• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Same-sex marriage is wrong because

  • It will set a bad example for Christian youth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    83
Some things just don't change, and childhood sexuality falls into that. Unless somebody has something that contradicts what was stated less than a decade ago, that information remains the same.
 
Sorry, I attempted to dumb it down for you. My bad.

Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin

Drop down to "children and sexuality."

You are trying to say self exploration for a 5 or 6 year old is knowing they are gay or straight? It also says most children do not become interested in actual boy/girl etc things until 9 or 10 like I said.

Thanks for the good article.
 
I notice you ignored this part:

Many think that natureand nurture both play complex roles...."


IOW biology plays a part.

How could I ignore what I have been saying the whole time? :roll:

In theory, but no evidence exists, just like I said.
 
Some things just don't change, and childhood sexuality falls into that. Unless somebody has something that contradicts what was stated less than a decade ago, that information remains the same.

Obviously you did not read your own source.

Overt heterosexual behavior is not uncommon in children as young as age three or four given the opportunity. Children have been observed running nude and playing with their own and other children's genitals. In some cases, simulated intercourse has been observed. In these situations, the children change roles, one being the male, the other being the female, and vice versa. This mutual exchange of sexual positioning and the pretend-like nature of intercourse point to the role of learning in sexual development and differentiation of human sexuality.
 
Everyone is different. This has nothing to do with knowing you were gay from the beginning. That is impossible. Most kids are not interested in anything sexual till after 10.

I am sorry if modern science after searching for what? almost 30 years now has found nothing to support it.

You are trying to say self exploration for a 5 or 6 year old is knowing they are gay or straight? It also says most children do not become interested in actual boy/girl etc things until 9 or 10 like I said.

Thanks for the good article.

That's not what you said, though (see quote, especially bolded). You didn't mention boy/girl until just now.
 
How could I ignore what I have been saying the whole time? :roll:

In theory, but no evidence exists, just like I said.


What I you talking about? I posted evidence indicating biological influences.

And if you went to the link you'd see the counter argument too.

Does it have to be all or nothing? Couldn't it be a mix of the two?
 
Obviously you did not read your own source.

Overt heterosexual behavior is not uncommon in children as young as age three or four given the opportunity. Children have been observed running nude and playing with their own and other children's genitals. In some cases, simulated intercourse has been observed. In these situations, the children change roles, one being the male, the other being the female, and vice versa. This mutual exchange of sexual positioning and the pretend-like nature of intercourse point to the role of learning in sexual development and differentiation of human sexuality.

Yes, I did. And obviously we came to different conclusions based on what we read.

I'm sorry. I adamantly and categorically refuse to accept your position when it flies directly in the face of what gay people experience themselves. As such, I will no longer be discussing this matter with you.
 
What I you talking about? I posted evidence indicating biological influences.

That is evidence dating back to what? 1959? The gay gene and other biological reasons don't exist. They think it still could, but they flat out state they don't know or have found nothing to suggest it does directly.

And if you went to the link you'd see the counter argument too.

Does it have to be all or nothing? Couldn't it be a mix of the two?

Yes I have been saying this the whole time. I have also been saying that no physical evidence exists, and this is true.
 
Yes, I did. And obviously we came to different conclusions based on what we read.

I'm sorry. I adamantly and categorically refuse to accept your position when it flies directly in the face of what gay people experience themselves. As such, I will no longer be discussing this matter with you.

OK fine with me. No skin off my nose.

Be good.
 
That is evidence dating back to what? 1959? The gay gene and other biological reasons don't exist. They think it still could, but they flat out state they don't know or have found nothing to suggest it does directly.

When did Newton postulate the theory of gravity?



Yes I have been saying this the whole time. I have also been saying that no physical evidence exists, and this is true.


You did not read the brain study did you?
 
What's your beef.

It condones an unjustified sin.

In theory, every sin could be justified, like steeling food to survive, but modern SSM is not like this.

Honest to [expletive-deleted], why DO YOU care?

I just have my own opinion on how I regard those relationships. it's not that I care about what other people are doing, it's that I have views on different topics and this happens to be one.

Why are you just fine with an entire segment of the populace being denied the right to marry.

They just want to abuse the system. This is exactly like being unemployed and supporting politicians who will extend your unemployment benefits. It's abuse and it harms everyone.
 
That's not what you said, though (see quote, especially bolded). You didn't mention boy/girl until just now.

Sorry, did not think it was necessary. When I said anything sexual after 10 I was referring to real sexual relationships. I could have been clearer.
 
The theory is NOW a testable fact. It was proved to be correct.



Already mentioned transgendered or people who think they are the opposite sex. That is not gay.

You are just not going to accept anything even though there is plenty of evidence indicating a biological component.

Anyhows it really makes no difference if it is all biological or all sociological or a combination in a free society.
 
Last edited:
Just as a pre-emptive strike. Anything that is not purely religious will be exposed as having no logic or evidence behind it.

That borders on hate speech. You're saying there is no logic or evidence behind a sociological norm or folkway simply because it has religious clothing. I'm quite disappointed you chose such an ignorant point of view.

In point of fact the taboo against sodomy in scripture is supported with data on the spread of STDs, as well as other physical ailments such as greatly increased occurrence of urinary tract infection and, over time, developing the drip.

Looking down on sodomy is hardly uniquely religious. There are plenty of heteros and non-religious who do not have anal sex for those reasons.

People didn't just sit down and make this **** up one day.

You and I have nothing left to discuss here.
 
Jerry still does not understand the difference between being gay, and sodomy. That is kinda sad.
 
That borders on hate speech. You're saying there is no logic or evidence behind a sociological norm or folkway simply because it has religious clothing. I'm quite disappointed you chose such an ignorant point of view.

In point of fact the taboo against sodomy in scripture is supported with data on the spread of STDs, as well as other physical ailments such as greatly increased occurrence of urinary tract infection and, over time, developing the drip.

Looking down on sodomy is hardly uniquely religious. There are plenty of heteros and non-religious who do not have anal sex for those reasons.


People didn't just sit down and make this **** up one day.

You and I have nothing left to discuss here.

Really?, And I always thought it was because the female didn't like anal sex.
 
Jerry still does not understand the difference between being gay, and sodomy. That is kinda sad.

The poll asks why I oppose SSM. I said I do because today, as it is right now, SSM condones an unjustified sin. That sin happens to be sodomy.

Scripture does not speak out against homosexuality, it speaks out against sodomy. If I opposed SSM because I have a problem with homosexuals, then I would have said so. The poll left it completely open for me to choose just any reason at all, and so I did.

I have a problem with a diet rich in purines not because I hate shellfish, as you insist I must hate gays if I oppose SSM, but because one will contract the gout. Mixing cotton and wool and selling it as 100% wool is fraud; another sin Capt'n claims can't possibly have any logic evidence supporting it simply because a religion black-listed the activity. Well, so did the IRS.

I have made, many times, a strong religious argument in the defense of SSM when that sin is justified, but you don't care because you're a liberal, and liberals don't care about nuanced positions, compromise or negotiation. Liberals only care about favorable absolutes. Maybe someday you'll actually comprehend one of my posts instead of abusing your ignore-immunity to troll me, but I know that's asking to much.
 
Last edited:
You are just not going to accept anything even though there is plenty of evidence indicating a biological component.

So far science has found no biological component in DNA or anything else.

You are just not going to accept anything even though there is no evidence indicating a biological component.

Anyhows it really makes no difference if it is all biological or all sociological or a combination in a free society.

No it doesn't.

You mite want to read my initial response...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...marriage-wrong-because-49.html#post1059526751
 
Last edited:
So far science has found no biological component in DNA or anything else.

You are just not going to accept anything even though there is no evidence indicating a biological component.

There is evidence of a genetic component

J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a 'remarkable concordance' for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2].
Hamer hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the same men that on each subject's mother's side, there were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all stemming through the maternal lineages. This observation, along with his startling discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the "gay gene study". The statistical probability of the 5 genetic markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to his findings.


[FONT=&quot]Conclusive? No, but there is evidence
[/FONT]​
 
There is evidence of a genetic component



[FONT=&quot]Conclusive? No, but there is evidence
[/FONT]​

Gringas and Chen describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity. Dichorionic twins potentially have different hormonal environments and receive maternal blood from separate placenta. Monoamniotic twins share a hormonal environment, but can suffer from the 'twin to twin transfusion syndrome' in which one twin is "relatively stuffed with blood and the other exsanguinated". If one twin receives less testosterone and the other more, this could result in different levels of brain masculinisation. - http://www.terapiafetale.it/pdf/andisc .pdf

Back to square one.

Again that study was from 1991, mine is from 2001. You need more recent data and none that I know of is out there, I looked.
 
How so?

............

SS-couples are not alone here, hell they're not even the majority. I have no issue with people living with whomever they want, sleep with whomever they want, fine, whatever, that's your life.

But when you apply to take money out of the community pot I pay into, you have just made your personal life my business to some degree; this is true if we're talking about unemployment, social security, military benefits....anything funded by the tax-payer, which includes the cost of failed marriages.

As I see it, anyone who marries and takes advantage of the legal buffs with no intention of their marriage serving the family, they are taking money for nothing. That is abuse, imo. The money is not supposed to be a free hand-out, it is supposed to be an encouragement to work through the hard times to keep the family intact, to raise and socialize children.

Anyone who is taking benefits from the state without serving that purpose is abusing the system. Anyone who does not account for their high-risk demographic is harming the general population when their marriage fails.
 
Last edited:
Gringas and Chen describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity. Dichorionic twins potentially have different hormonal environments and receive maternal blood from separate placenta. Monoamniotic twins share a hormonal environment, but can suffer from the 'twin to twin transfusion syndrome' in which one twin is "relatively stuffed with blood and the other exsanguinated". If one twin receives less testosterone and the other more, this could result in different levels of brain masculinisation. - http://www.terapiafetale.it/pdf/andisc .pdf

Back to square one.

Again that study was from 1991, mine is from 2001. You need more recent data and none that I know of is out there, I looked.


That doesn't discredit a genetic possibility and still indicates a possible biological cause.
 
That doesn't discredit a genetic possibility and still indicates a possible biological cause.

Yes it does, it is even critical of the earlier data. It also does not support a physical cause for homosexuality, only accounts for differences in twins for many things, and why a 10% difference can be present.

You are reaching for straws Winston.
 
Back
Top Bottom