• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%

  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%
  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alastor said:
True. Some preferences are stronger than others, however.

To what extent genetics factors in would vary by person I suspect, and it'd be something that anyone other than that person could never truly understand the power of. Whether it was a deeply compelling preference or a mild preference is something we're not in a position to lay judgement upon. I don't think we're in a position to judge to what extent the genetic preferences matter.

What we can tell is that genetics do indeed matter.
Click to expand...

Well duh. I have little doubt that genetics influence what brand of clothes you like to wear too, or what type music you like to listen to. That doesn't make it something other than a lifestyle choice.
 
The Mark said:
A question regarding the recent discussion: How does whether or not being gay is a choice have anything to do with legalizing gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Well, it does matter. I disagree with Panache on this.

It matters because if it's genetic, it undermines a considerable chunk of the Bible, which frankly, can't tolerate much more debunking.

If this argument is undermined, the church stands to lose a great deal of authority, power, economic resources, credibility, influence and support. It would be a pretty devastating blow to the church.

As a result, the church itself has a vested interest in preventing the scientific evidence from being accepted by the general population, and standing firmly against gay marriage.

So I disagree with Panache. The two interests (the church and genetic catalysts to homosexuality) do indeed contradict each other. Not as an act of nature or logic, but rather as a pragmatic of the circumstance.
 
Panache said:
Well duh. I have little doubt that genetics influence what brand of clothes you like to wear too, or what type music you like to listen to. That doesn't make it something other than a lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...

Genetics also determines my preference in women that I find to be sexually attractive. Some women just don't do it for me. Some do. That's a pretty powerful influence.

Genetics also determines whether or not I can tolerate the taste of certain foods. Just because I'm not alergic to them doesn't mean I don't think they're disgusting. Oysters are a good example for me personally. If I had to eat those every day, I'd probably come pretty close to starving.

On the contrary, I LOVE BBQ ribs. If I smell them I go nuts and pretty much will do whatever I can to get some within the realm of reason.

Genetics determines all sorts of things, including who I am compatible with for feelings of love and in some cases hate.


In some cases it's a simple and mundane preference - Pepsi versus Coke. In other cases however, the genetics that we each carry can be pretty damned compelling.
 
Alastor said:
Well, it does matter. I disagree with Panache on this.

It matters because if it's genetic, it undermines a considerable chunk of the Bible, which frankly, can't tolerate much more debunking.

If this argument is undermined, the church stands to lose a great deal of authority, power, economic resources, credibility, influence and support. It would be a pretty devastating blow to the church.

As a result, the church itself has a vested interest in preventing the scientific evidence from being accepted by the general population, and standing firmly against gay marriage.

So I disagree with Panache. The two interests (the church and genetic catalysts to homosexuality) do indeed contradict each other. Not as an act of nature or logic, but rather as a pragmatic of the circumstance.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that a gay gene would somehow undermine the bible? Does the bible say somewhere that it isn't a genetic trait?
 
Alastor said:
Genetics also determines my preference in women that I find to be sexually attractive. Some women just don't do it for me. Some do. That's a pretty powerful influence.

Genetics also determines whether or not I can tolerate the taste of certain foods. Just because I'm not alergic to them doesn't mean I don't think they're disgusting. Oysters are a good example for me personally. If I had to eat those every day, I'd probably come pretty close to starving.

On the contrary, I LOVE BBQ ribs. If I smell them I go nuts and pretty much will do whatever I can to get some within the realm of reason.

Genetics determines all sorts of things, including who I am compatible with for feelings of love and in some cases hate.


In some cases it's a simple and mundane preference - Pepsi versus Coke. In other cases however, the genetics that we each carry can be pretty damned compelling.
Click to expand...

Okaaaay... so you are saying that lifestyle choices don't exist?
 
mac said:
It's the law of Americans put in place by Americans. Society sets its own laws. It's not an "illegal law"
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. Americans can't approve a law that says all people of chinese ancestry lose their property to the government, for it is against the Constitution. It is discrimination, just as the laws that prohibit gay marriage.
 
mac said:
I'm not missing the point, homosexuality is a choice and doesn't deserve extra rights any more so than choosing any other unnatural or unsavory behavior does. My opposition has nothing to do with religion, and even if it did, religious beliefs are just as valid a reason to be for or against something as anything else is. The fact of the matter is, the majority of Americans are against it. Why they are against it is their own business. Lastly, a persons sexual preference is as well protected against discrimination as a persons religious preference is.
Click to expand...

Here we go... prove that homosexuality is a choice. It's that or you aint got nothin.
 
mac said:
This is the fundamental flaw of the liberal. Having a differing opinion means I am ignorant, correct? There have been studies that indicate that homosexuality may be a choice, and there have been studies that say it is a choice. There have been no conclusive studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice. At present, you are no more informed about that issue than is anyone else.
Click to expand...

There are no conclusive studies either way... THAT is the point. Guess you just shot down the above post's statement that it is a choice, eh? ;)
 
The Mark said:
A question regarding the recent discussion: How does whether or not being gay is a choice have anything to do with legalizing gay marriage?
Click to expand...

If being gay were a choice, then homosexuals could simply choose not to be gay and get married normally. Honestly, if it were a choice, nobody would choose it.
 
Alastor said:
Genetics also determines my preference in women that I find to be sexually attractive. Some women just don't do it for me. Some do. That's a pretty powerful influence.

Genetics also determines whether or not I can tolerate the taste of certain foods. Just because I'm not allergic to them doesn't mean I don't think they're disgusting. Oysters are a good example for me personally. If I had to eat those every day, I'd probably come pretty close to starving.

On the contrary, I LOVE BBQ ribs. If I smell them I go nuts and pretty much will do whatever I can to get some within the realm of reason.

Genetics determines all sorts of things, including who I am compatible with for feelings of love and in some cases hate.


In some cases it's a simple and mundane preference - Pepsi versus Coke. In other cases however, the genetics that we each carry can be pretty damned compelling.
Click to expand...
Well, personally, I would probably consider those things as examples of previous experience influencing your reactions, not genetics so much.

But still, genetics probably play a role.

As I see it, the real question that would need a conclusive answer for genetics to have any bearing in the way you describe is: “Do genetic traits make a person homosexual despite any decisions they try to make, do they simply make it easier to make those decisions, or do they have no effect whatsoever?”

If the last, then there is obviously no issue with the bible/church bit, they can still claim it is a sin and such without any evidence to the contrary.

If the second, their position would be shaken but not badly damaged. It could be argued both ways. Either that the choice to take the easier route is a sin (and that would fit well with much religious thought), or that the genetic predisposition leaning towards homosexuality is proof god designed us this way, so any religious claims of sin must be false.

If the first, then obviously homosexuality cannot be a sin…Well, unless you start arguing that evil men/forces have intentionally contaminated the genetic code of man to include homosexuality, or some crazy **** of the like…I bet you someone would go that route.

Personally, I think it is most likely the second, or a combination of the first and second (as in some have the choice made by genetics, and some make the choice themselves).
 
Panache said:
Where do you get the idea that a gay gene would somehow undermine the bible? Does the bible say somewhere that it isn't a genetic trait?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does. If homosexuality is a sin, but humans are inherently created with a tendency towards homosexuality, that certainly raises a lot of logic as well as moral questions the church then has to deal with.

Yeah, it pretty much does.

Panache said:
Okaaaay... so you are saying that lifestyle choices don't exist?
Click to expand...

Of course lifestyle choices exist. Some are very compelling, some aren't. I prefer the temperature to be at around 72 degrees. My girlfriend prefers it at around 68. We compromise at 70.

I also have a very strong preference for women. I find women to be sexually attractive, and it would severely impede my happiness and productivity if I was no longer allowed to engage them.

Likewise, I find the notion of a romantic relationship with a male repugnant. Being forced to engage in one (or at least pretend) in order to get the same rights as other citizens would also negatively impact my happiness, my freedom, my sense of self, my positive influence on the rest of society, and my productivity.

Some preferences are minor and easy to work around. Some however, are not.

If it's a choice, how would you feel if homosexuality suddenly became the law and heterosexuality were outlawed?
 
phattonez said:
I don't want it legally defined as marriage. Just have the state issue partnership licenses and end it at that.
Click to expand...

Then ALL marriages should just be partnership licenses, which I'm not necessarily opposed to; I think any "marriage" is equally valid.
 
Alastor said:
Yeah, it does. If homosexuality is a sin, but humans are inherently created with a tendency towards homosexuality, that certainly raises a lot of logic as well as moral questions the church then has to deal with.

Yeah, it pretty much does.



Of course lifestyle choices exist. Some are very compelling, some aren't. I prefer the temperature to be at around 72 degrees. My girlfriend prefers it at around 68. We compromise at 70.

I also have a very strong preference for women. I find women to be sexually attractive, and it would severely impede my happiness and productivity if I was no longer allowed to engage them.

Likewise, I find the notion of a romantic relationship with a male repugnant. Being forced to engage in one (or at least pretend) in order to get the same rights as other citizens would also negatively impact my happiness, my freedom, my sense of self, my positive influence on the rest of society, and my productivity.

Some preferences are minor and easy to work around. Some however, are not.

If it's a choice, how would you feel if homosexuality suddenly became the law and heterosexuality were outlawed?
Click to expand...

What you said about homosexuality being the law makes literally no sense, you will never be forced to have a relationship with a male.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is ridiculous. Americans can't approve a law that says all people of chinese ancestry lose their property to the government, for it is against the Constitution. It is discrimination, just as the laws that prohibit gay marriage.
Click to expand...

That would only be true if homosexuals had no more choice over their sexual preference than Chinese do over their ancestry.
 
mac said:
I agree with most of what you said here. So why don't homosexuals (most of which are not religious) accept civil contract rather than insist that a religious rite (marriage) be applied to them?
Click to expand...

First of all, some homosexuals are religious. You are assuming that they are not just because many religions consider homosexuality a sin. Some, however, do not. And I'm pretty sure that any church or holy person willing to preside over a wedding ceremony for homosexuals would not consider it a sin either.

Second, there are plenty of heterosexual couples, including me and my husband, that did not get married under a specific religion, but we are still considered married.

Last, why in the heck should we spend all that money, as in our government, to change or make so much new paperwork and set of rules for civil unions, if they are the exact same thing as marriages? It is a waste of money. We already have a word to cover civil unions, it is called marriage.
 
First of all, some homosexuals are religious. You are assuming that they are not just because many religions consider homosexuality a sin.
Click to expand...


I think every Unitarian I've ever met has been gay.
I've known some lesbians who were Presbyterians, too.
 
Panache said:
Where do you get the idea that a gay gene would somehow undermine the bible? Does the bible say somewhere that it isn't a genetic trait?
Click to expand...

No, but the Bible does say it's unnatural. The followers of Christianity and believers in the bible are greatly influenced by what is written in it. If it is genetically proven that the bible's assumption that homosexuality is unnatural is proven false, then organized Christian religions have a lot of problems on their hands.

The main argument against legitimizing or legalizing homosexuality is that it is unnatural and they they should not be entitled to the rights and privileges of those that follow a "natural" or "legitimate" lifestyle. If people are in fact born gay just as they are born Caucasian or male or female, then it is, in fact, discrimination to deny them these rights and privileges.
 
The Mark said:
A question regarding the recent discussion: How does whether or not being gay is a choice have anything to do with legalizing gay marriage?
Click to expand...

I agree with what Alastor said on this but would like to add that if homosexuals are granted "rights and privileges" based on lifestyle choices then it sets a precedent that can be utilized by folks who have what is now considered unnatural lifestyles to claim the same legitimacy. Keep in mind that this conversation would have never taken place a hundred years ago. What happens a hundred years from now? Do we legitimize everyones lifetyles simply because there is a small group who wishes some aberrant lifestyle to be legitimized?

Again, if homosexuality is ever proven conclusively to be "natural", in as much as people are born homosexual, then they do deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. My contention is that this hasn't been proven.
 
Sean_H said:
What you said about homosexuality being the law makes literally no sense, you will never be forced to have a relationship with a male.
Click to expand...

Understood. I asked "what if?"

Much like we do to gays now, where at times it's outright illegal to be gay, and even in the best of circumstances there are substantial economic and legal ramifications for being so.

What if roles were reversed?
 
I've been wondering...

If my understanding of how the system currently stands is correct, state and federal governments currently use legal marriages as a guide to distribute tax rebates and such, with (I assume) the goal of promoting a stable households - Or something of the likeI've been wondering...

If my understanding of how the system currently stands is correct, state and federal governments currently use legal marriages as a guide to distribute tax rebates and such, with (I assume) the goal of promoting a stable households - Or something of the like…

Or at least, I understand that such was the goal in the past, as stable households were seen to provide better child-rearing environments, better citizens, etc.

This, IMO, should still be the goal.

Not as in the past, promoting only heterosexual families and such, but rather with the core goal of promoting a stable citizenry and such.

Which is one of the reasons I support a more distinct separation of the religious and legal sides of the current marriage system.

If an obvious divorce between the two can be made, much less turmoil will occur if the government grants tax breaks and such to a multi-person union of 3 males and 5 females supporting 15 children, with one of the males and three of the females being bi, two of the females and one of the males being gay, and one of the males being fully heterosexual – For example.

:mrgreen:

If this were tried in the current system, great public outcry would occur, however warranted.

But if a system could be devised that obviously was directed towards the goals previously mentioned, I think far fewer would have issue.

This idea is one of the reasons I would like to see a much more obvious split between religious and legal unions.

Perhaps I could have been more clear...but meh.
 
mac said:
I agree with what Alastor said on this but would like to add that if homosexuals are granted "rights and privileges" based on lifestyle choices then it sets a precedent that can be utilized by folks who have what is now considered unnatural lifestyles to claim the same legitimacy. Keep in mind that this conversation would have never taken place a hundred years ago. What happens a hundred years from now? Do we legitimize everyones lifetyles simply because there is a small group who wishes some aberrant lifestyle to be legitimized?

Again, if homosexuality is ever proven conclusively to be "natural", in as much as people are born homosexual, then they do deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. My contention is that this hasn't been proven.
Click to expand...

What "could" happen 100 years from now is not a good reason to deny people the right to enter into a civil marriage with each other. 100 years ago we wouldn't have had interracial marriages either.

Also, you are still arguing under the false premise that because it might be a choice, that homosexuals are not being discriminated against because of it. This is wrong. Our discrimination laws clearly cover religion as protected against discrimination, and there is no doubt that religion is a choice. The argument you really must make is if there is a legitimate reason for that discrimination, such as homosexuality would be harmful to someone in the relationship or even someone outside the relationship(must be able to prove the harm) or that there is a unique government benefit that every heterosexual couple that is allowed to marry provides society, that homosexual couples do not. If you can't prove these, then the discrimination is unjust and wrong.
 
Alastor said:
Understood. I asked "what if?"

Much like we do to gays now, where at times it's outright illegal to be gay, and even in the best of circumstances there are substantial economic and legal ramifications for being so.

What if roles were reversed?
Click to expand...

Coincidentally enough, I watched that scenario play out on a rerun of South Park last night, where Kyle was discriminated against for not being a metrosexual and the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" dudes turned out to actually be crab people.

The chant at South Park's "metrosexual rally" cracked me up:

"We're here, we're not queer
but we're close! Get used to it!"

:lamo
 
1069 said:
Coincidentally enough, I watched that scenario play out on a rerun of South Park last night, where Kyle was discriminated against for not being a metrosexual and the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" dudes turned out to actually be crab people.

The chant at South Park's "metrosexual rally" cracked me up:

"We're here, we're not queer
but we're close! Get used to it!"

:lamo
Click to expand...

I love that episode. It is so funny.
 
The Mark said:
I've been wondering...

If my understanding of how the system currently stands is correct, state and federal governments currently use legal marriages as a guide to distribute tax rebates and such, with (I assume) the goal of promoting a stable households - Or something of the likeI've been wondering...

If my understanding of how the system currently stands is correct, state and federal governments currently use legal marriages as a guide to distribute tax rebates and such, with (I assume) the goal of promoting a stable households - Or something of the like…

Or at least, I understand that such was the goal in the past, as stable households were seen to provide better child-rearing environments, better citizens, etc.

This, IMO, should still be the goal.

Not as in the past, promoting only heterosexual families and such, but rather with the core goal of promoting a stable citizenry and such.

Which is one of the reasons I support a more distinct separation of the religious and legal sides of the current marriage system.

If an obvious divorce between the two can be made, much less turmoil will occur if the government grants tax breaks and such to a multi-person union of 3 males and 5 females supporting 15 children, with one of the males and three of the females being bi, two of the females and one of the males being gay, and one of the males being fully heterosexual – For example.

:mrgreen:

If this were tried in the current system, great public outcry would occur, however warranted.

But if a system could be devised that obviously was directed towards the goals previously mentioned, I think far fewer would have issue.

This idea is one of the reasons I would like to see a much more obvious split between religious and legal unions.

Perhaps I could have been more clear...but meh.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point really. Why is polygamy illegal in the US? If a man is married to two consenting females, or vice versa, who's to say that is wrong?
 
1069 said:
Coincidentally enough, I watched that scenario play out on a rerun of South Park last night, where Kyle was discriminated against for not being a metrosexual and the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" dudes turned out to actually be crab people.

The chant at South Park's "metrosexual rally" cracked me up:

"We're here, we're not queer
but we're close! Get used to it!"

:lamo
Click to expand...

I saw that episode last night too, too funny!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom