• 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.
In the instance of homosexuality. There is plenty of proof of causation in other behaviors related tot he brain. It's my assumption that homosexuality is a choice based on the "evidence" that I have seen. As such, I feel that the decision over whether or not to accept it as a society is also a choice.



My point is that if it were shown, conclusively, to indeed be beyond the choice of homosexuals, then I would support gay marriage regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.



The majority of the "evidence" is derived from interviews with homosexuals. The homosexual, as a defense mechanism, is likely to believe, or make him/herself believe that they had no other choice. It has been proven, conclusively that there are people with absolutely no impulse control. That lack of control doesn't make what they do "right" or acceptable by society, depending on the uncontrollable impulse.



That doesn't in an of itself make it acceptable. I personally believe that homosexual marriage will have no direct and definable impact on me or my family beyond what I feel is further damage to a nearly destroyed concept of marriage.



I like that though there is no concrete evidence supporting the validity of homosexuality, you ask for concrete evidence that it will have negative affects on our society. Was it generally assumed that the invention of the light bulb and motor vehicle would relatively rapidly destroy our environment? Apples and oranges? Maybe, but, there are unforseen negative affects...sometimes dire.....to almost everyhting, eventually we are going to have to consider them.


Personally, I do not feel that homosexuality or gay marriage will affect me personally in anyway, however I do believe it will have some pretty serious affects on our society. Maybe good effects, maybe bad. Time will tell. That is more my concern than anything, and is the only reason I oppose it.

I have to assume that you are against cigarettes and alcohol, since your primary concern is negative social effects, and certainly when tens of thousands of people are dying due to these two items, that would make perfect sense, right? I mean, nobody is dying when two same sex individuals get "married", right? :roll

I like how you say that, " Maybe good effects, maybe bad. Time will tell. That is more my concern than anything, and is the only reason I oppose it". Pretty smart, opposing something because it might have good effects, right?

Again, you must be against cars, trains, airplanes... cars alone, how many people die each year in accidents. That is actually something worth being against, isn't it? Do you have a stat on how many people die the moment they say, "I do"? Because the stats showing how many people die when being hit by a car is staggering.

He didn't ask for concrete evidence, he said that there is no concrete evidence... how about you read that again and answer his question?

What is the nearly destroyed concept of marriage? Hell, you must be against women being able to work and not stay at home then, right? The womens movement did far more to destroy the concept of marriage than anything two gay people have done. With the success of the womens movement came more womens power, more choice... they exercised this and got out of the homes, and families have suffered, at least according to your idea of marriage. The divorce rate skyrocketed...

See, your argument against same sex marriage is flimsy and from what I can tell, almost entirely fear driven and consequently, bigotted.
 
I have to assume that you are against cigarettes and alcohol, since your primary concern is negative social effects, and certainly when tens of thousands of people are dying due to these two items, that would make perfect sense, right? I mean, nobody is dying when two same sex individuals get "married", right? :roll

I am against these, yeah.

I like how you say that, " Maybe good effects, maybe bad. Time will tell. That is more my concern than anything, and is the only reason I oppose it". Pretty smart, opposing something because it might have good effects, right?

No, I oppose it because I think the bad will outweigh the good.

Again, you must be against cars, trains, airplanes... cars alone, how many people die each year in accidents. That is actually something worth being against, isn't it? Do you have a stat on how many people die the moment they say, "I do"? Because the stats showing how many people die when being hit by a car is staggering.

I am an environmentalist, so in a way, yes I am opposed to these things.

He didn't ask for concrete evidence, he said that there is no concrete evidence... how about you read that again and answer his question?

Actually, he did.
If you have heard about these negative effects, please point me to the article or report.

What is the nearly destroyed concept of marriage? Hell, you must be against women being able to work and not stay at home then, right? The womens movement did far more to destroy the concept of marriage than anything two gay people have done. With the success of the womens movement came more womens power, more choice... they exercised this and got out of the homes, and families have suffered, at least according to your idea of marriage. The divorce rate skyrocketed...

and greater environmental impact due to consumerism.

See, your argument against same sex marriage is flimsy and from what I can tell, almost entirely fear driven and consequently, bigotted.

Couldn't disagree more.
 
Last edited:
I am against these, yeah.

OK... fair enough.

No, I oppose it because I think the bad will outweigh the good.

More clear... thanks. But what is the bad that would occur? I honestly can think of nothing reasonable... seriously. I am sure that you have stated your reason somewhere, please humor me and state the negative reason(s) again.

I am an environmentalist, so in a way, yes I am opposed to these things.

Again... fair enough. But should they be made illegal, that is the point. Cars kill people, same sex marriage does not. Nobody drops dead after saying "I do" but they do when hit by a car going 70mph. Will you address the analogies as to how they relate to your position?

Actually, he did.

Semantics... by me as well. I'll move on.

and greater environmental impact due to consumerism.

What does that have to do with families falling apart? My point is valid...

Couldn't disagree more.

I'll reserve judgement until I hear more then...
 
More clear... thanks. But what is the bad that would occur? I honestly can think of nothing reasonable... seriously. I am sure that you have stated your reason somewhere, please humor me and state the negative reason(s) again.

I have yeah, most of my reasoning is that there will be unforseen negative effects. This stance naturally drew a lot of fire because I've been ask to clarify "unforeseen effects". Well, If I could do that, then they wouldn't be unforeseen, would they? I draw parrallels to other significant changes in our history that have to some extent or other had dire effects on our society and even our planet. Invention of the light bulb and car for example. Huge environmental impacts that had anyone brought up at the time of these inventions, would have sounded like science fiction. Women's lib, as you re-iterated for me. Without getting into whether it was good or bad, it has had dire effects on everything from general health to family stability. But you can't identify these effects whithout being a sexist pig, now, right? I can "dream" up all sorts of negative effects, but like the destruction of our ozone layer, and rivers aflame, it would just be seen as science fiction.

Again... fair enough. But should they be made illegal, that is the point. Cars kill people, same sex marriage does not. Nobody drops dead after saying "I do" but they do when hit by a car going 70mph. Will you address the analogies as to how they relate to your position?

Your analogy in this case doesn't quite cut it, because how you use it is more accurately described as people kill people, not cars kill people. But, just to illustrate a possibility: In my view homosexuality is a learned behavior resulting from environmental influences. Let's say that after homosexuality becomes mainstream, and more prevalant we see a progressibvely greater number of homosexuals emerge due to that greater environmental influence. Eventually, our species could die out if the severity of decreasing birth rate is realized too late. The severity being as related to the lack of genetic diversity as it is to the diminshed number of new people being born to carry on the species. Science fiction, I know, I know, but since environmental influence is generaly recognized as a major factor in homosexuality, what would greater environmental influence cause?

What does that have to do with families falling apart? My point is valid...

I was just continuing your point about the negative impact of women's lib. I personnaly don't think recognizing the negative effects makes me a sexist.

I'll reserve judgement until I hear more then...

mkay.
 
Last edited:
mac, are you honestly suggesting that gay marriage might cause humankind to all become homosexual? Because if you really think this is possible, ROFL. I really can't stop laughing. I can't even fathom how that would be possible.

Do you really think that homosexuality is somehow more desirable a sexuality than heterosexuality? Personally, even though I am all for homosexuals having the right to marry their partners, I myself would not "convert" to homosexuality, even if I thought it was possible, nor would I "teach" my children to be homosexual. I will teach my children that it is okay to be either homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, but that it should be based on who they are attracted to, not who someone says they should be attracted to.

Also, how does homosexuals having the right to marry lead to teaching people to be homosexual? Homosexuality is already legal, and homosexuals are raising children, both their own biological children and adopted children. I just can't see your reasoning here.
 
mac, are you honestly suggesting that gay marriage might cause humankind to all become homosexual? Because if you really think this is possible, ROFL. I really can't stop laughing. I can't even fathom how that would be possible.

Not exactly. I think it's a pretty far fetched example of what could possibly happen. Just pointing out that it's possible there might be an outcome noone sees comming.

Do you really think that homosexuality is somehow more desirable a sexuality than heterosexuality? Personally, even though I am all for homosexuals having the right to marry their partners, I myself would not "convert" to homosexuality, even if I thought it was possible, nor would I "teach" my children to be homosexual. I will teach my children that it is okay to be either homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, but that it should be based on who they are attracted to, not who someone says they should be attracted to.

No. What I said was that since one of the factors generally accepted as a "cause" of homosexuality is environment, then a greater number of homesexuals in that environment could concievably create a greater chance of homosexuality in developeing children.

Also, how does homosexuals having the right to marry lead to teaching people to be homosexual? Homosexuality is already legal, and homosexuals are raising children, both their own biological children and adopted children. I just can't see your reasoning here.

It all depends on your point of view. Along with environmental factors being a cause of homosexuality, there are most likely environmental inhibitors as well. The stigmas associated, for example. What happens when these inhibitors are eradicated?
 
Not exactly. I think it's a pretty far fetched example of what could possibly happen. Just pointing out that it's possible there might be an outcome noone sees comming.



No. What I said was that since one of the factors generally accepted as a "cause" of homosexuality is environment, then a greater number of homesexuals in that environment could concievably create a greater chance of homosexuality in developeing children.



It all depends on your point of view. Along with environmental factors being a cause of homosexuality, there are most likely environmental inhibitors as well. The stigmas associated, for example. What happens when these inhibitors are eradicated?

Actually, research suggests that it is most likely a combination of environmental factors, genetics, and in-utero environment. But this would be all sexuality, not just homosexuality. The only thing that should happen if you remove social stigmas, is that more homosexuals will come out of the closet and accept who they are. This may raise the numbers of homosexuals or bisexuals we know of as a society, but that number should even out at what the natural amount should be. What you are suggesting just isn't really probable due to the fact that there really isn't anything more desirable about being homosexual over heterosexual. It's not like it comes with any extra benefits to be attracted to someone of the same sex, especially not naturally.

Plus, it is highly unlikely that everyone will automatically accept homosexuality as normal and/or healthy just because gays are allowed to wed. There are still people who don't accept interracial couples as normal or healthy relationships. There are many people out there that consider homosexuality a sin or just plain wrong/unnatural, but are still willing to accept that civil marriage is a legal contract for the government, and they should keep their personal beliefs out of who should be restricted from civil marriages, as long as the relationships are considered legal.
 
What you are suggesting just isn't really probable due to the fact that there really isn't anything more desirable about being homosexual over heterosexual.

What does it's desireability have to do with it? I've heard over and over that "homosexuality is not a choice." If it's a product of environmental factors, then a higher number of homosexuals in the environment is likely to affect the outcome.
 
Not exactly. I think it's a pretty far fetched example of what could possibly happen. Just pointing out that it's possible there might be an outcome noone sees comming.

Right, because we can see from history that's what happened. When the ancient Greeks allowed homosexuality, what happened? They died out, and now there are no more Greeks.

And in Canada, Europe, and in those states where gay marriage has become legal, no one ever gets married to people of the opposite sex any more. Why, the populations of these places is dwindling too, and soon there will be no one left in Massachusetts and Iowa.
 
What does it's desireability have to do with it? I've heard over and over that "homosexuality is not a choice." If it's a product of environmental factors, then a higher number of homosexuals in the environment is likely to affect the outcome.

You are starting with the assumption that nature would have no effect on how many people will be homosexual. This is not very likely, even if we just look at homosexuality occurring in other animals. Do you think homosexual animals teach the other offspring of the species to be homosexual? We know that those animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior still exist. There isn't some snowball effect that causes those animals to generationally increase the number of their species that are homosexual until the entire species is homosexual (unless you think there is any proof that this may be how the dinosaurs died out?).

Also, it's not like homosexual parents or heterosexual parents that teach their children that homosexuality is okay, are actually influencing them to become homosexual. It is just more likely that those children will realize that it is okay to be homosexual or bisexual, as well as heterosexual. In nature, heterosexuality is most desired for a species to continue to survive. So, naturally speaking, most people should be heterosexual. The number of homosexual people won't actually increase significantly. There will most likely be an increase in how many people accept their homosexuality or bisexuality and/or how many people are open about it. We know now that there are a lot of homosexual and bisexual people who don't accept that they could be that way due to social stigma against it or theirs or their family's objections (most likely due to religion) of homosexuality.

There may be some unnatural difference in how many people are homosexual or bisexual compared to heterosexual, but it would most likely be almost small for at homosexuality by itself. Truthfully, I'd be willing to bet that it would most likely be more of an increase in bisexuality, not homosexuality. This would be due to a bigger acceptance that it is okay and natural to be with whoever you are attracted to, not just who is acceptable by society and/or a person's family or religious views.
 
this coversation is pointless youre not going stop people from being gay weve had gay members of society for thousand of years. live and let live
 
You are starting with the assumption that nature would have no effect on how many people will be homosexual. This is not very likely, even if we just look at homosexuality occurring in other animals. Do you think homosexual animals teach the other offspring of the species to be homosexual? We know that those animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior still exist. There isn't some snowball effect that causes those animals to generationally increase the number of their species that are homosexual until the entire species is homosexual (unless you think there is any proof that this may be how the dinosaurs died out?).

The homosexual animals that you speak of (such as Bonobos) aren't exactly homosexual. They exhibit social behaviors which appear homosexual in nature but are thought to be for purely social reasons. Also, these animals do not refrain from heterosexual intercourse.

Also, it's not like homosexual parents or heterosexual parents that teach their children that homosexuality is okay, are actually influencing them to become homosexual.
This isn't even close to what i said, either I'm not explaining my position well enough or you are refusing to understand it. What i said is that a greater number of homosexuals in the developing child's environment, combined with a general acceptance of the orientation will likely raise the occurrence of homosexuality. I am in no way implying that people will intentionally influence someone to be gay. I don't know how to be any more clear on that point.

There may be some unnatural difference in how many people are homosexual or bisexual compared to heterosexual, but it would most likely be almost small for at homosexuality by itself. Truthfully, I'd be willing to bet that it would most likely be more of an increase in bisexuality, not homosexuality. This would be due to a bigger acceptance that it is okay and natural to be with whoever you are attracted to, not just who is acceptable by society and/or a person's family or religious views.

No more or less a possibility that what I've stated. So, I agree with you, sorta.
 
Your analogy in this case doesn't quite cut it, because how you use it is more accurately described as people kill people, not cars kill people. But, just to illustrate a possibility: In my view homosexuality is a learned behavior resulting from environmental influences. Let's say that after homosexuality becomes mainstream, and more prevalant we see a progressibvely greater number of homosexuals emerge due to that greater environmental influence. Eventually, our species could die out if the severity of decreasing birth rate is realized too late. The severity being as related to the lack of genetic diversity as it is to the diminshed number of new people being born to carry on the species. Science fiction, I know, I know, but since environmental influence is generaly recognized as a major factor in homosexuality, what would greater environmental influence cause?

ummm... what? Our species could die out? I can't speak for everybody, but I will only ever have sex with women. AS you say, science fiction, and the operative word is "fiction". I can't see taking fiction and making it an argument to deny people rights especially off the basis that nobody knows what even causes homosexuality.

Originally Posted by roguenuke
Do you really think that homosexuality is somehow more desirable a sexuality than heterosexuality? Personally, even though I am all for homosexuals having the right to marry their partners, I myself would not "convert" to homosexuality, even if I thought it was possible, nor would I "teach" my children to be homosexual. I will teach my children that it is okay to be either homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, but that it should be based on who they are attracted to, not who someone says they should be attracted to.

I know what you mean, but "teach" is probably not the right word. I will just "accept" my daughters for who they are and what they become, whether it is homo or hetero sexual.
 
The homosexual animals that you speak of (such as Bonobos) aren't exactly homosexual. They exhibit social behaviors which appear homosexual in nature but are thought to be for purely social reasons. Also, these animals do not refrain from heterosexual intercourse.

This isn't even close to what i said, either I'm not explaining my position well enough or you are refusing to understand it. What i said is that a greater number of homosexuals in the developing child's environment, combined with a general acceptance of the orientation will likely raise the occurrence of homosexuality. I am in no way implying that people will intentionally influence someone to be gay. I don't know how to be any more clear on that point.



No more or less a possibility that what I've stated. So, I agree with you, sorta.

You're wrong about the animals. Although most may actually be engaging in more of bisexual behavior, there is still actual homosexual behavior that has been observed to occur in almost 1500 species of animals, not just apes.

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study - Telegraph

Also, I'm not purposely trying to misunderstand anything. What is most likely to happen, is future generations will learn acceptance of different sexualities. There is no research to support or logical reason to even believe that an increased acceptance of homosexualy will cause an actual decrease in heterosexuality, and most certainly not to the point where our existence as a species will be at stake.

And, actually, yes there is more of a possibility of seeing an increase in bisexuality, whether it is due to more people being honest with themselves and/or society about who they are actually attracted to or just an increase in people being more open sexually due to the lack of social stigma against it, than there is of homosexuality increasing to the point that our species is at risk of dying out. I don't know if what I suggest will actually happen, but it is certainly a possibility, unlike your scenario.
 
ummm... what? Our species could die out? I can't speak for everybody, but I will only ever have sex with women. AS you say, science fiction, and the operative word is "fiction". I can't see taking fiction and making it an argument to deny people rights especially off the basis that nobody knows what even causes homosexuality.

There are many commonly accepted aspects of modern society that would have been considered science fiction 50, 100, or 1000 years ago. You have no way of knowing, now, what will occur in the future or what won't.
 
I don't know if what I suggest will actually happen, but it is certainly a possibility, unlike your scenario.

You have no more basis for this assumption, than I do mine. So what makes you so sure your assesment is any more than wishful thinking? There has been no risk analysis on this issue that states any outcome. It's anyone's guess, but remember, we're talking about possibilities, not certainties. By all means, go with your gut, but remember that's all you're doing. I will go with mine.

Here's a quote from the Nat Geo article you posted....

Another suggestion is that homosexuality is a developmental phase people go through. He said, "This is similar to the argument of play in young animals to get their brain and muscles to work effectively and together. Off the back of this, there's the possibility you can get individuals locked into this phase for the rest of their lives as a result of the social environment they grow up in.
 
Last edited:
Been stopping by and reading this every now and then to see if anything has changed or any good reasons or even new ones and nothing seems to have changed. Looks like theres one new reason but seems like a different topic to me, so I'm guessing nobody has anything yet.

Also in my reading I saw at least one person insist its a moral thing no matter who you are, we'll like you were told in the thread already you are wrong. I can tell you for a fact my morals do not come into play because I have admitted I'm not exactly a gay "fan" but I realize that its none of my business especially with the mind set of thinking about this country, constitution, freedom, rights, and equality.
 
For the most part, people on both sides of this issue are using half truths and assumptions to support their stance. The reality is some are for and some are against. Using science to justify is folly, as the real issue at hand is society's right in judging what it considers acceptable. Just as many Christians selectively follow the Bible, many activists selectively follow science.
 
Last edited:
For the most part, people on both sides of this issue are using half truths and assumptions to support their stance. The reality is some are for and some are against. Using science to justify is folly, as the real issue at hand is society's right in accepting what it considers acceptable. Just as many Christians selectively follow the Bible, many activists selectively follow science.

Except science is not the argument being used for gay marriage. That little detail ruins your whole premise.
 
Except science is not the argument being used for gay marriage. That little detail ruins your whole premise.

Science definitely is being used to support gay marriage.
 
Science definitely is being used to support gay marriage.

Of course it is, since science gives it validity and invalidates the opposing position from a scientific standpoint.
 
Been stopping by and reading this every now and then to see if anything has changed or any good reasons or even new ones and nothing seems to have changed. Looks like theres one new reason but seems like a different topic to me, so I'm guessing nobody has anything yet.

Also in my reading I saw at least one person insist its a moral thing no matter who you are, we'll like you were told in the thread already you are wrong. I can tell you for a fact my morals do not come into play because I have admitted I'm not exactly a gay "fan" but I realize that its none of my business especially with the mind set of thinking about this country, constitution, freedom, rights, and equality.

And why would you be in favour of freedom, rights and equality?
 
Of course it is, since science gives it validity and invalidates the opposing position from a scientific standpoint.

In some respects, sure it does. In other's it comes up short.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom