Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

[OmniscientOnus]

I think the question you are trying to ask is whether or not we believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married. Assuming this is so, here is my response:

Yes. This country is no longer Christian based. While I do not agree with them, many people are trying to make this a well known point by trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and "In God We Trust" from the currency. If our country is a non-biased, but essentially secular, one as we would like to believe, then we have no basis on which to ban homosexual marriage. We cannot call it unethical or immoral without grounds to stand on, and, frankly, I haven't seen any.

Whether it be nurture or nature, or a combination of the two, that makes a man or woman homosexual, I do not know. However, I do know that whatever the reasoning, a homosexual is a person just like everyone else and should be treated as such.

If someone can give a logical, well thought out, reasoning that falls within the legal rights and privileges handed out to us by our forefathers, then, and only then, will I stop and take a moment to reflect on said reasoning before I turn back and continue to march on, holding my sign high that reads: "Give guys like me a chance, let gays marry!" (for clarification, I am not gay, I am merely jesting about taking away men from the "competition" pool of dating and marriage by allowing them to marry each other... and yes, I understand that this clarification took away from any and all humor that may have actually existed in the statement I am referencing. And, yes, I know that statements like this are the reason I'd be holding that kind of sign in the first place )

 

[Howl]

~*sigh*~

I wish that a gay black man would just find a desolate island and create his own country so that the small portion of americans who are actually open minded, can be segregated from all the closed minded people in the world.

As much as a #@#52& hate to admit it, our country is being run by a cookaloo christian redneck. (E.g. Bush).

This is the kind of thing that causes America to be such a laughing stock.
Freedom this, freedom that...we're so outspoken about all the rights we have, but putting religion and politics together is like mixing oil and water.
Religion takes all of our said rights away...

 

[K_Unit]

look, if being gay was meant to be, then you wouldn't get a disease by being gay.

in my mind, the whole thing wouldn't be as blown up out of proportion as it is if homosexuals didn't demand to be married. nobody is going to stop them from doing what they want. marriage is a religious institution and it has always been. i blame the priests and pastors for being lax and marrying those who are not religious. the whole thing is pretty sad. in VEGAS they actually have drive up marriages. that is sick.

for those who are gay, they should be able to have a civil union, that way they can get all the tax incentives and what not. as much as i disagree with the whole thing, i can accept that.

as far as rights go, i am willing to debate anyone about who actually takes rights away, but unfortunately that is a different debate altogether.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

look, if being gay was meant to be, then you wouldn't get a disease by being gay.

This has to fall into one of the top ten most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. Being gay does not give you a disease. If you are referring to the AIDS epidemic, you must be very confused. HIV nor AIDS suddenly popped out of thin air just because two men decided that they were going to make love in a way that is generally seen as unconventional. If this were the case, how would you explain the thousands of cases of women who have HIV or AIDS? Neither HIV nor AIDS nor any other disease in the history of mankind has ever appeared as the result of homosexual acts, thoughts, ideas, opinions, or the like.

I do not know whether a specific religious group or sect indeed started the act we know of today as marriage, but, if it was started by a religious group than perhaps you are right. I in no way see fit for any group to impede on a religious groups ceremonies and traditions. In that case, a civil union would be to me, wholly acceptable.

 

[Howl]

...Did he really just say that? =x
~*sig*~

This is a prime example of an ignorant protest.

if being gay was meant to be, then you wouldn't get a disease by being gay

This is totally inaccurate.
First of all...women and straight men are liable to contract AIDS just as easily as gay men. Get your facts straight:

AIDS - Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Anyone...I repeat...ANYONE; any human being is succeptible to AIDS. Think of AIDS like a dormant volcano. Every human being is designed with the probability of contracting said virus.
AIDS, HIV, and STDs are commonly misregarded as being the same thing. The only truthful medium is that HIV (a deficiency virus) happens to be transmittable by sexual intercourse and/or the sharing of blood...
In this case...HIV is transmitted by fluid contact...And here's a little something I bet you didn't know, seeing as that you think only gay men contract aids: AIDS is transmitted through breast milk as well.
It's very common for mothers to transmit AIDS to their children during pregnancy...since AIDS is prone to stay dormant (in some cases for over a decade) some women don't even know that they've contracted the disease...

Statistics say that over 36 million people throughout the world carry the AIDS virus. Buddy, you could have AIDS and you wouldn't even know it...

 

[K_Unit]

ok, i retract my first statement, it was blunt and not thought out, sorry. (i would edit it out, but sometimes it is fun to have others laugh over your stupidity ) however, many reports i have read have reported that the first cases of HIV and AIDS found in the U.S. were amoung gay men in several cities. with the largest number of cases amoung gay men. however, this does not mean that that is where it orginated. there are theories of where but that doesn't amount to much.

despite that. i do not think gay marriage is overall healthy for a society. a society should be one that has two parents bringing up their children to be respectful to others and work hard to benefit the society as a whole. this is best accomplished by a man and a women getting married or what not, staying together and raising their kid together. you could argue that two gay people can adopt and raise a kid and that is fine.

i said earlier a couple of pages back, that i don't care what they do, they can have a field day as long as they aren't making out on a public bench.

EDIT: too bad i didn't get this post in before Rhea came back, she'd kick my butt everytime. oh well.

 

[Davey Gaga]

I wish, with all my heart, that I had been the first person to reply to that ludicrous statement.

however, many reports i have read have reported that the first cases of HIV and AIDS found in the U.S. were amoung gay men in several cities. with the largest number of cases amoung gay men. however, this does not mean that that is where it orginated. there are theories of where but that doesn't amount to much.

Let's use a hypothetical situation. Joseph is the first person to have contracted HIV. He doesn't know he has it. Joseph is a homosexual. Joseph has sex with his partner, Richard. Richard and Joseph split up; the two find other boyfriends, so on and so forth. Explain how woman contracted the said conditions/diseases. I digress; but the point stands that this statement "fact" came from someones backside. No pun intended.

i said earlier a couple of pages back, that i don't care what they do, they can have a field day as long as they aren't making out on a public bench.

Would you be all right seeing a heterosexual couple kissing on a park bench?

EDIT:
On a side note, I'd like to mention that I now admire OmniscientOnus xD

 

[Daenerys]

Do you know what i find funny about all this? all these people objecting to homosexual marriage mainly use 2 guys as there reasons why they dont like it - you know people Women can be gay and get married too - and for once it would be nice to hear your opinions on two women hooking up and getting married as opposed to all your thoughts on 2 men.

 

[Davey Gaga]

I've noticed that, too. The majority wrongly assume that being "gay" is specific to men, while being a "lesbian" refers to woman. It is for this reason that I chose "Homosexual Marriage" as the thread title.

 

[QuickSilverD]

Do you know what i find funny about all this? all these people objecting to homosexual marriage mainly use 2 guys as there reasons why they dont like it - you know people Women can be gay and get married too - and for once it would be nice to hear your opinions on two women hooking up and getting married as opposed to all your thoughts on 2 men.

I think that what you mean here is that a few posters here stated that they would dislike seeing two men kissing each other in a public place, this statement directly refers to “gay men” and not “lesbian women” but the reason for that is a little bit obvious, the people who said that were guys.

As men are naturally programmed to like women, no heterosexual man would have any problems watching two chicks licking each other, in fact many (if not all) men would enjoy that, however as we are heterosexual men, and we do not find the human male body attractive (except for our own maybe) we would find disgusting to see two guys doing something that should at least involve one woman, so that is the reasons you see more people attacking the male-male homosexual relationship, because they are men who are arguing that.

The reason why you don’t see many counter arguments like that against lesbian or female-female relationships is because I think most girls have no problem with homosexual marriage, after all they are a lot different from us.

I, do not agree with homosexuality as a whole, including the “gay” and the “lesbian”, but since I am a man, I don’t feel disgusted when I see two girls doing something they shouldn’t.

Hope this clear some doubts

I've noticed that, too. The majority wrongly assume that being "gay" is specific to men, while being a "lesbian" refers to woman. It is for this reason that I chose "Homosexual Marriage" as the thread title.

What do you mean by “wrongly” it is correct, gay are men who like men and “lesbians” are girls who like girls, you will never hear anyone calling a man a “lesbian” will you?

 

[Daenerys]

As men are naturally programmed to like women, no heterosexual man would have any problems watching two chicks licking each other, relationship, because they are men who are arguing that.


I, do not agree with homosexuality as a whole, including the “gay” and the “lesbian”, but since I am a man, I don’t feel disgusted when I see two girls doing something they shouldn’t.

Yet you have stated several times that Gay sex is an immoral act altogether, but that means you dont want men to be married and have sex with each other but you dont mind women having sex with each other?

How sexist of you.

 

[Howl]

QuickSilver,
I can't say this on account of all women, but as oppose to my male friends...I'm actually much more open minded when it comes to attractiveness...
Not all women think the same way, but...picture this...

Women don't spend 2+ hours making themselves look semi attractive in order to be sexually appealing for men. Most women are involved in some nonsensical effort to "outshine" other women...
Next time you go to the mall, or someplace flocking with beautiful women, take into account how many girls are checking other girls out...it's an envy issue...
The majority reason why a girl might protest lesbian marriage would be over a jealousy issue. Most girls, however, who don't protest, are probably level minded enough to see that the more lesbians there are, the less competition there is to swoon men. lol.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

As much as I'd really like to just blow up at some statements made here, I'll try and do my best to keep this civilized.

As men are naturally programmed to like women

Where do you get this idea? Have you solved the huge question of whether homosexuals are created by nurture or nature, or a combination thereof? If you have, I'd love to see the reports and documented proof that you have come up with.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but, there is no proof as to whether human beings are naturally supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex.

no heterosexual man would have any problems watching two chicks licking each other

For the record, I know a couple of guys who want nothing to do with watching two or more women engage in homosexual acts. While I, myself, do not understand how another man could not like it, it still stands as fact.

There, I think I stayed rather composed...

EDIT: QuickSilverD,

I failed to read through all of the posts when I first started posting my opinions in here because, well, I didn't want to read thirty-some odd pages of posts just to hear everyone's opinions. Because of this fact, I failed to notice that yourself and Riku have been having a little issue. As much as I like to debate about any issue with just about any person, I would like to request that you and I not start arguing over the above statements I have made regarding your post earlier on this page. With that being said, I will remove any chance of a further argument by not posting anymore responses to your posts in this particular thread. I'm not trying to ignore your opinions, but rather save you, me, and everyone else a big hassle. I look forward to debating with you about future topics, but gay marriage I think, is a topic we should steer clear of each other on.

 

[K_Unit]

@ OmniscientOnus: nature my friend, nature. if the majority of men weren't attracted to women, then we wouldn't be having people worrying about over population on earth, 6.3 billion people, this comes from men and women liking each other. definitely not from homosexuals.

@Riku: i don't want to see anyone making out on a parkbench.

really, i don't know about outside the U.S. but nowhere does it say that people have a right to get married. the constitution and its ammendments don't say you have the right to get married. and the bible doesn't give you that right either. so, when homosexuals talk about (or anyone for that matter) it being their right to get married. that is not true. one reason the government rewards those that get married is 1) the U.S. was founded on Christian principles and 2) it is seen as the best way to raise a family and bring up kids to be respectful

marriage is a convenant before God, saying that you will join with your partner for the rest of your life. since it is (or was) a religious ceremony, then i can't see how homosexuals can get married since the Bible is clear on the homosexual issue.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

@ OmniscientOnus: nature my friend, nature. if the majority of men weren't attracted to women, then we wouldn't be having people worrying about over population on earth, 6.3 billion people, this comes from men and women liking each other. definitely not from homosexuals.

Seeing as how this is about the nature vs. nurture issue of homosexuality and not about homosexual marriage itself, I suppose I wouldn't be taking back my word by responding to this statement.

You can "nature my friend, nature" myself, and everyone else for that matter, until you're blue in the face. Until you back it up with some solid scientific facts, we cannot rightfully claim it as fact. I agree, that most likely, by looking at the facts and creating an educated guess, nature plays the much larger, if not only, role in homosexuality. I do not, however, believe that we can use this as a logical basis for anything other than opinion. When you try and say that your opinion is based on a fact that isn't really a fact at all, you only allow your opinion to become that much more irrelevant.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the fact that the majority of people being sexually attracted to the opposite sex has absolutely nothing to do with how or why some people become/are homosexuals. Neither does the population increase.

 

[K_Unit]

I don't know how many times I have to say this but, there is no proof as to whether human beings are naturally supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex.

my nature comment was arguing this statement, not whether homosexuals are born that way or decide to be what they are. off topic: yes, but it was said

Until you back it up with some solid scientific facts, we cannot rightfully claim it as fact. I agree, that most likely, by looking at the facts and creating an educated guess, nature plays the much larger, if not only, role in homosexuality. I do not, however, believe that we can use this as a logical basis for anything other than opinion.

when talking about nature vs. nurture. we are in agreement.

 

[Howl]

"Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates."
-national geographic news-

Didn't you see this on the news?
It was the hot topic on national news for like a month...

I actually saw on the National Geo channel that some female monkeys find pleasure in rubbing their genitals together...

Bringing nature vs. nurture into the conversation is meaningless.
Unless you are a monkey/non human mamal (fluent in the english tongue), you really can't debate the issue...


Ever hear of people having orgies in ancient Rome? Apparently, it was okay to have homosexual relations...once upon a time...
I wholeheartedly agree that society nurtures heterosexuality as a part of social acceptance...

 

[QuickSilverD]

uhmp

Wow I didn’t thought that my statement would bring this many replies so quickly.

Yet you have stated several times that Gay sex is an immoral act altogether, but that means you dont want men to be married and have sex with each other but you dont mind women having sex with each other?

How sexist of you.

Oh no, no, no, I was not being sexist, this is how we men are, and I just say it didn’t disgust me as oppose as a male-male kiss, but I still hold my believe that homosexuality is ethically immoral and that gay or lesbians couples are not suitable to raise children.

uhmp, I think that my statement can still sound a little sexist, but I assure you is not, I respect women, but I also like them physically, I don’t think that I need to excuse myself for that

Where do you get this idea? Have you solved the huge question of whether homosexuals are created by nurture or nature, or a combination thereof? If you have, I'd love to see the reports and documented proof that you have come up with.

I don’t know why you are so angry man, I know you asked me not to reply but, you really are not going to negate natural attraction, this is biology 101, how can you say I don’t have proof of this, is like saying that there will be no dawn tomorrow because we can’t mathematically assure that nothing will happen to prevent it

I failed to read through all of the posts when I first started posting my opinions in here because, well, I didn't want to read thirty-some odd pages of posts just to hear everyone's opinions. Because of this fact, I failed to notice that yourself and Riku have been having a little issue. As much as I like to debate about any issue with just about any person, I would like to request that you and I not start arguing over the above statements I have made regarding your post earlier on this page. With that being said, I will remove any chance of a further argument by not posting anymore responses to your posts in this particular thread. I'm not trying to ignore your opinions, but rather save you, me, and everyone else a big hassle. I look forward to debating with you about future topics, but gay marriage I think, is a topic we should steer clear of each other on.

I had a problem with Riku and a few other people around here, I let myself carry away for this topic and did some posts that I am not proud of have done was sorry for and try make amends with them, now I’m cool with them I can guaranty you that I won’t lose it again.

I’ve been reading your posts, you seem like a very intelligent debater, do not fear to reply to a posts unless you fear that it is not necessary.

QuickSilver,
I can't say this on account of all women, but as oppose to my male friends...I'm actually much more open minded when it comes to attractiveness...
Not all women think the same way, but...picture this...

Women don't spend 2+ hours making themselves look semi attractive in order to be sexually appealing for men. Most women are involved in some nonsensical effort to "outshine" other women...
Next time you go to the mall, or someplace flocking with beautiful women, take into account how many girls are checking other girls out...it's an envy issue...
The majority reason why a girl might protest lesbian marriage would be over a jealousy issue. Most girls, however, who don't protest, are probably level minded enough to see that the more lesbians there are, the less competition there is to swoon men. lol.

Yes I think I heard something similar to this, and them we men are accuse of being competitive, but to your argument we could also say that having many gay men would reduce the competition for us straight men, and I’ve hear this argument from pro-gay straight men, like Michael Moore.


Maybe girls are just more sensitive than us, whatever the reason, I know that most girl aren’t against homosexuality

"Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates."
-national geographic news-

Didn't you see this on the news?
It was the hot topic on national news for like a month...

I actually saw on the National Geo channel that some female monkeys find pleasure in rubbing their genitals together...

Bringing nature vs. nurture into the conversation is meaningless.
Unless you are a monkey/non human mamal (fluent in the english tongue), you really can't debate the issue...

Ever hear of people having orgies in ancient Rome? Apparently, it was okay to have homosexual relations...once upon a time...
I wholeheartedly agree that society nurtures heterosexuality as a part of social acceptance...

I knew that “some” animals have show sings of homosexuality, I don’t have enough knowledge like to debate the why of it, all I can say is that some times abnormalities occur in living creatures, this does not means that this conduct is normal or “right”.

 

[OmniscientOnus]

I don’t know why you are so angry man, I know you asked me not to reply but, you really are not going to negate natural attraction, this is biology 101, how can you say I don’t have proof of this, is like saying that there will be no dawn tomorrow because we can’t mathematically assure that nothing will happen to prevent it

I know I can often come off as the kind of guy who insists that nothing can be fact because, for all we know, something could happen tomorrow that would tear apart our entire understanding of the universe. I don't mean to be come off that way, that is just counter-productive. On the other hand, I think that it is important that we always keep that idea in the back of our minds. If we begin to rely to heavily on any one single truth, the moment we discover that that truth was not true, we lose unmeasurable amounts of time rediscovering the world around us.

With that being said, I still stick to my point of homosexuality's cause being unknown. Homosexuality is a fairly new topic up for debate. Man has been around for a long time now, and we have no idea whether or not we used to always go for ONLY the opposite sex. Sure, we can pretty much assure that the attraction for the opposite sex has been there, but how can we be sure that the attraction for the same sex isn't something that has distinguished only recently. Perhaps, naturally we are born with an attraction to all other human beings (and maybe even more than that) and the world of heterosexuals around us are feeding us by example that men/women relationships are the only option.

With more and more homosexuals coming "out of the closet", so to speak, we are also noticing an increase in homosexuality in people of a younger age. Some have called called it a "social trend" even. There is evidence out there to support that being fed images and ideas that homosexuality is something that is tolerated, may be why we are seeing more of them.

In other words, humans could possibly be born with a sexual attraction to both males and females, but because homosexuals were not openly around, many people were affected by the world around them and conformed unknowingly to heterosexuality. Now that being a homosexual is being considered more and more acceptable, more and more people are homosexual. Being bisexual, on the other hand, is the new homosexual, and could explain why most people seem to be one or the other.

That provides secure basis on how it may be possible as to why humans may be born without a natural attraction for the opposite sex.

No, it doesn't prove anything, but it does create a logical, and reasonable, argument against natural tendencies toward the opposite sex. While the argument may be proven wrong in later years, we cannot say either way at the moment.


On a lighter, yet related note, as Ron White once said:
(in reference to watching pornography, a conversation between one man and another)

"Well do you like the guy to have a limp dick?"

"Hell no! I like big, hard, throbbing... I did not know that about myself."

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Here's my personal take on it:

Allowing gay marriage isn't going to turn me homo, it isn't going to cause a mass exodus of heteros to head to the homo camp, and it can be used as a bargaining chip for center-rights and conservatives when dealing with center-lefts and liberals, and it allows two people who love each other to get a piece of paper insuring their allegiance and spend a ton of money on a ceremony that won't mean anything in five years (statistically speaking). It's a win-win all the way around (even if marriage started as a religious institution, it's not held in sacred regard anymore - why bother in holding strong on this front?), especially if the marriage tax is readministered, which should happen as soon as Bush is out of office (I disagree with the tax, but not in this context). The only con to allowing gay marriage is the following: how should marriage be defined? I'm of the opinion that marriage should be written in a fashion that does not give polygamists, adult/child relationships and nuts who want to marry animals a leg to stand on in their quest to get their beliefs accepted in the mainstream of society.