Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage

[Markio]

My roommate and I had a brief discussion about homosexuality, and he thinks that if homosexuality is caused from the environment or is "Nurture" instead of "Nature", then homosexuality would probably increase with gay couples raising children, which is bad because it would inhibit procreation and encourage sexual deviancy and all that.  (With overpopulation, less people doesn't sound so bad...)  But what difference would it make if homosexuality is genetic?
We're both of the opinion that gay civil unions should stay, because people ought to live with whom they love.  However, we're both somewhat against gay marriage because it's a traditionally religious ceremony, and religion is the reason most people are against homosexuality in the first place.  I think gay couples ought to have some sort of ceremony with vows and flowers and cake and all that, just without the parson, I guess...
I chose "mixed views".  Orientation-wise, I have no idea what I am, so I just choose to avoid intimate relationships altogether.  But that's my choice, whereas I feel orientation isn't.

[Eclipsed Moon]

We're both of the opinion that gay civil unions should stay, because people ought to live with whom they love.  However, we're both somewhat against gay marriage because it's a traditionally religious ceremony, and religion is the reason most people are against homosexuality in the first place.  I think gay couples ought to have some sort of ceremony with vows and flowers and cake and all that, just without the parson, I guess...

I agree with this, but I'm also not too fond of marriage in the first place.  Either way, it is unfair to exclude homosexual couples from the same rights and benefits that married couples are permitted to enjoy.

[Glorb]

Not too fond of marriage?

[Uvaz]

I think it says a whole lot that no one's answered BP yet.

Let's try it.

I want to stay out of this board, but first I want my question to actually get answered. TurtleKid.

A government's job is to protect its people.
You with me so far? Okay.
So, if that's why we have a government, why is it their right to tell us who we can and can't marry?
Did you get all that?

Do not avoid the question. I will ask it again if you tell me "because it's disgusting," because that's just what you think, as much as I think eating chocolate cakes with mustard is, but it's not the government's job to stop the consumption of mustard chocolate cakes. Tell me why same-sex marriage is dangerous. Tell me how it is tyrannical. Tell me about any harm any given gay person has given you just out of their orientation. No, your disgust does not count. I mean anything that actually bars you from life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness. That last one cannot be used to say that you're simply not happy with their feelings, as there are millions of things I'm not happy with, and it is not the government's job to make you happy, but to allow you to be happy, and you could certainly be if gay marriage were permitted--of that I am positive.

Do you have an answer?

Well that's like saying "Why the government wants us to wear clothes?" Going around naked isn't actually harming other people, but that cruel nazi government don't want us to!
I think we all agree that it is disgusting, but... is it dangerous or tyrannical? No right?  However, we can't be naked in public! What a travesty!
Conclusion: People have the right to be naked in public (huh).

(Note: I am not a troll :o)

My roommate and I had a brief discussion about homosexuality, and he thinks that if homosexuality is caused from the environment or is "Nurture" instead of "Nature", then homosexuality would probably increase with gay couples raising children, which is bad because it would inhibit procreation and encourage sexual deviancy and all that.  (With overpopulation, less people doesn't sound so bad...)  But what difference would it make if homosexuality is genetic?
We're both of the opinion that gay civil unions should stay, because people ought to live with whom they love.  However, we're both somewhat against gay marriage because it's a traditionally religious ceremony, and religion is the reason most people are against homosexuality in the first place.  I think gay couples ought to have some sort of ceremony with vows and flowers and cake and all that, just without the parson, I guess...
I chose "mixed views".  Orientation-wise, I have no idea what I am, so I just choose to avoid intimate relationships altogether.  But that's my choice, whereas I feel orientation isn't.

I am pretty sure homosexuality isn't genetic (It would be extinct, don't you think?).  But what causes homosexuality then? I think I saw in Discovery channel something about gay animals, that had some sort of problem in their brain(maybe an hormonal one I don't remember) that caused them to act like the opposite sex, or something like that. I can't remember if they said anything about genetics, though. Then is the interesting case of the bonobos, which are monkeys who have sex with ANYONE of their species when they have the chance.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior )

And I think that kids raised by homosexual couples would be homosexual when they grow up.
And I still think homosexuality is a choice, at least for some people. The "It is a bad choice therefore it must not be voluntary" doesn't satisfy me.

[BP]

About the clothes thing, you're absolutely right. The government shouldn't have the right to tell us to wear clothes.

If they didn't I'm sure society would take care of it though. The government didn't say you couldn't loiter outside of the supermarket--the owner of the supermarket did. The government didn't say you couldn't smoke in the day care center--the owner of the day care center did. The government didn't say you couldn't link to ROM downloads--Deezer did. Similarly, most facilities would require that one wear clothing inside or around them, so home would be the only place to go nude. I'd still wear clothes all the time, because I choose to for various reasons. I'm sure most others would make the same choice. And if the government did not enforce the wearing of clothes, there'd be plenty of activists trying instead. Signs like "Don't show us those; put on some clothes" (you're welcome for the new sig if you're reading this, Lizard Dude) would line the roads. Which is what I'd expect homophobes to do if the government allowed gay marriage.

Am I trying to say I'd support the right to go naked unless otherwise posted? Nah. I just don't think those in the white house should be the ones telling us to, same as how I don't think the government should ban genetic alterations even though I personally find it horrible. I'd be supporting the clothes cause myself, same as I state my belief that genetic alteration isn't moral. I only really care to have the gay marriage ban lifted because it's primitive, inhuman discrimination and I don't judge people based on their sex lives. We aren't a bunch of suspecting witch hunters governed by the church anymore and it's time to stop acting that way.

[Luigison]

Turtlekid1, you should try to be gay.  Really try.  Give it a few of weeks.  Go on a date.  Watch some gay entertainment.  Look longingly into your dates eyes for several minutes.  Make out.  Enjoy it.  Want to do it again.  Be gay.

If you can force yourself to be gay, really gay, then it is a choice.  If you can't decide to be gay then someone who is gay probably can't just decide to be straight.  If you find it impossible to change your sexual orientation then stop calling others people's orientation a choice.

Do this sound like a fair challenge? 

Since Turtlekid1 didn't take my challenge I'll open it up to anyone else who thinks sexual orientation is a choice.

[Boo Dudley]

I am pretty sure homosexuality isn't genetic (It would be extinct, don't you think?).  But what causes homosexuality then? I think I saw in Discovery channel something about gay animals, that had some sort of problem in their brain(maybe an hormonal one I don't remember) that caused them to act like the opposite sex, or something like that. I can't remember if they said anything about genetics, though. Then is the interesting case of the bonobos, which are monkeys who have sex with ANYONE of their species when they have the chance.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior )

And I think that kids raised by homosexual couples would be homosexual when they grow up.
And I still think homosexuality is a choice, at least for some people. The "It is a bad choice therefore it must not be voluntary" doesn't satisfy me.

My grandfather had Alzheimer's (RIP), my great aunt (his sister) does not. But her children are still susceptible to it. It's called recessive genes--you could carry the genes that cause homosexuality and not be gay, but still potentially have gay offspring.

Again, Evolution is not a machine that kills off unfavorable traits (passing of genetic material). Stop anthropomorphizing it. And we're not animal's, we keep everyone alive barring murderers.(THAT'S a choice.)

Many homosexuals are forced, "Scared straight". They are still gay, but they have wives and children--those kids are very likely to be gay. duh.

And those raised by homosexuals are more likely to embrace homosexuality in others, or in themselves if they are coincidentally gay.

[Uvaz]

Yeah I know what recessive genes are. And I though that the whole point of evolution was to kill off useless or harmful characteristics while generating good ones, well my bad. And we are indeed animals. But you meant that unlike animals every single human mates and that human babies survive more often than the babies of other species, therefore passing on harmful traits, which is something that doesn't occur with other animals? Well yeah you would be right.

They are still gay, but they have wives and children--those kids are very likely to be gay. duh.

Well that would be true if homosexuality is indeed genetic.

[Glorb]

And I though that the whole point of evolution was to kill off useless or harmful characteristics while generating good ones, well my bad.

Um, yes, your bad. You're thinking of natural selection. Evolution is developing a new trait due to a mutation or some such, and then having that trait pass down from generation to generation.

And, yes, we are animals. But see, here's the thing. Last time I checked, we're currently at the top of the food chain. Natural selection occurs when, for example, a species is getting killed off by some predator, and develops some sort of defense system. That's not really the case with humans. It's not that we're some sort of perfect life form; it's just that we have technology that allows us to live longer than we would've had we never figured out that you can make stuff out of other stuff.

[Turtlekid1]

I want to stay out of this board, but first I want my question to actually get answered. TurtleKid.

A government's job is to protect its people.
You with me so far? Okay.
So, if that's why we have a government, why is it their right to tell us who we can and can't marry?
Did you get all that?

Do not avoid the question. I will ask it again if you tell me "because it's disgusting," because that's just what you think, as much as I think eating chocolate cakes with mustard is, but it's not the government's job to stop the consumption of mustard chocolate cakes. Tell me why same-sex marriage is dangerous. Tell me how it is tyrannical. Tell me about any harm any given gay person has given you just out of their orientation. No, your disgust does not count. I mean anything that actually bars you from life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness. That last one cannot be used to say that you're simply not happy with their feelings, as there are millions of things I'm not happy with, and it is not the government's job to make you happy, but to allow you to be happy, and you could certainly be if gay marriage were permitted--of that I am positive.

Do you have an answer?

It has nothing to do with whether I think it's 'disgusting' (for the record, I think it most certainly is).  It has to do with the fact that it is perversion. 
It's dangerous because it can only be detrimental to the moral and spiritual health of everyone everywhere. 
I don't recall saying it's tyrannical, but do you honestly think that gay people will stop at wanting "tolerance"?  As my previous post said, look at black people.  Look at hispanic people.  You can't say anything even remotely negative and completely non-rascist/personal/not applying to that group as a whole without it being "politically incorrect" or "offensive."  Atheists make digs at Christians all the time (I'm not talking about anyone on this board, you all are actually pretty nice), but can we be offended at it?  Of course not.  We're just religious nut-jobs. 
...Sorry about that little tangent.  My point is, it's the same with every minority.  They'll just keep wanting a bigger slice of the pie.
Harm any gay person has given me?  None, personally.  This isn't about me personally (ah, individualism; one of the most irksome elements of the human race).  This is about people disregarding God's law and natural law. 
It most certainly bars people from liberty.  I don't want little children in school being taught that homosexuality is "okay."  And guess what happens when a sweet little kid with a moral compass comes along and dares to question whether it's "okay"?  He gets put down.  He gets persecuted.  His spirit will be broken and his mind indoctrinated.  His freedom of speech will be supressed.  That's the liberty this will bar.

[BP]

Why does it matter what kids are taught about homosexuality? They aren't going to decide to go be gay. Take Luigison's challenge and see that it's not a choice.

Also, you just keep saying "it's a perversion." You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question.

[MaxVance]

I believe he did give his answer as to why gay marriage should be prohibited:

 
it can only be detrimental to the moral and spiritual health of everyone everywhere.

I was never taught about homosexuality in school. I also don't care one way or the other about it or "normal" marriage. Go figure....

[Turtlekid1]

Why does it matter what kids are taught about homosexuality? They aren't going to decide to go be gay. Take Luigison's challenge and see that it's not a choice.

Also, you just keep saying "it's a perversion." You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question. You're not answering my question.

I keep saying it because it's true.

"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.'"  Leviticus 20:13.  

To answer your question, if my previous one wasn't good enough, it shouldn't have to be the government's right, but if people are foolish enough to go against every moral law in heaven and earth, then something needs to be done.  The government needs to uphold morality.

[Uvaz]

Since Turtlekid1 didn't take my challenge I'll open it up to anyone else who thinks sexual orientation is a choice.

Bad challenge. If anyone completed it successfully, someone (aka you) will say "zomg you were gays all along".

[Captain Jim]

Let me start off by saying I'm going to try to stay away from this board as much as possible, because it makes me angry and mean...now that's out of the way...

What is detestable is how people try to pull the religion card as their only argument against homosexuality. In fact, I'm unhappy with my church right now (Mormon) for their views of "All gays go to hell". Now, think about this.

Most homosexuals don't CHOOSE to be that way. It's just how they are.
Now then, according to most religions, doesn't God make us how we are?
Tell me, then, why would God make someone just to [darn] them to hell? This doesn't sound like the God I know.

Just my two cents.