Gay Marriage

I believe that too is a choice people are able to make @ who to be attracted to or to what features in people make him/her seem attractive. I mean, I admit that I have a preference for Asian women. However, I do have exceptions to that preference in terms of other races, as a few who know me knows what I mean.

...from what you're asking, are you implying that people really have no free will on what he/she is attracted to?

Your attraction to others is a measurable reaction that can be scientifically observed. If you believe you can control it, perform a very simple test, look at a series of pictures of various attractive people and "choose" not to experience attraction to any of them. You can't do it, you know why? Because it's a subconscious reaction, which yes, precludes free will. All forms of desire are outside free will and are dictated by biology, whether it's hunger, arousal or simple curiosity. I am not implying anything, it's a simple statement of fact that can be proven time and time again.

You can choose not to act on how you feel, but that's not changing what you feel, it's repressing it. Making the psychological distinction to avoid Asians for example isn't changing whether or not you're attracted to them, it's denying yourself them as an option regardless of your interest. Choosing not to eat the juicy hamburger because it's bad for you isn't the same as not wanting the hamburger.

Perhaps, Eosian. However, hasn't it also been scientifically observed that men who had an endearing relationship with their mothers also prefer a woman who looks like their mother? This is nature/nurture and has been argued for millennia. I highly doubt you can stay on the side of the nature argument here because both sides make sense.

I watched that video and I actually didn't want her to stop talking. It's pretty amazing, how she uses words and examples to prove a point. I fully support Same-Sex marriage. Government should not be able to regulate a personal preference of a group of people. I also was surprised I never thought about the example she used for "the sanctity" of marriage, it's completely true. We've managed to commercialize something that many hold "sacred" into something that can draw many viewers and profits. It's actually quite sickening.

Personally, I feel, we're the generation that will bring change. Because of the society we've been brought up in today, many of us have been brought up as "open-thinkers" and lean more towards the Liberal wing of the political spectrum. That means out with the old conservatives and in with new ideas towards things "back in the day" would be a taboo. Just wait. In 10 year, or sooner, Same-Sex marriage will be legal.

Yes, it shouldn't be long now before I'm allowed to marry. Though, California screwed up again with no Prop 8 repeals for the election. Gotta wait till 2012. Sodom and Gomorrah has no revelance to me. And I'm Catholic. I believe that if God loves everyone, then he will loves us too, no matter what.

I find it odd that you say that Sodom and Gomorrah has no relevance to you, then you go on to say that God loves everyone. S&G were destroyed due to their wickedness and God smote them from the heavens. How can God love all people if God does not love them?

I agree that God is a very loving God in the same way I believe my mother is a loving mother. But that does not mean that God loves everyone.

Excellent comment about nature v. nurture, Paul, and yet that same argument has been applied to the origins of homosexuality, as documented in the Biology of sexual orientation article posted here several times. My point is, the simple fact that the nurture argument makes logical sense does not disprove the potential end product of variance in sexual orientation.

Regardless, I don't want to contribute much more to the realm of counterargument so as to leave the opportunity open for all different opinions. However, I would like to continue posting articles as food-for-thought. So, without further ado: WebMD: Is there a gay gene?

I find it odd that you say that Sodom and Gomorrah has no relevance to you, then you go on to say that God loves everyone. S&G were destroyed due to their wickedness and God smote them from the heavens. How can God love all people if God does not love them?

I agree that God is a very loving God in the same way I believe my mother is a loving mother. But that does not mean that God loves everyone.

Catholics got that repent and all is forgiven thing iirc, so god really can love everyone. Also, his "love", as well as other aspects of his character evolution (it is a story no matter how you look at it) from being "in your face" to "gentle pushes here and there" kinda makes a biblical analogy kind stale imo.

Catholics got that repent and all is forgiven thing iirc, so god really can love everyone. Also, his "love", as well as other aspects of his character evolution (it is a story no matter how you look at it) from being "in your face" to "gentle pushes here and there" kinda makes a biblical analogy kind stale imo.

This. Catholics believe that God loves everyone no matter what. He doesn't refuse love for anyone based on race, religion, orientation, morals and ethics. S and G has no relevance to me because I know that it isn't true. God doesn't choose who to love.

God doesn't choose who to love.

Thats correct, we as humans wrote the bible, so we were the ones who decided who was loved.

Thats correct, we as humans wrote the bible, so we were the ones who decided who was loved.

Bingo!

I'm going to lean towards nature for homosexuality, just because of the presence of that behavior in the animal kingdom =O

Quick summary of the science:
1. There is no one "gay gene". It would likely be very difficult to genetic engineer babies to not be gay.
2. Sexual orientation is influenced strongly by genes, but is not primarily genetic. However, taken together, genes and environmental factors that are NOT considered nurture (primarily the conditions in the mother's womb) explain 70-100% of sexual orientation, depending on the study.
3. The "gay genes" would not be eradicated from society even if no gay people had biological children from this point forward. Many of the "gay genes" so far found are located on the X chromosome and are carried by (straight) women, who often have increased fertility as a result of these genes. Therefore, evolutionarily speaking, a certain risk of homosexual children could be a "price" paid for higher overall female fertility.
4. There are real biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, especially in the way we produce and respond to hormones and pheromones.



Gay marriage is the political issue that I feel the most strongly about by far, and the sad thing is... It shouldn't be a political issue. I have not heard one counterargument that holds any logical water. No one is forcing any church to marry gays. This is just about two adults of consenting age (i.e. not children, animals, etc. which are legally unable to consent, hence not able to sign a binding contract) being able to go to the courthouse and sign a contract so that they will be able to take care of and provide for each other for the forseeable future, as any two adults of consenting age should be able to legally enter into any kind of contract they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

Many people I know (gay and straight) are in favor of abolishing legal marriage as a concept, transferring all the rights currently reserved for it to civil unions, and allowing all couples, gay or straight, to get civil unions, and get married in or out of churches if they wish. I would love for this idea to be implemented, but with our current sound byte political culture, I seriously doubt it would fly. (OMG THEY KILL MARRIAGE!!1) It makes the most sense though, because it separates in the public consciousness what has always been separate in the United States, the legal contract two people sign when they get married, and the social event and construct and morals behind marriage.

The state should stay out of marriage as much as possible. It's between two consenting adults first, then between whatever religious, family, and social groups the couple wishes to share it with. But forbidding gay couples from taking care of each other when sick (in Florida, a partner of 30 years could not visit their unconscious partner in the hospital, because they are considered a stranger!), from having joint custody of their children if anything should happen to the custodial parent, from sharing insurance and taxes and pensions the way that heterosexual couples take for granted...? That's just pure discrimination.

Perhaps, Eosian. However, hasn't it also been scientifically observed that men who had an endearing relationship with their mothers also prefer a woman who looks like their mother? This is nature/nurture and has been argued for millennia. I highly doubt you can stay on the side of the nature argument here because both sides make sense.

Nature vs Nurture has nothing to do with my point - Regardless of either, who I am is who I am and it is not something I have the capability to turn on or off, merely repress at the cost of being untrue to who I currently am.
You have as little choice in how you are nurtured as in your nature, so again, Free Will would have no applicability there any more than having had the free will to choose who gave birth to you.

I find it odd that you say that Sodom and Gomorrah has no relevance to you, then you go on to say that God loves everyone. S&G were destroyed due to their wickedness and God smote them from the heavens. How can God love all people if God does not love them?

I agree that God is a very loving God in the same way I believe my mother is a loving mother. But that does not mean that God loves everyone.

According to their ideology God promised to spare S & G were there any people of virtue present and would only destroy them should they be proven to be completely corrupt, much as a father would kill one of it's children who'd gone rabid and threatened the other's. Doesn't mean the rabid child was unloved, just that it was a threat to the others and it's sacrifice was necessary.

One must consider that sacrifice and martyrdom for the greater good in general were strong beliefs for the culture that brought about the Abrahamic religions.
It's also important to note that the message of S&G is repeatedly corrupted to be about sex in the modern mindset, when the majority of what they did wrong that was so taboo was how they treated other people. That's easily overlooked today where treating strangers, or even friends and family, like crap is common place, but was considered a grievous crime in the eyes of God in that culture.

I don't believe anyone should be trying to apply the rules and logic of a translated and transliterated document of a culture they know virtually nothing about to how other people should live their lives. If they want to attempt to live by that information to the best of their ability, more power to them. Using such garble to impose rules on the rest of the world involuntarily, unacceptable.

 For the tl;dr crowd:

Many people I know (gay and straight) are in favor of abolishing legal marriage as a concept, transferring all the rights currently reserved for it to civil unions, and allowing all couples, gay or straight, to get civil unions, and get married in or out of churches if they wish. I would love for this idea to be implemented, but with our current sound byte political culture, I seriously doubt it would fly. (OMG THEY KILL MARRIAGE!!1) It makes the most sense though, because it separates in the public consciousness what has always been separate in the United States, the legal contract two people sign when they get married, and the social event and construct and morals behind marriage.

Well... if you put these kind of arrangements being generically called civil unions (as recognized by the government), it would make things a whole lot easier lol. I'd approve of this.

If there was some gripe to this, I would say that a man and woman can still get married in a church and in the eyes of the church still be considered marriage. It's just having the government see things a bit differently to cater to all.

Honestly I don't think the government should be in the business of regulating marriage of any kind in the first place, except to when it comes to marriage arrangements that have been shown to be exploitative and non consensual.

Swerve, I want to impail you. that being said, I'm going to make a statement that I can back up. theres no solid arguement against gay marrige and anyone who thinks there is , is highly mistaken and outright FAILS. cmon.. go ahead and toss all your arguments at me !

the difference between gay marrige and beastiality is this . in gay marrige you have two , consenting , adults . in beastiality, you have 1 adult and 1 animal that can't , communicate , understand/comprehend any of this. ]

also , theres around 10000 denominations of christianity alone, whos to say that one of them or one of the other 1000's of religions dosn't define marriage as somthing else ? so any religious arguements are moot.

as for the one comment on how homosexuality can be "wiped out" I lol at you severly .

a good percentage of any species will be homosexual. its an evolutionairy advantage to stop a species from over populating . thus depleting its resources to the point of extinction. now obviously we're smarter then the force of natural selection but in nature gay animals don't reproduce. so ask an evolutionary biologist and they'll explain this to you.

as for the "natural" argument. just because somethings natural does not make it right. rape is completely natural yet its wrong.

so if anyone has any more arguments feel free to toss em down bellow this comment.

Also. I don't think the government should be in the buissness of marrige in the first place. its a blatent violation of Seperation of church and state. the government should be in the buiessness of civil unions and if people want to get "married" well thats somthing they do with their church.

its not that radical you just convert all current marriges to civil union. after all if its between man and their " god " then a country's laws obviously can't effect that right?