probably shouldn't expect a religion that considers homosexuality a sin to endorse it.

I don't think the President's religion should have any effect upon the decisions he needs to make...

I've seen your handywork Xng and I'm not thirsting for your fire!

SocialOutcast8909 · 12-08-2005, 01:57 PM

y not be for gay marrige..... and if someone votes agins it because of religion than thats breaking the law...havent they ever herd of seperation of church and state....stop saying ur a warrior of god or some shit.....stupis people in large groups makes me sick.

horrorgirl · 12-08-2005, 02:12 PM

Why can't people just let other people live their own lives? Again I find it ironic that the same people on here who are homophobic also bitch about other people not accepting them because they are 'goth'. There is nothing sadder than a hypocrite.

rockandrose · 12-08-2005, 02:14 PM

Horrorgirl, you'll get used to it.

On some level, everyone is a hypocrite.

horrorgirl · 12-08-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockandrose

Horrorgirl, you'll get used to it.

On some level, everyone is a hypocrite.

To an extent everybody is indeed a hypocrite....it's just that some people are unwise when it comes to what side they choose in an argument.

I haven't taken part on a message board in a while....I'll get used to it again. ;-)

endemonidia · 12-08-2005, 03:31 PM

This is going to sound a bit odd, and slightly OT, but may I say: 'fruitfly'? French scientists have managed to breed a species of fruitfly that has something like a 90% incidence of homosexuality. So if you can breed gay fruitflies, it's obviously something genetic, isn't it? In fact, the human 'gay' gene is Xq28, as you may remember from t-shirts. The point of my rant is, how can you exclude people, from their religion or from marriage with their partner of choice, due to a sheer quirk of genetics? You might as well say that no two people with red hair can marry, or if you have blue eyes then you can't be a Christian ... it's ridiculous.

rockandrose · 12-08-2005, 03:35 PM

Where is your evidence for this existence of the "gay gene"?

endemonidia · 12-08-2005, 03:54 PM

http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclatu...mily/xq28.html

That it exists, first of all...

Dean H. Hamer, Ph.D. et. al, in their July 1993 article in Science (Vol. 261 No. 5119, pp. 291-2) stated:

"DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested.

The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."

rockandrose · 12-08-2005, 04:05 PM

I had every reason to be doubtful when you mentioned the "gay gene".

Supporters of this "born gay" thesis frequently refer to a series of scientific studies in the 1990s, particularly one by a homosexual activist researcher named Dr. Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, a study that supposedly identified an "X chromosome" possibly linked to homosexuality. Published in the journal Science back in July of 1993, that report said merely that researchers were studying the linkage between certain genes and homosexual behavior.

National Public Radio quickly trumpeted the news, followed by the Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers. Next Newsweek emblazoned "Gay Gene?" across its cover. The average layperson reading these reports clearly got the message that science had discovered a gene that causes or determines homosexual behavior. But that is not what the research actually revealed, as even Dr. Hamer himself admitted. Establishing a possible linkage does not prove causality, as all real scientists know.

In their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (published in 2000), the American Psychiatric Association contradicts the "born gay" claim. "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality," the APA said. So much for the pseudo-science of the New Gay '90s.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050216

Hence, there is no remote correlation between homosexuality and their genetics.

You're referring to a "born gay thesis", not a fact.

Corpus_Draconis · 12-08-2005, 04:52 PM

There's also theories floating around that state that certain prenatal insults can cause a person to be gay. It may have to do with a nucleus in the hypothalamus (in the brain) that is typically larger in men and smaller in women. A study that involved disecting the brains of gay and straight men and straight women. His research showed a correlation between underdeveloped nuclei and homosexuality in men.

However, it was a correlational study, so the homosexuality could be the cause of the smaller nucleus, or they could both be caused by something else.

I just learned about this in psychology. I guess that textbook actually did come in handy.

nana08 · 12-08-2005, 10:45 PM

um gays... what do i think well for one let them do what they wanna do because they are not hurting anyone and its there love live and when you say that being gay is wrong i might have to kick as$ because im gay (well a bi) and im pretty sure 1/2 of you are or you don't really care about it, what i think is that if you got something bad to say SHUT THE HELL UP AND JUST DIE. I mean not to be freaken mean but the bible is just another book

Blushing Heliophobe · 12-08-2005, 11:19 PM

Thank you, Xng the merciful! I'm not looking forward to the urination of disdain upon my soul...*nods*

Um, Nana - if they have something bad to say then they had better have something to back it up. If not, then they can shut the hell up and die.

I think it's a mixture of being born that way and a choice.

Myself for example, I have always, as far as I can remember, been attracted to people of both sexes, but I chose to live a hetero life because that was the lifestyle I felt more comfortable with. I'm not saying that gays should live hetero lives, I am just illustrating that it isn't always as open close as all that.

gothictuesday · 12-09-2005, 06:42 AM

Since we're talking about this "gay gene" as if it's relevent to this issue, what if it were proved that in order to be gay, one had to make a conscious choice to do so? Would that change whether or not legal marriage should be limited to hetero couples? In my opinion no, so I don't see that it matters if one is born gay or not.

Metatron · 12-09-2005, 07:23 AM

Marriage is about love. It's a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. It all boils down to: Just because someone is gay, does it mean they deserve to be treated horribly and differently from everyone else?

Corpus_Draconis · 12-09-2005, 01:57 PM

*nods in agreement at Metatron*

The "Marriage is for making babies" idea is out of date, too. Our population is large enough as it is; we don't really need it to grow.

Also, "Homosexuality is a crime against nature" argument is somewhat invalid, because Ourang-o-tans (sp?) and dolphins will also engage in homosexual activity, and they are regarded as animals, which are "natural."

Corpus_Draconis · 12-09-2005, 02:04 PM

Heh. Perhaps it isn't. However, I think a lot more people feel a lot more strongly against cannibalism than against same-sex marriage.

Corpus_Draconis · 12-09-2005, 02:13 PM

Yes. And I see it. Thankyou. However...

*ponders* Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Johnathan Swift?

gothictuesday · 12-09-2005, 09:35 PM

We already proved "separate but equal" doesn't work. Maybe if straight people also started getting civil unions... (Well, maybe some already do, but not enough.)

devereaux · 12-09-2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

Civil unions don't offer the same rights as an actual full marriage.

Yeah, its not like its particularly difficult for people to find a progressive church (major demonination like Episcopalian, no less) that will perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. If civil unions were the same thing as a full marriage in the eyes of the government, it wouldnt matter at all, except to the most militant people on both sides of the issue...but ultimately forced "acceptance" is no acceptance at all. The only issue I can see that would lead a heterosexual couple to get a civil union would be if they were both aggressive Athiests that wanted nothing to do with any sort of church whatsoever...but if I remember correctly, there are already Athiest marriage ceremonies for those people anyway.