Your views on Gay Marriage/Gays in general

[maddiejoan]

Yeah, what about them? They're natural.

What about heterosexual couple that can't reproduce? Should they be allowed to marry?

 

[Eiszeit]

What about heterosexual couple that can't reproduce? Should they be allowed to marry?

Yes, because infertility is natural and it happens. You can't change whether you are or not.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

They're animals and can't reason.

Thus, you defeat your OWN statement that it's not genetic. If animals can't reason, then they can't make choices. If they can't make choices, then their decisions are made for them on the genetic level.

Of course, it HAS been shown that certain animals CAN make decisions.

I never said you had to be able to sexually reproduce to have a biological place in this world. You just have to be able to reproduce. Gays can't reproduce, and it's like suicide to the human race.

No, it's more of a check on the human race. If more than a majority of people were gay, THEN you could say it was "suicide."

Hell, look at the percentage of gay people in the population. It has NO impact whatsoever on the population's ability to sustain itself. Never has. Most likely never will.

Yeah, what about them? They're natural.

What's the difference between someone who's gay and someone who's barren/unable to produce sperm? Yet, those people are allowed to marry. And, unlike gay people, they won't be marrying each other and creating little pockets, they'll most likely marry people completely capable of producing children, but because of their partner, never will. Though, just like with gay couples, science is allowing them to have children.

EDIT:

Yes, because infertility is natural and it happens. You can't change whether you are or not.

How is infertility any less "natural"? Especially if it comes about through unnatural means?

 

[Eiszeit]

If you were born gay, then there should either be more gays in the world, or it would be a disease of some sort.

What's the difference between someone who's gay and someone who's barren/unable to produce sperm?

Someone who's unable to produce sperm was born that way, and can't change it. No one is born gay.

 

[maddiejoan]

Yes, because infertility is natural and it happens. You can't change whether you are or not.

But why should they be able to get married if they can't reproduce?

 

[TheKillingLight]

If you were born gay, then there should either be more gays in the world, or it would be a disease of some sort.

Someone who's unable to produce sperm was born that way, and can't change it. No one is born gay.

Ignoring the facts that you've already opposed yourself and have absolutely no real support in any of your argument besides your opinions which take strength in contradictorily addressing the human race irregularly as both observable animals and something of a higher standard than animals, and more blatantly saying that a person only has a "biological place in the world" if they can reproduce yet defending your statment that infertility is natural, consider a man's penis and testicles being cut off. He's unable to produce sperm. Wait! He was born that way, right?

And yes. People are born gay. It is not a choice. You did not choose to be straight. They do not choose to be gay. Just because it's outside the norm does not make it unnatural. Stop ignoring these things, please. You're making no sense.

To maintain subject,
Gays should be allowed to marry. It would take no 'sanctity' out of an institution that's taken advantage of to the point where the divorce rate among heterosexual couples is near to equal the non-divorce rate. It doesn't matter. Support love.

And by the way, humans = animals. Brain sizes can't change that.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

If you were born gay, then there should either be more gays in the world, or it would be a disease of some sort.

Why should there have to be more? Or why would it have to be a disease (though, according to the Pentagon, it IS a mental disorder)? You don't question why there aren't more left-handed people. More with brown eyes. More webbed-toes. More people born with extra toes/fingers.

While it might be considered an abnormality, it's no disease. And who's to say how many of ANY group of people there should be? You? Me? Some guy living in a box in the middle of Iowa? Just because YOU don't find the number of homosexual people acceptable doesn't mean there's a wrong number of them.

Someone who's unable to produce sperm was born that way, and can't change it. No one is born gay.

Science is INCREASINGLY saying that people are born gay. You keep arguing like there's no evidence of it. But there IS. Quite a bit, actually, and on many fronts.

 

[Zeta]

Someone who's unable to produce sperm was born that way, and can't change it. No one is born gay.

Ah, OK - so we should prevent straight couples from getting married if one person had their tubes tied or had a visectomy, since they chose to be infertile. Got it.

 

[Ganondorf]

Oh, boy this is a repeat.

Gays cannot be allowed to marry because of the definition of Marriage however they should be allowed to have life Unions which are basically the same. It should not be illegal because we are a country of tollerance, we should tollerate eachother.

Being a Christain I don't have any problem with Gay people, but I do not believe that it is a genetic thing because if we go to that level of reasoning we are saying that there is no such thing as free will or thinking.

I'm open minded so can anyone convince me that people are born Gay? I'm really interested to know.

 

[Shuko]

Oh, boy this is a repeat.

Gays cannot be allowed to marry because of the definition of Marriage however they should be allowed to have life Unions which are basically the same. It should not be illegal because we are a country of tollerance, we should tollerate eachother.

Being a Christain I don't have any problem with Gay people, but I do not believe that it is a genetic thing because if we go to that level of reasoning we are saying that there is no such thing as free will or thinking.

I'm open minded so can anyone convince me that people are born Gay? I'm really interested to know.

What about people who want the security of marriage inheritance and insurance laws? What about people who want the law to recognize their union, just as fairly as they would the union between a man and a woman? Because as it is, that's not the case. :/

 

[Ganondorf]

What about people who want the security of marriage inheritance and insurance laws? What about people who want the law to recognize their union, just as fairly as they would the union between a man and a woman? Because as it is, that's not the case. :/

Hold on Shuko I said that they should be allowed to have their life unions not marriage because of the definition of Marriage, it is set and has been for quite a time. Unless they change it in Parliment then Marriage will only be between a man and a woman, sorry.

But they should have all the same rights! I'm not arguing there, they are people and deserve the same treatment.

I'm past that though I'm interested in knowing if it is actually a chemical that makes people gay,

 

[Shuko]

Hold on Shuko I said that they should be allowed to have their life unions not marriage because of the definition of Marriage, it is set and has been for quite a time. Unless they change it in Parliment then Marriage will only be between a man and a woman, sorry.

I'm past that though I'm interested in knowing if it is actually a chemical that makes people gay,

Well, the law only makes such allowances for marriages, not life unions. While the two are held separate, it'll take separate legislation to get each one approved on new laws. :/ It's awfully inconvenient for something that's really only bothering the Christians. And yes, I'm Christian, but there's such a thing as equality, and what we have at present is segregation, plain and simple. And besides, "Separate but Equal" doesn't even apply in this case, just as it didn't for racial segregation. :/

 

[Ganondorf]

Read my edit, and I do see your point but marriage is something that originated from Christianity isn't it? If I'm wrong I'll apologize but if it is made by Christians then why would a non-christian want to use it? I mean if anything Christians have separated themselves not the other way around, that's how I am seeing it anyways and yes you can argue that non-christians get marrried too but It has biblical basis.

Other countries have the equivilant of Marriage as well like the act of having many wives, are we saying that we should just let the current definition of a Christian marriage be bent just so everyone else feels better? I think it is mostly christian racism that prevents this but our definition is currently set and it has been for us, so if anything just separate us Christians and let us have our way and let the general term of marriage be whatever.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Oh, boy this is a repeat.

Gays cannot be allowed to marry because of the definition of Marriage however they should be allowed to have life Unions which are basically the same. It should not be illegal because we are a country of tollerance, we should tollerate eachother.

The very idea that we shouldn't do something based on the definition of a word is just ridiculous. Doing so seems to make the assumption that words have NEVER changed their definitions. But, they have. Over time, words evolve and change. The absolute best example of this? The word "cool." Or, if you prefer a slight alteration in the meaning, how about the word "planet" which was redefined within the past year. Words are not set in stone (unless they're physically set in stone, but that's something else entirely).

Being a Christain I don't have any problem with Gay people, but I do not believe that it is a genetic thing because if we go to that level of reasoning we are saying that there is no such thing as free will or thinking.

That's flawed thinking. PLENTY of people CHOOSE to be straight when EVERYONE around them knows they're gay. Hell, I had a friend who was the LAST to know he was gay (which was a little sad, but...he was a little sad, so it all worked out).

I'm open minded so can anyone convince me that people are born Gay? I'm really interested to know.

Did I not post a link in the last post I made in this thread that went to the Wiki entry detailing the scientific study of a possible gay gene?

Why should we have to convince you when science says it is so? If you won't believe the work of a bevy of scientists...how can our arguments change you?

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

Read my edit, and I do see your point but marriage is something that originated from Christianity isn't it?

Totally wrong. Marriage has been going on for thousands of years in most cultures around the world, including those who Christianity hadn't touched until recently.

And as I've said many a time before in this thread, the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly over the years in the US alone, so there's absolutely no reason it couldn't change again.

 

[Ganondorf]

Hey if you change the definition that's great, go for it I'm not stopping you I would like a different definition for christians though for only the sole reason that we do have a different definition just like in other countries some people were allowed more than one life, rights were different etc... but I'm not convinced by the scientific data because for one thing I have a few questions for you that I honestly want answered:

Where did this gene come from? Mutation?

If this Mutation has such a low chance of occuring and is hard to come by then how do so many people have it? And if you say it's passed on then are you saying that it's been passed on and on into the masses despite not being attracted to a partner that can produce offspring?

Science is the search for answers and logic is a tool, so I'm searching for answers, I'm not ruling out your possibility but I don't want mine ruled out either "It may be a choice"


And to the person above me, hey go ahead make a different version of marriage with no differential title or anything, bend the rules so everyone is happy right? Myself I wouldn't want to have the same type of service as a Gay though, it should be inverted to suit all cultures correct?

 

[evkl]

I wouldn't even argue that the definition of marriage has changed...of course, if you asked anyone to define marriage fifty years ago, they'd laugh at you.

The question has always been who can marry, not really what marriage is. 'Marriage is between a man and a woman.' But for a while it wasn't between a white man and a black woman or vice-versa. You see my point, I think.

Edit: LOL, Dictionary.com #10 meaning for 'marriage': Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

 

[Ganondorf]

You are right the definition can change, and I wouldn't really care if it did as long as a Christian marriage didn't because it directly affects me and collides with lots of stuff I usually would ignore.

 

[maddiejoan]

Oh, boy this is a repeat.

Gays cannot be allowed to marry because of the definition of Marriage however they should be allowed to have life Unions which are basically the same. It should not be illegal because we are a country of tollerance, we should tollerate eachother.

Being a Christain I don't have any problem with Gay people, but I do not believe that it is a genetic thing because if we go to that level of reasoning we are saying that there is no such thing as free will or thinking.

I'm open minded so can anyone convince me that people are born Gay? I'm really interested to know.

How would you feel about the Government only granting Civil Unions for either homosexual or heterosexual marriage, with marriage being instituted only by a church?

 

[TheKillingLight]

You are right the definition can change, and I wouldn't really care if it did as long as a Christian marriage didn't because it directly affects me and collides with lots of stuff I usually would ignore.

So...you're only concerned with things that directly affect you?

...why are you in this thread?