You know I'm always surprised when people come in and say they're :confused4
in favour of gay marriage; on the basis that "if they love one another why not". I have quite consistently stated my views; and while debate will always continue; no one ever addresses the finer points I want answered by those "in favour": IE: seeing as homosexuality is linked very heavily with other destructive behaviour; isn't it only right that we do our best to help people to quit the lifestyle? The only thing that stops me being surprised by the answers are because people seem to be of the mind that "if someone wants to smoke pot, crack or inject heroin - why shouldn't they be allowed to it's
their body" - to which there are two responses - yes it's "their body" but as anorexia, it's a destructive thing; or; yes it's "their body" but drug use: spreads disease, violence, crime and floods gaols: over 90% of inmates in prisons are drug users; imagine if 90% of the prison population was to disappear?
Of course, I listen to the debate; and I'll tell you what I hear here in this thread alone (quotes, followed by translation):
- "your comment seems a little homophobic." translation > "You obviously aren't intelligent".
- "Why ban gay marrage? If they want to get married let them. See I was however under the impression that this was a free country." translation > "It's an attack on freedom".
- "If they are in love and want to sign some stinking piece of paper that in reality means NOTHING, then let them." translation > "Marriage doesn't mean anything anyway".
- "What people fail to realize is that if you take religion out of the picture, you're literally denying government-issued rights to a certain group of people, which is flat our discrimination and complete and utter bull----." (no translation necessary)
fnixws said:
Its not as if 1/2 the country will suddenly reveal its gay and go get married, and even if it did, the only real possible issue would be repopulation for future generations...
And depression, drug abuse, suicide, homicide, a 2,000% increase in HIV/AIDS infections alone - and vastly increased other diseases.
fnixws said:
Marriage PREDATES recorded history for 1, and some of the first people to record it, the Aincent Greeks HAD SAME SEX MARRIAGES!
Go do some research.
No, the STATE marrys people, you goto the registry office and sign the papers there. Untill this point, you are not Married.
Read what you just said. The Ancient Greeks, for instance, did not have any de jure "legal" status of Marriage - it was de facto "ceremonial" only - there was no signing papers. Correct me if I'm wrong - there is nothing preventing de facto relationships in the USA that are homosexual in nature, true? Well you can't have it both ways, which is it?
I agree with CnR, being gay isn't "natural" if it was there would be a even split of straight and gay people, it's made natural through our hormones that's it - it's partly natural but it can't be classed as natural.
That's a false argument. How many people are left-handed? 50%? Well it's not determined by genes, we know that - but it's no 50-50 split either. What about something that is determined by genes like say - blue eyes? How many people have blue eyes? 50%? No. Therefore your argument is invalid. However, there is no solid evidence that suggests that homosexuality is hard-wired any more than say there is for other pathological disorders. Disassociative gender identity disorder, etc.
But those are characteristics of a human and are determined by the two parties genes. You're not born gay, whatever anyone says.
No - handedness is NOT determined by any gene; and yet it IS hard-wired into our brains from birth so much so that there are physically observable differences in functionality. But - let's look at the other side of the coin - pathological disorders - I'm going to choose split personality disorder. This occurs at one stage AFTER birth in a person's life, usually in response to extreme trauma, and does manifest itself into a somewhat "hard-wired" state; although it's still considered a disorder because the person's mind is not functioning correctly (regardless of whether they have ANY control over it whatsoever). Therefore it isn't even necessary to prove that homosexuality can be controlled to still maintain its state as a pathological disorder.
I'm gonna end my conversations in this thread and hope it dies. All I'm gonna say is... If you guys had gay friends, or gay parents, or a gay best friend...Or if you grew up in a time like today, when it's widely accepted and people are less afraid of being slaughtered for coming out... Your opinions would be 100% different.
Really? You think I like being called homophobic, an hate-mongering bigot, and all the other insults I've received over the years? Do you think that YOU and the other's on YOUR side have a monopoly on receiving hate-fuelled insults, etc? Well you seem to think you have a monopoly on having gay friends - I've had them too; so you don't have a monopoly on that either.
That being said... It's not a choice, and you don't suddenly hit puberty and decide to chase the boys down... Ever since birth you always felt different, you did different things, you hung out with different people... it just took the hormones that occur during puberty to make you realize why you were different.
I know someone who was like this - "since childhood" she did things differently; she enjoyed more "boy things" than most girls. Thing is though, Dave, that she didn't become gay until she was ... 30. Before that she was straight. There are other examples I can give as well. Someone was telling me not long ago that a woman he knew had been convinced her son was gay when he was growing up as he seemed very affluent and wanted to spend most of his time with men. She later realized this was because he grew up without a father, and was craving a male role-model - he's straight.
Seriously ... this is de facto (and in some cases de juro in states gay marriage is illegal) prejudice against a group of people who are different from the majority in a given area.
De facto means "in fact", De
jure means "in law". Of course, I could point out to you that a Marriage is consisted of
both a de facto and a de jure component.
Of course, I like to raise this question from time to time: what about incestuous couples; do you agree with discriminating against them?
I do have one final point to make, one that I think will make some of you think twice. The rector at my Church not long after he became ordained was confronted by one of his friends who confided in him his sexuality. He chose specifically to go to him first - knowing in advance that he believed homosexuality is a sin. I think that's extraordinary - when I think of the sins I've committed and that I could have - and should have - confided in my rector probably firstly instead of not-at-all - and yet this guy did, for something that must have been truly consuming him.
