Same sex marriage

Post Reply New Topic

Visagrunt-

You pointed out the converse of my argument which is what I was trying to get across.

I don't want their beliefs imposed on the rest of the world.

I know you believe that sexuality is something you are born with, but I think it is a product of the media.

That is why I oppose same-sex marriage, I feel that it will encourage more than would before to enter into it....I think that giving them the option will make more people gay.

I try to respect other people's belief's yet, I feel that it is disrespecting my beliefs when that happens because it encourages something I think is wrong. Soon more people will be married on tv, and the children of the future will watch it, and they will want it.

In essence, the debate is:

Will allowing same-sex marriage encourage more people to become interested in the same sex than previously
and
Has the media influenced more people already to become more interested in the same sex...instead of it being an inborn trait as you say

Can you understand how I feel like this is a negative impact and how people are pushing their beliefs on me (and if I ever have the opportunity when I am older) and a possible future family as well as extended family?

But, I'd like to thank you for being so precise and respectful about your manner of debating. You are the first person here that I can disagree with, but not feel like you are my mortal enemy....we can respectfully disagree. Thanks.

Proud to be christian and pro gay marriage

There are records and records of homosexual characters and homosexuality all over history. The old testament wouldn't forbid it if homosexuality was a thing unheard of back then.

There was no media 5000 years ago.

The most idiotic thing about that is that it is not an argument either. Even if we assumed that it is a choice - So what? How should it affect their right to marry the person they want to marry?

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 22 Jun 2011, 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chrissyrun,

For someone who is trying to keep their mind clean of these filthy gay thoughts, you sure do devote a lot of time to thinking about gays and gay marriage.

I tend to think the anti-gay crowd are more obsessed about gay sex than gays are!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am not obsessed.

I was just bored, and I KNEW if I came here, I would get replies....duh.

Plus I'm stubborn, so that plays into too.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I already explained why I think that would be a bad thing in my opinion.

Well, I'm sure that opening up the option of gay marriage wouldn't be enough to make me turn gay.

Chrissy might be a lot more vulnerable than most.

I definitely agree.

Because you think that your god doesn't like it. But, frankly, your god's purported wishes are not enough to limit the rest of the population. You might as well argue that premarital sex should be illegal because your god supposedly doesn't like that, either. The Hindu god(s) doesn't like people to eat cows, but short of a rational, real-world negative effect of cow-eating (of which, in fact, there are far more significant examples than for homosexual marriage), we're not going to allow cow-eaing in this country because people don't get to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Much of the non-christian/jewish/muslim ancient world did not have a term for gays. Homosexuality is a torah-based concept. The words for sex in the ancient world didn't divide by genders in that most of them were more for identifying who was the "Giver" and who was the "Receiver". Homosexuality is as much a part of the human story as murder, rape, jealousy, love, religion, and altruism, or in other words, it is a human norm or normative for the human being.

If you think the world would be a better place with a larger group of males and females becoming gay (who would otherwise be straight in their orientation), then that's fine, there is no issue here. It should only affect your outlook if you prefer men coupling with women. Marriage in my opinion should be kept male-female. Gays should be granted every right in the book, and on a societal level, the lovable should be loved and treated as the human equal that they are.

Then its the religious voting in religious rules in a religious-majority nation.

Oh yeah? Then why - passing lightly over other issues and incidents - does it negatively impact your academic career if people realize you have certain religious beliefs? If it were all religious beliefs, you might be able to make some kind of claim - but Buddhist monks can go around in uniform to their heart's content.

The world would be a better place if people who want to be gay would be able to and not get discriminated for that.


If they weren't born gay and don't want to be gay, how would they become gay?


How could you consider them with equality yet at the same time not let them be married?

Want to be? That is not a problem if society continues its bias of male-female love as the ideal. Those who are rigidly gay in their orientation should be embraced and loved as equals. That is the point: You rigidly gay people and the small portion of society who wishes to be gay should be just that: Gay. Cohabitate in happiness, and don't let anyone try to make you straight or tell you that being Gay is wrong - WHILE KEEPING THE MALE-FEMALE ARRANGEMENT AS THE PROMOTED SOCIAL BIAS.



This has been fleshed out largely during the last 10 pages. Most people are in the middle(no orientation at first and our western bias for male-female love inculcates and reinforces that identity), where there are polar ends that have rigidly straight and rigidly gay people. Sexual orientation and gender roles are a societal construct and a function of culture.





What, a state policy-backed ceremony makes them equal? Racists are still racist despite legal punishments of racists acts.

The purpose of redefining marriage as gays and their supporters see it is that it will expand our definition of what is an acceptable living arrangement, and what is not(polygamy, incest, beastiality, man-object love), and ultimately make the world a less homophobic place with equality fully embraced. They are right, and that will happen.

The unintended consequence is the social engineering of man and women with two definitions of acceptable living arrangements and will produce more gay people who would have otherwise been straight. This may help the widowed or the unwanted find socially acceptable love, but is not good for the world.

We can have equality by changing the culture to be more tolerant of Gays. The healthy position would be for heterosexuals to fully embrace those who are gay, give them every right afforded in the book(except Adoption should come with the requirement that your child have access to a parental caretaker whose sex is opposite of the loving gay couple adopters), and Gays, who are loved and as accepted as our equal, should acknowledge the non-fixed nature of human sexuality and support the male-female ideal for the vast majority of us who are not born rigidly Gay. Off-note: I think it is okay for a quarter of society to be gay(rigidly gay and those who choose to be gay), as it flavors the world a more fun and interesting place to live - anyone whose lived in Portland, San Francisco, Oakland, LA, or New York can attest to that, and the human experience fully lived out as we would not be human without homosexuals around us.

Perhaps marriage can be a temporary policy to show our love for them as equals as affirmative action was to show blacks inclusion (and justifiable so). The civil rights law only nationalized that you could not be a bigot towards blacks without punishment and set up real punishments to deal with bigotry, but it was the social and personal change on the hearts and minds of individuals that lead to real change in behavior and outlook towards blacks. Even if you disagree with tmy emotional comparison of race and gender politics, what remains is the unfixed nature of human sexuality, and what is your take on this?