Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
  2. Eleventh_Guard Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2005
    star 5
    Here's why couples who co-habitate have a higher rate of divorce (one major reason, anyway): Couples who co-habitate are less likely to have religious or personal views against premarital sex and have less rigid views on relationships in general. Thus, a person who co-habitates is far less likely than a person who would be against such an arrangement to believe that marriage is a religiously sacred joining and is more likely to think divorce is an acceptable solution to serious marriage problems that have not been solved or significantly helped by other methods such as short separations or counseling.

    Co-habitation does not cause divorce, but those who engage in the practice are more likely to be open to divorce should a situation that could lead to one occur. To blame co-habitation for the divorces is mostly faulty cause and effect; there is a correlation, but one does not cause the other; they're both effects of the same cause.

    -E_G
  3. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    I'll ask you to provide the statistics of individuals who grow up in broken, fatherless homes versus those that grow up in proper, good marriages with their own loving parents.

    This has nothing to do with marriage. There can be "proper" families with a father and a mother that are legally not married.

    Why do couples who cohabitate before marriage have a larger rate of divorce, therefore increasing instability?

    Look at the reason they didn't get married - they didn't plan on having a long-term relationship and they probably don't take the relationship as seriously as somebody who got married from the start. That's their individual situation, and that doesn't say anything about marriage actually being the thing that helps society. My point still stands: people do not create stable families with children because marriage is available, they do it because they want to. Marriage merely helps them with their family, but they would still exist without marriage.

    It relativizes marriage to interpersonal feelings versus the inherent importance of what marriage truly represents to society.

    This is just an excuse. It's an excuse to think it's okay to deny gays the right to marry, when it really doesn't make sense or hold any water.

    Marriage cannot be "relativized." The individual people getting married do what they want with their marriage regardless of what everybody else is doing. (i.e. gays getting married) Do you seriously think people will stop creating stable families because now "marriage is about personal feelings"? Of course not, that's completely illogical. The incentive to have kids and create stable families (in your view, the force that drives society) will not be lost no matter what you do to marriage. Thus, the same heterosexual marriages will still be off creating having kids, creating stable families, and helping out society. SSM isn't going to stop them.

    Whether you like it or not, DM, gays eventually will be accepted in today's society and society will not fall apart just because they're different. You're logic for why gays shouldn't get married very unreasonable, and just demonstrates your disapproval of homosexuality.

    There is no inherent right for any homosexual to demand the government (therefore the people) recognize their union and grant them licensure.

    Equality, maybe?

    You're asking for society to extend an entitlement to a priviledge and to redefine marriage from what it is to suit individuals with sexual variances based upon emotional feelings without having any inherent overall importance to society.

    Speaking of a new flash, EARTH TO DM!!

    We already recognize some marriages that have no overall importance to society. I've said this over and over again: not all heterosexual marriages create families with children! Plenty of heterosexual people get married just because they love each other, not because they want to create a family!

    Earth to SHREDDER.

    [face_idea]

    NEWS FLASH

    It's the law, not my personal definition.


    It's just your opinion.

    To you, marriage is all about society's benefit, and creating stable families to ensure that society keeps going. You argue that heterosexual relationships are still "the only type" of relationship that does this.

    To someone else, they meet someone they love, they get married and live happily without much of a family. They would argue that marriage can also be about one's personal feelings and not always about society's benefit. You would keep arguing about the "type" of relationship, and they would keep arguing about the many marriages that have no societal benefit. Can either one of you really dispute each other? Not really, it's just a difference of opinion and interpretation, not some universally-held belief among society like you make it seem.

    You simply think it's an inherent denied right that already exists, but that is not so.

    You don't think equality exists? :confused:
  4. AndoOpre_B Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2006
    We are taught from a very early age what is 'Disgusting' by our parents. They teach us what is dirty often using tone of voice to assist and use nonsense words like 'Icky' or 'Eww'.
    WE also have instinctive notions of what is dirty, things that smell 'bad', taste 'disgusting' or look 'revolting' provoke such reactios in us because they are likely to be harmful to us, like rotten or rancid meat - we are 'disgusted' by the sight, smell, and taste of it.

    As children, most boys find the notion of kissing girls 'icky' and will say 'Eww' when the idea is presented to them. Children pre-puberty are not attracted to the opposite sex (or same sex for homosexuals) in the same way that post-pubescent people are, and generally see sexual intercourse type activity as disgusting. (I am referring to children who have not been 'sexualised' by exposure to either abuse, p0rnography or other experience that could change their natural 'innocence')

    Some people find the notion of sexual intercourse with old or ugly people 'disgusting', and will say 'Eww' when it is discussed'

    Basically, it is 'Normal' to find the healthiest, best-fit baby-producers to further the survival of one's genes most attractive, and to find (those who appear to be) unfit baby-producers unattractive, repellant, or disgusting.

    Considering all of this, it is unsurprising to me that many people are 'disgusted' by same gender sexual intercourse, it doesn't fit with our instinctive drives, which probably evolved to help us to reproduce.

    Further to instinctive 'drives', humans are (in some cases) able to reason, rationalise, and judge for themselves what is acceptable behaviour. For example: when someone offends us, many of us are 'driven' to hurt them back, often with physical assaults, but assaulting someone would be breaking the law of most countries. That is, many civilised societies decided long ago that physical violence was not generally good in society.

    I realise that I am stating what should be obvious, but to my knowledge (and I am new here) it hasn't been stated like this here.

    My peers taught me that anything 'Gay' was weak, poor, or unattractive. Many words describing homosexuality are used as negative adjectives by young (and old) people.

    The notion of doing what many assume Gays do, is pretty revolting to me, and I think that instinct plays it part in that. I do not judge people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender for doing what I find repellant. I am able to understand that people are different, and desire different things, and find different things attractive or unattractive. I know that Homosexuals find the notion of Heterosexual intercourse disgusting. I am different from them, and can live with that.
  5. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    Should we continue the discussion on the primary purpose for our naughty bits? It was just getting interesting.
  6. AndoOpre_B Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2006
    I was just trying to show how it is understandable that people think that homsexual acts are disgusting, i.e. I believe it is natural enough to feel that way.

    As to why it is important to know whether people choose to be gay or not, I believe the answer lies in morality. Basically most people think that doing what they find disgusting is immoral, and if someone chooses to be immoral or do disgusting things, then they judge them as being disgusting. If on the other hand they have no choice, then those who would make moral judgements find the lack of choice to be a 'get out clause', thinking along the lines of: 'well if they can't choose to do what is right (in my mind), then I suppose we should not hold it against them'. They do not relinquish their morality, or sense of disgust at the acts, but choose not to judge those involved, because it is not of their choosing.

    It's not an ideal mindset IMO, but if it makes for more tolerant people, then it can't be all bad.
  7. IkritMan Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 5
    I must disagree with your assertion that there is a natural reason for humans finding homosexuality disgusting, Ando.

    Firstly, I know many pre-pubescent children who already have girlfriends or boyfriends, think they're going out, and even kiss eachother. Your assertion that boys and girls find such things gross is, at least in these times, invalid.

    Secondly, the fact that heterosexual intercourse is the way our species survives would, logically, lead to the conclusion that nature would make such an event desirable for people. It does not, however, mean that nature would make homosexual activity undesirable. Your example would be correct that we usually find disgusting those things that are bad for us (such as rancid meat). You fail to prove, however, how homosexual activity could be harmful for us (for it is just as risky as heterosexual activity).

    The only reasonable conclusion to which I come would be that humans should be either indifferent to or desirable of homosexuality. I've already explained the first option. The second option is formulated by the fact that homosexual activity can be just as pleasing, physically, as heterosexual activity. Why would humans find such a situation disgusting?

    In my opinion, it has to do with the religious myths and traditions still influencing this country. Like you said, parents teach children what to like and dislike, either through verbal or nonverbal means. Prejudice is passed on from generation to generation. It is gradually getting less hateful, hence homosexuals are not terrified of coming out anymore. I believe that eventually, humans will find homosexuality normal (like civilizations such as the Romans did).

    Until then, we still have to put up with the bigots who claim it's an abberation of God's design and that the man upstairs is hurling hurricanes at us out of punishment. *shrugs*
  8. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    Well, I'd appreciate it if DM would respond to my counter-argument on "relativizing marriage."

    shred edit:

    :eek: Did somebody hijack IkritMan's account?

    [face_laugh] Who would've known?
  9. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    What needs to be kept in mind is that believing homosexuality to be wrong is not inherently bigoted. Like it or not, a person can believe homosexuality to be wrong yet tolerate it despite, thus the chatge of bigotry is erroneous. To claim that that person is bigoted merely for disagreeing is to say that Democrats, for example, are bigots simply for disagreeing with Republicans.

    Disagreement does not equal bigotry; unforunately, this kind of attack is used far too much by those who accept homosexuality and seek to vilify those they disagree with.


    Ciou-See the Sig
  10. IkritMan Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 5
    My charge of bigotry has more to do with giving people a second-class status just because one believes their personal decisions are immoral. :)

    No, I'm just an objective person. ;)
  11. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    [Ronald Reagan]There you go again![/Ronald Reagan]

    I'll ask you again how does SSM, co-habitation, or whatever have any effect whatsoever on a couple's capacity and/or will to honor the promise they've made to one another?

    As I see it, what you're saying is "Two guys in MA can get married, Nick & Jessica got a divorce, and Bob & Mary down the street are 'living in sin,' so the vows I've made to you don't matter as much."

    That dog won't hunt.
  12. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    The charge that SSM should be outlawed because it doesnt lead to procreation is ridiculous.

    Firstly, marriage and procreation have nothing to do with one another. Non-married couples can have kids and married couples can NOT have kids. There isnt anything in laws, government or religious, that links marriage to procreation, other than assumption that one may lead to the other, which is just that, an assumption, and one that is not accurate. By this token, any woman over 40 should be barred from marriage, since she will be barren, and this is wrong as well, as I am sure many would agree--it is not the government or anyones right to tell her she can and can't marry just because she can no longer produce children. This applies to homosexuals as well.

    So if this is the basis on which SSM is to be judged, then we would have to invoke some kind of law stating that all marriages MUST lead to childbirth, which is simply absurd.

    The fact that married couples can chose or be forced by biological reasons to not have children destroys this absurd argument against homosexuality.
    Also, in this dangerously overpopulated planet, we NEED more couples that are not having children, especially with the massive amounts of orphan babies waiting for homes, homosexuals may be the last large group of people to commonly adopt since most hetero couples resort to it only if infertility complications arise (unless you are Angelina Jolie).
  13. Ceethreepio Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2003
    star 5
    uh...no.

    Did I choose to be gay? No, how do I know this because I came to the realizastion a few months ago that it wasn't up to me it was already in me and I didn't fully realize it until a few months back.
  14. Sojourn Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2005
    star 2
    Wow. There's been so much great discussion so far -- and it's inspired me to post this as a response.

    i see many defenders of homosexuality saying 'dont hate them, its not their choice', but to me this smacks of homophobia as well, this kind of 'victimisation' of homosexuals to absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

    An interesting point.

    bisexual friends of mine have literally said to me 'im sick of dating women, i think I'm going to date men for a while'(or vice-versa). So how does this fit in with everything?

    Indeed. I have also talked with people who have decided (a relevant point in this discussion) to switch the sex of the individuals with whom they are engaging in romantic relationships. The thing is, this not always done in a bisexual context, but a homosexual one.

    I am thinking of one individual with whom I spoke who told me that she had broken up with her boyfriend of three years, and was going out with a girl now, because she decided that she wanted to "try something else for a while."

    A lot of people mistakenly assume that because a person dated someone of the opposite sex for a while that they were actually straight when doing so.

    Yes, but then if the person says that they were, and were fully behind what they were doing, and knew how they felt, and . . . etc., then the argument switches to "well, they just didn't know that they were gay -- but they were." This explanation, quite frankly, seems all too convenient for me to accept. By that argument, anybody and everybody's sexualities are not absolutely what we think they are, and what we realize we want could change at any given second -- totally out of our own control. Unfortunately, while I have been told this argument many times, I really can't validate it enough to legitimize it.

    People have different tastes. Tastes change over time. Some tastes never develop.

    But that doesn't really make sense -- if we are genetically and biologically hardwired for certain kinds of relationships that are (among other things) in place to further promulgate our species, how can it just . . . gradually . . . change . . . at whim?

    If a person can think him/herself straight but is really gay, is not also possible for a person to think him/herself gay but is actually straight?

    Yes. This is another good way of articulating this flaw with that kind of argument.

    And while i think the majority will agree that homosexuality is indeed determined on a biological level

    It's not safe to assume such things -- many, many people do not believe this. And as there is no conclusive, scientific proof verifying it (yes, there have been studies, but the scientific community is still very divided on the issue), it is not unreasonable for them to not believe so.

    Some have explained that most homophobics are men and thus hate the notion of accepting a "choosing" homosexual because of some subconscious fear that they may discover that they themselves are gay or because they find deliberately choosing sodomy so horrifying--and while this may be true in some cases, is it really this simple?

    Absolutely not. The issue is much more complicated than that -- and it is unfair, and making an unreasonable generalization, to say that this is the case.

    And there are plenty of women who do not feel that homosexuality is acceptable.

    i would like to hear from actual homophobics on the issue (i know some may not like to be called that because they find it derogatory but i really dont know what else to refer to them as)

    If you are denying a person the right to marriage based on their sexual orientation, sorry, you are in fact homophobic.

    People who do not believe that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior are not necessarily "homophobic". That is a loaded term, and carries much baggage with it.

    People can believe that the behavior is unacceptable and/or unnatural, but not be prejudiced against the people performing such behavior. Separating the person from th
  15. darth_calvin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2002
    star 4
    I believe you're missing the point of why that gay person, who thinks they are straight, believes so. Being straight doesn't carry the negative stigma that being gay does. There is good reason for a person to "deny" being gay. What reason is there to deny being straight?

    I feel that this is, again, convenient. We are talking about people, and how they feel about themselves. What they say to the world is something different. While it is possible to "fool yourself" into believing something about yourself . . . overall, I would say that this is not the case for the vast majority of people, about this issue.

    It?s certainly not convenient ? it?s a basic principle of psychology. How does society condition us to be gay? Are there parents out there pushing it on their kids? Are they tossing them into same sex roles from the moment of birth? No. American society is geared toward being straight. Conforming to society and one?s peers is a very human behavior ? especially during adolescence which, coincidently, is when sexuality emerges.


    A couple things relating to marriage, reproduction and the ?unnatural? argument.
    1. Marriage is not a requirement for reproduction. Families happened long before the institution of marriage was created. Marriage is an incentive for stability within a family unit.

    2. Anyone that argues homosexual acts are not natural must only engage in heterosexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction otherwise they are being hypocritical.


    Race is a genetic thing, something that is expressed in how someone looks, and who their ancestors were. Sexuality is expressed in behavior, and has not been proven to be genetic.

    Again, it comes down to a separation of the individual and their behavior.


    I need to point out the contradiction here. The case decided the right of a person?s choice to marry who they wanted. Choice is a behavior so your logic doesn?t quite work here.
  16. Sojourn Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2005
    star 2
    It?s certainly not convenient ? it?s a basic principle of psychology. How does society condition us to be gay? Are there parents out there pushing it on their kids?

    While this is a minor point, I would argue that certain people/groups/contexts in society do try and "convert" people to homosexuality. I know someone, for example, who has been accused many times of trying to encourage people to explore their homosexual urges -- and this person is straight, to boot.

    American society is geared toward being straight.

    As is every other nation.

    Conforming to society and one?s peers is a very human behavior ? especially during adolescence which, coincidently, is when sexuality emerges.

    Yes, but in a public context, not always a private one.

    My point in labelling the argument as "convenient" is that it essentially allows anything and everything to be explained away by virtue of the supposition that everyone's sexuality is an unknowable, potentially always-shifting, thing -- and that everyone is ignorant to their true selves. Being able to say that "oh, they were this at the time, but they just didn't know it" can only go so far. I think this gives less credit to people knowing themselves than they deserve.

    2. Anyone that argues homosexual acts are not natural must only engage in heterosexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction otherwise they are being hypocritical.

    This is not true, and is an unfair generalization. What makes homosexual sexual acts unnatural is the fact that the reproductive organs involved are not being used in the way that nature intended them to be. Just because something is done does not make it a natural behavior.

    The case decided the right of a person?s choice to marry who they wanted.

    No, it did not. It said that the law could not stop people from getting married on the basis of race:

    "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

    Take care,
    Sojourn
  17. darth_calvin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2002
    star 4
    Yes, but in a public context, not always a private one.

    Barring a very small handful of such cases, it is most often both. Considering that homosexuals make up, at most, ten percent of society and the numbers that are actually raising kids are much much lower, I'm not sure any private ones are actually significant in the purpose of this discussion.

    ...Being able to say that "oh, they were this at the time, but they just didn't know it" can only go so far. I think this gives less credit to people knowing themselves than they deserve.

    Except that it is often times true.

    This is not true, and is an unfair generalization. What makes homosexual sexual acts unnatural is the fact that the reproductive organs involved are not being used in the way that nature intended them to be. Just because something is done does not make it a natural behavior.

    I disagree. The very fact that reproductive organs (a loose term that really should be more defined) are designed to give pleasure means that they are not only for reproduction. However, if people are arguing that they are only for reproduction, then sex should never be used for the purposes of pleasure only because it goes against nature.



    No, it did not. It said that the law could not stop people from getting married on the basis of race:

    Yes, it was about choice. It wasn't about one race being able to marry and not another. All of these people already had a right to marry. It was about a person's right to marry someone from another race. This is a choice - behavior. You would be correct if the case argued that it was genetically built in for them to marry someone of another race.
  18. Sojourn Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2005
    star 2
    I'm not sure any private ones are actually significant in the purpose of this discussion.

    It is, though -- what you were talking about was conformation to society, and how therefore society shapes people's impressions of themselves (and therefore their sexuality). I am arguing that people may wear a mask in public, but that on the inside, I think they have a much better sense of who they are than you are giving them credit for.

    >> ...Being able to say that "oh, they were this at the time, but they just didn't know it" can only go so far. I think this gives less credit to people knowing themselves than they deserve.

    Except that it is often times true.


    You are making this assumption, though -- with this argument, you are saying that you know someone else's sexuality better than they do -- or at least that they cannot know it better than anyone else can. That nobody can ever be sure of anything relating to their sexuality, because it can randomly change, or at least the feelings surrounding it and being influenced by it can.

    The very fact that reproductive organs (a loose term that really should be more defined) are designed to give pleasure means that they are not only for reproduction.

    One could also argue that it naturally makes sense for reproduction to be pleasureable -- the love that creates the breeding grounds (no pun intended) for the child, and the fact that this is the ultimate physical pleasure for the human body . . . it encourages procreation, from an evolutionary point of view.

    However, if people are arguing that they are only for reproduction, then sex should never be used for the purposes of pleasure only because it goes against nature.

    That's not what I said. I did say, however, that the organs are designed to be used in a certain way, and are formed in such a way to receive each other -- in same-sex sexual acts, they are not being used in this way, and are therefore being used unnaturally.

    >> No, it did not. It said that the law could not stop people from getting married on the basis of race:

    Yes, it was about choice. It wasn't about one race being able to marry and not another. All of these people already had a right to marry. It was about a person's right to marry someone from another race. This is a choice - behavior. You would be correct if the case argued that it was genetically built in for them to marry someone of another race.


    I don't want to respond to this until I more fully understand what you are saying -- could you further explain this, please?

    Take care,
    Sojourn
  19. darth_calvin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2002
    star 4
    It is, though -- what you were talking about was conformation to society, and how therefore society shapes people's impressions of themselves (and therefore their sexuality). I am arguing that people may wear a mask in public, but that on the inside, I think they have a much better sense of who they are than you are giving them credit for.

    I was also talking about conformation to ones family and the expectations set up by them. Generally there is at least ten years of conditioning to the heterosexual lifestyle before their own sexual desires begin to emerge. To ignore the effect of that on a person?s ability to really know their sexuality is to ignore a significant influence during a person?s most crucial stages of development. It is conditioning. The Pavlov dog experiment is appropriate here.

    He rings a bell and gives the dog a treat.
    He continues to pair the bell with the treat over many trials.
    The dog begins to salivate when he hears the bell because he knows he?s going to get a treat.
    He rings the bell and the dog still salivates even though he doesn?t get a treat.
    The dog has become conditioned and the conditioning will continue for some time even though no treat is given.

    The behavior (salivating) will eventually fade without any treat reinforcement. (we could go in to intermittent reinforcement schedules, but I?m not sure we need to at this point.)

    The key is the fading of this behavior will be different in all dogs. Some will be faster, some slower. Some will not salivate one time then might the next. I don?t believe the switching of sexuality is as random as some suggest.

    It is possible to condition a person to believe or think something that contradicts their nature.

    You are making this assumption, though -- with this argument, you are saying that you know someone else's sexuality better than they do -- or at least that they cannot know it better than anyone else can. That nobody can ever be sure of anything relating to their sexuality, because it can randomly change, or at least the feelings surrounding it and being influenced by it can.

    This comes from experience. When I came out in college I joined a gay group. Eventually new members would come and they would all have the same story. ?I?m bisexual?. Sometime later (months, years) they would decide to define themselves as exclusively gay. It was easier for these people to accept and identify as being bisexual because at least then they still did the opposite sex like they were supposed to. There are some people that are straight that will participate in gay sex acts, but that is not the same as them turning gay then turning back to being straight.

    One could also argue that it naturally makes sense for reproduction to be pleasureable -- the love that creates the breeding grounds (no pun intended) for the child, and the fact that this is the ultimate physical pleasure for the human body . . . it encourages procreation, from an evolutionary point of view.

    Except that pleasure is not necessary for reproduction and that is demonstrated across different species. Instinct drives most species to reproduce. For example, most fish propagate their species without any physical contact at all and they are abundant. Why was pleasure added unnecessarily?

    That's not what I said. I did say, however, that the organs are designed to be used in a certain way, and are formed in such a way to receive each other -- in same-sex sexual acts, they are not being used in this way, and are therefore being used unnaturally.

    This is where I disagree. All too often people cite this without bringing it down to its basest argument. If the organs are designed to be stimulated pleasurably only for reproductive sex acts, then they should not be able to be stimulated pleasurably in any other situation. Also, the ?form? of the anus or mouth does accommodate the penis.

    I don't want to respond to this until I more fully understand what you are saying -- could you further explain this, please?

    Okay and tha
  20. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    It's not safe to assume such things -- many, many people do not believe this. And as there is no conclusive, scientific proof verifying it (yes, there have been studies, but the scientific community is still very divided on the issue), it is not unreasonable for them to not believe so.

    It actually is unreasonable. You are correct in that it is not 100% proven that homosexuality is genetic, however, it's strongly leaning that way, and there is virtually no evidence to support that homosexuality is a choice.

    Race is a genetic thing, something that is expressed in how someone looks, and who their ancestors were. Sexuality is expressed in behavior, and has not been proven to be genetic.

    Again, it comes down to a separation of the individual and their behavior.


    Though there is a vast amount of evidence that homosexualtiy is in fact genetic, let's say it's not for the sake of arguement. Still, homosexuality is definately not a choice, and even if we were to believe that other facters after birth play a role in determining whether someone is homosexuality, the person has not control whatsoever over those factors.

    So you cannot separate the individual and their behavior, as they have no control over the attractions and desires that inspire that behavior, just like no one has control over their race or skin color. So yes, you can absoltuely compare race and sexuality.

    Would people consider in unconstitutional if a person wanted to marry an animal? Bestiality appears to be considered wrong by many more people than homosexuality, and yet both are sexual behaviors that are unnatural, from a certain point of view. Why? Because they cannot yield offspring -- it goes against nature, and biology. In this sense (not in others), both bestiality and homosexuality are the same.

    Wrong. Homosexuality does not go against nature and biology at all. Homosexuality appears in all forms in the animal kindom. A mosquito can be gay. In fact, scientists have found a specific gene that triggers homosexualtiy in fruit flies. Hmm, insects being gay because of biology, doesn't sound like homosexuality being against nature or biology at all

    The fact that they can't yeild offspring is irrelevent to the fact that homosexual desires and undoubtly natural desires for some living things in nature.

    Also, humans and animals cannot be in a sexual relationship with each other. Animals cannot give consent to anything. So of course animals and humans cannot get married.

    Not true. Many, sources, especially religious, link the two.

    Yeah, that's just it - they're religious, they do not speak for the government's recongition of marriage. The government doesn't link procreation and marriage at all in that marriage is offered to any two people of the opposite sex who love each other, not just to those who want to have kids.

    If someone is looking at it from the viewpoint that marriage is an institution that leads to the biological furtherment of the species, then from that viewpoint, blind people are not allowed to drive because they cannot see, and homosexuals are not allowed to get married because they cannot bear children.

    Neither can sterile couples, but they're still allowed to get married.
  21. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    The fruit flies turned "gay" because they were unable to smell the difference between male and female flies. That's what I remember about it.
    Let's not forget the gay penguins! March of the Penguins - movie would have had a totally different brouhaha in the States if they'd shown a gay penguin couple.
  22. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    The fruit flies turned "gay" because they were unable to smell the difference between male and female flies. That's what I remember about it.

    Possibly. I just remember that the scientists were able to find a specific gene that caused the flies to turn out to be "gay" or not.
  23. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    Beateality is illegal because it is essentially rape and animal cruelty.

    Homosexual is between two consenting adults. Do people really equate homosexuality with beatialty? I give people too much credit sometimes.
  24. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Yes, people really do equate bestiality to homosexuality.
  25. Moriarte Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    star 5
    In regards to the fruit fly study, I believe the explanation(s) for what triggered the homosexuality was overpopulation within their environment under specific conditions such as lack of food. In essence, a survival mechanism.

    Immediately applying this to humanity and our environment...considering we were orginally a nomadic "people" and moved when food got scarce, having this as a survival mechanism doesn't really make sense. Hrm, then if one takes the theory of evolution into play, homosexuality would be counter-productive to the survival of the species.

    I think some researchin' is in order :D!


    Ciou-See the Sig