• 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.
Over the last couple pages of this "debate" thread I have been discussing with a few you why I oppose homosexual marriage. The initial reaction to my posts was to cite "scientific and academic" studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice and therefore denying them the same rights as heterosexuals is immoral, illegal, or whatever negative word you'd like to use to describe it. When I challenged the assumptions made on hearsay related to "scientific studies" I was called ignorant, uninformed and was told I have an agenda. I say hearsay, because it's obvious that the posters read little more than the title of these studies.

There is no scientific data that legitimizes homosexual behavior. So, using scientific data to both push your agenda and to discredit dissenters is moot. Simply put, many want homosexuality to be legalized for reasons no more valid than those of the many that want it to remain where it is. What it boils down to is two sides disagreeing on an issue and both sides concocting proof to feel confident about their respective stances.

I am no more "uninformed" about the issue for opposing it, than you all are for twisting these studies to fit your position.
 
mac said:
Over the last couple pages of this "debate" thread I have been discussing with a few you why I oppose homosexual marriage. The initial reaction to my posts was to cite "scientific and academic" studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice and therefore denying them the same rights as heterosexuals is immoral, illegal, or whatever negative word you'd like to use to describe it. When I challenged the assumptions made on hearsay related to "scientific studies" I was called ignorant, uninformed and was told I have an agenda. I say hearsay, because it's obvious that the posters read little more than the title of these studies.

There is no scientific data that legitimizes homosexual behavior. So, using scientific data to both push your agenda and to discredit dissenters is moot. Simply put, many want homosexuality to be legalized for reasons no more valid than those of the many that want it to remain where it is. What it boils down to is two sides disagreeing on an issue and both sides concocting proof to feel confident about their respective stances.

I am no more "uninformed" about the issue for opposing it, than you all are for twisting these studies to fit your position.
Click to expand...

You mean... Aside from the fact that major scientific research institutions that have long and brilliant histories of credibility say so, right?

Sorry, Mac. If you want me to believe that Harvard, Georgetown, University of Chicago, UCLA, Yale, and many other prestigious institutions are all wrong on the matter, you're going to have to show some reason we should discount their stances.
 
Last edited:
Alastor said:
You mean... Aside from the fact that major scientific research institutions that have long and brilliant histories of credibility say so, right?

Sorry, Mac. If you want me to believe that Harvard, Georgetown, University of Chicago, UCLA, Yale, and many other prestigious institutions are all wrong on the matter, you're going to have to show some reason we should discount their stances.
Click to expand...

What do you think their stances are, exactly?
 
mac said:
Over the last couple pages of this "debate" thread I have been discussing with a few you why I oppose homosexual marriage. The initial reaction to my posts was to cite "scientific and academic" studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice and therefore denying them the same rights as heterosexuals is immoral, illegal, or whatever negative word you'd like to use to describe it. When I challenged the assumptions made on hearsay related to "scientific studies" I was called ignorant, uninformed and was told I have an agenda. I say hearsay, because it's obvious that the posters read little more than the title of these studies.

There is no scientific data that legitimizes homosexual behavior. So, using scientific data to both push your agenda and to discredit dissenters is moot. Simply put, many want homosexuality to be legalized for reasons no more valid than those of the many that want it to remain where it is. What it boils down to is two sides disagreeing on an issue and both sides concocting proof to feel confident about their respective stances.

I am no more "uninformed" about the issue for opposing it, than you all are for twisting these studies to fit your position.
Click to expand...

You continue to ignore the point that I have been making. There is no study that demonstrates that ANY sexual orientation can be conclusively shown to be physiological of genetic. You're failure to take that into account denotes the weakness in your argument. If you claim that there is no reason to legitimize gay marriage because of the lack of physiological or genetic proof, then there is no way to legitimatize STRAIGHT marriage for the same reason, since no conclusive link exists for the straight sexual orientation, either, when considering genetics or physiology. This is why your position is not valid based on the factors that you are using to prove it.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
You continue to ignore the point that I have been making. There is no study that demonstrates that ANY sexual orientation can be conclusively shown to be physiological of genetic. You're failure to take that into account denotes the weakness in your argument. If you claim that there is no reason to legitimize gay marriage because of the lack of physiological or genetic proof, then there is no way to legitimatize STRAIGHT marriage for the same reason, since no conclusive link exists for the straight sexual orientation, either, when considering genetics or physiology. This is why your position is not valid based on the factors that you are using to prove it.
Click to expand...

Read Darwin....natural selection....longstanding, cross cultural historical precedence...gimme a break, bro.
 
Last edited:
Mac, when did you choose your sexual orientation?
 
I started having my suspicions in high school, but wasn't until college that I made my decision.
 
mac said:
Read Darwin....natural selection....longstanding, cross cultural historical precedence...gimme a break, bro.
Click to expand...

And yet, you still haven't shown where studies have shown there is a conclusive physiological or genetic cause for heterosexuality. You've read the studies... I'm sure you can fine ONE.

Oh, and natural selection? Since homosexuality has existed as long as there has been recorded history, natural selection applies to it, too.

Long-standing, cross-cultural historical precedence? Appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Oh, but wait... there is a long-standing cross-cultural historical precedence for homosexuality, too. Doesn't help my position, much, but it does help in torpedoing, yours.

I await with anticipation, your links to studies that prove the physiological or genetic basis for heterosexuality.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And yet, you still haven't shown where studies have shown there is a conclusive physiological or genetic cause for heterosexuality. You've read the studies... I'm sure you can fine ONE.

Oh, and natural selection? Since homosexuality has existed as long as there has been recorded history, natural selection applies to it, too.

Long-standing, cross-cultural historical precedence? Appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Oh, but wait... there is a long-standing cross-cultural historical precedence for homosexuality, too. Doesn't help my position, much, but it does help in torpedoing, yours.

I await with anticipation, your links to studies that prove the physiological or genetic basis for heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

Nice try. The human (or mammal, even) anatomy alone is proof. I'm sure you know there has been no study attempting to validate heterosexuality as even the most liberal know it's the natural order of our species and of every other mammal on earth. There is simply no need to conduct such a study. I agree that homosexuality has existed as long as recorded history, but I also know that homosexual marriage has been illegal for just as long. The first historical reference to banning it dates back to the roman empire.
 
mac said:
I started having my suspicions in high school, but wasn't until college that I made my decision.
Click to expand...

Suspicions? What do you mean?
 
mac said:
What do you think their stances are, exactly?
Click to expand...

Here are some (but by no stretch of the imagination all) examples:

However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.
Click to expand...

This statement was endorsed by the American Psychological Association, the American Phsychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Those are some pretty credible organizations.

The Royal Association of Psychologists state:

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.
Click to expand...

This quote is from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote which I took straight out of Wikipedia:

Chromosome linkage studies of sexual orientation have indicated the presence of multiple contributing genetic factors throughout the genome.
Click to expand...

This stance was based on the findings of a study done by Dean Hamer.

Deam Hamer is a doctor of medicine from Harvard. He is also the director of the National Cancer Institute and a leader in the Human Genome Project.

This study was then backed by an independent study by some fellow named Sanders who has similar credentials and prestige.

Those two studies were then supported when several other doctors formed a study and researched it on their own.

Those doctors also had similarly high credentials and credibility.



And we could go on... But yeah, those are some pretty compelling peer reviewed studies and organizations that are pretty sure you're mistaken.
 
Alastor said:
Here are some (but by no stretch of the imagination all) examples:



This statement was endorsed by the American Psychological Association, the American Phsychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Those are some pretty credible organizations.

The Royal Association of Psychologists state:



This quote is from the American Academy of Pediatrics:



Here's a quote which I took straight out of Wikipedia:



This stance was based on the findings of a study done by Dean Hamer.

Deam Hamer is a doctor of medicine from Harvard. He is also the director of the National Cancer Institute and a leader in the Human Genome Project.

This study was then backed by an independent study by some fellow named Sanders who has similar credentials and prestige.

Those two studies were then supported when several other doctors formed a study and researched it on their own.

Those doctors also had similarly high credentials and credibility.



And we could go on... But yeah, those are some pretty compelling peer reviewed studies and organizations that are pretty sure you're mistaken.
Click to expand...

actually, all those are cut directly from wikipedia, which is not a credible source. Further, single paragraphs excerpts are not indicative of the entire study in any of those cases.
 
mac said:
That's simply not true. Some studies indicate that homosexuality may not be a concscious choice. There has been no physiological evidence to support that.

As I have stated before, it is not only the religious who oppose it.
Click to expand...

First of all, I did not claim all studies indicated that sexuality is not a conscience choice. I will add a qualifier into the statement, in that most legitimate research shows that sexuality is not a conscience choice. Also note, I did not say anything about genetics. Conscience choice indicates that a person actually gets to think about who they are attracted to. Much of the legitimate research indicates that a person's sexuality and/or attraction is on a subconscience level. The research that is on the side of gay rights, including that accepted by most major medical associations, has indicated that it is most likely a combination of any or all of the following, genetics, environment, and early childhood interactions/experiences.

However, even saying all this, it really doesn't matter. Discrimination is treating someone differently due to a difference. The discrimination laws we have do not specify that the difference must be genetic or even that the difference can't be a choice. In fact, the fact that we specifically list religion as protected against discrimination proves that it doesn't matter if sexuality is a choice or not. The only thing that should be taken into account when determining if someone is justly or unjustly being discriminated against is whether or not the reason the group is discriminated is for the protection (or perceived protection) of people or property when it comes to government-controlled issues such as civil marriage.

Also, the argument that gays are not being discriminated against because they can marry anyone of the opposite sex should work no better in the gay marriage argument than the one saying that everyone was free to marry within their own race worked during interracial marriage argument. There is a qualifier on civil marriage that has no legally legitimate justification. I have even given reason why the argument that the government's main interest in marriage is procreation doesn't work. There are some marriages in certain states where it is only allowed when procreation between the two people involved is not possible.

And, you must ask yourself, if someone made a law that only people of the same religion could get married, would it not be discrimination? Eventhough the law is being enforced equally, in that everyone is free to marry anyone within their religion. In fact, since it is religion, it could be argued that it should be even more acceptable because the people are free and able to change their religion whenever they want.
 
mac said:
actually, all those are cut directly from wikipedia, which is not a credible source..
Click to expand...

And your source for attacking both wikipedia and the quotes is?
 
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...

As far as this goes, what "extra" rights are homosexuals asking for? If you want to claim that they are asking for the "extra" right to marry someone of their own sex, then you are still wrong. When homosexuals get the right to marry, everyone will have the right to marry someone of the same sex as well as the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. See, that argument works both ways. There is nothing "extra" about it.
 
mac said:
actually, all those are cut directly from wikipedia, which is not a credible source. Further, single paragraphs excerpts are not indicative of the entire study in any of those cases.
Click to expand...

Uh... You do know how to use the links at the bottom of Wikipedia, right?

I do. And I did. Go to the web sites. The statements are there.

Sorry dude, this is a cop-out.

The statements are linked to in the footnotes of Wikipedia and they go to the primary sources from those institutions.



Your denial that the quotes are accurate tells me that if such organizations made such statements, you'd be compelled to change your mind.

Of course if I link directly to the document for you (since apparently you're not familiar with footnotes and how to use them), you'd probably then say that these institutions and parties aren't credible too.


For a guy that seems to try to to come off as objective and scholarly, so far you've shown yourself to be neither.
 
winston53660 said:
And your source for attacking both wikipedia and the quotes is?
Click to expand...

I'm not attacking wikipedia. What I'm saying is that anyone can post whatever they want on it. It's not a peer reviewed publication and therefore not a legitimate source for factual information.
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, I did not claim all studies indicated that sexuality is not a conscience choice. I will add a qualifier into the statement, in that most legitimate research shows that sexuality is not a conscience choice. Also note, I did not say anything about genetics. Conscience choice indicates that a person actually gets to think about who they are attracted to. Much of the legitimate research indicates that a person's sexuality and/or attraction is on a subconscience level. The research that is on the side of gay rights, including that accepted by most major medical associations, has indicated that it is most likely a combination of any or all of the following, genetics, environment, and early childhood interactions/experiences.

However, even saying all this, it really doesn't matter. Discrimination is treating someone differently due to a difference. The discrimination laws we have do not specify that the difference must be genetic or even that the difference can't be a choice. In fact, the fact that we specifically list religion as protected against discrimination proves that it doesn't matter if sexuality is a choice or not. The only thing that should be taken into account when determining if someone is justly or unjustly being discriminated against is whether or not the reason the group is discriminated is for the protection (or perceived protection) of people or property when it comes to government-controlled issues such as civil marriage.

Also, the argument that gays are not being discriminated against because they can marry anyone of the opposite sex should work no better in the gay marriage argument than the one saying that everyone was free to marry within their own race worked during interracial marriage argument. There is a qualifier on civil marriage that has no legally legitimate justification. I have even given reason why the argument that the government's main interest in marriage is procreation doesn't work. There are some marriages in certain states where it is only allowed when procreation between the two people involved is not possible.

And, you must ask yourself, if someone made a law that only people of the same religion could get married, would it not be discrimination? Eventhough the law is being enforced equally, in that everyone is free to marry anyone within their religion. In fact, since it is religion, it could be argued that it should be even more acceptable because the people are free and able to change their religion whenever they want.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Alastor said:
Uh... You do know how to use the links at the bottom of Wikipedia, right?

I do. And I did. Go to the web sites. The statements are there.

Sorry dude, this is a cop-out.

The statements are linked to in the footnotes of Wikipedia and they go to the primary sources from those institutions.



Your denial that the quotes are accurate tells me that if such organizations made such statements, you'd be compelled to change your mind.

Of course if I link directly to the document for you (since apparently you're not familiar with footnotes and how to use them), you'd probably then say that these institutions and parties aren't credible too.


For a guy that seems to try to to come off as objective and scholarly, so far you've shown yourself to be neither.
Click to expand...

They are linked to statements which you have not read in their entirety. All those studies state there there are indications that there may be a link to genetics but to date it's not been able to be proven.
 
mac said:
They are linked to statements which you have not read in their entirety. All those studies state there there are indications that there may be a link to genetics but to date it's not been able to be proven.
Click to expand...

In other words, there is no credible source that you would accept. Fair enough. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.
 
Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.
Click to expand...

Hold up. So the fact that it is a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences means that it isn't a choice how exactly? Following that criteria, what IS a choice? Is the preference for pepper jack over swiss not a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors? What other factors are there? How about the preference for sprite over 7up? genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors influence every choice we make.
 
Panache said:
Hold up. So the fact that it is a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences means that it isn't a choice how exactly? Following that criteria, what IS a choice? Is the preference for pepper jack over swiss not a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors? What other factors are there? How about the preference for sprite over 7up? genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors influence every choice we make.
Click to expand...

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.
 
A question regarding the recent discussion: How does whether or not being gay is a choice have anything to do with legalizing gay marriage?
 
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...

It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom