Government Laws on Marriage

[A Can of Man]

Hang on so if gay marriage becomes legal, then will polygamy also be legalized? At least that one creates children (assuming it's heterosexual).

 

[mmarsh]

Hang on so if gay marriage becomes legal, then will polygamy also be legalized? At least that one creates children (assuming it's heterosexual).

No, because polygamy IS a choice, whereas homosexuality is not.

I am not an expert, but my feeling is IF it can be proven that polygamy has no negative impact on society and that all participates are in agreement, and of age, then there is no reason NOT to allow it, and in fact it is legal in many parts of the world.

Again, there is no justification to ban something simply because we dislike it. There has no be an actual impact on society. If polygamy can be proven to be harmful to society than I would consider a ban.

Personally, one wife is more than enough. I don't think I could cope with two.

 

[senojekips]

What about recognition of bestiality with animals that don't object?

 

[The Other Guy]

What about recognition of bestiality with animals that don't object?

If the animal is screwing you, I see nothing wrong.

 

[Chukpike]

Chupike
Thats where you are wrong. It is a civil right. One doesn't choose to be gay one is born gay in the same manner one is born black, asian, or with blue eyes and blond hair. If being gay were really a 'choice' who want to choose it? Nobody. Because nobody would volunteraly put themselves to be ostracized by the rest of society.

Sources please. You say they are born that way, prove it. Otherwise your statement is worthless. I will give you a hint: in researching this myself I found that a percentage of people could possibly be born gay. It is nowhere near the percentage of people the Gay and Lesbian movement claim. But you made the claim so prove it. You know, put up or shut up.

Science has proven time and again being gay is genetic. And as long as someone is born in a particular way you cannot deny them any right that is enjoyed by other members of society, no matter what your personal or religious views are.

Once again Dr. Spock put up or shut up.

there is no argument other[/b] than religious or moral to banning gay marriage. And those who quote scripture as a justification ought to read a few more passages in the bible because I am sure we are all guilty of something.

I love it when someone says, "there is no argument other" and then lists two very good reasons why people would want to ban gay marriage.

Either because of there Faith or their moral beliefs. One is all I need.

I was born in 1951 and through the 60's on up to present have fully supported equal rights for minorities and women's rights. I know what the problems were and still are and gay preference do not meet the criteria.

I give you a little to think about. May seem small but think about it.

If you are a Netflix customer Go to Netflix and click on genres:

You will find a gay and lesbian category
You won't find Black/African
or Hispanic/Mexican or Latin.

Electing Barack Obama as president was just one more barrier removed it is not the end of the struggle.

And you still haven't explained to me how the majority of the people in a liberal state like California passed a gay marriage ban. It would not have happened if Californians actually believed it was a rights issue.

 

[The Other Guy]

I love it when someone says, "there is no argument other" and then lists two very good reasons why people would want to ban gay marriage.

Look mom, a misquote!

He's not saying there is no other argument, he says there is no argument other than ones that are easily nullified by the government, as in Seperation of Church and State. You can think that drinking is morally or religiously wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that other people may feel differently. It's legal. As long as it is a peaceful situation this rule applies for all things.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Simply because you still refuse to admit the truth. It is wholly a legal state, and religious and personal obligations are purely up to the individual and have no influence whatsoever except to those concerned.

purely up to the individual and have no influence whatsoever except to those concerned.


Guess what... You just proved my point. Except that it's the legal state too, because the legal state, as is the general consensus by everyone BUT you, is that the state should not have been involved in the first place. Face the music Seno, calling me wrong doesn't make you right... This world is turning towards more acceptance. Get used to it... Ask some of our foreign members. You can either hop on the train or get left at the station. Fighting tooth and nail to the bitter end won't get you anywhere in the long run, and since you don't believe in any afterlife, you're pretty much screwed after that. Godspeed. Or rather... Not.

 

[senojekips]

Proved your point, I proved exactly what i intended, that it is purely a "legal" state.

It is wholly a legal state, and ONLY religious and personal obligations are purely up to the individual and have no influence whatsoever except to those concerned.

I have asked you on several occasions to show me any occasion when marriage is not regulated and administered by law, and have been able to. I can easily show you occasions when religion, or ever personal choice has no part.

 

[pixiedustboo]

I picked a few. I am against gay marriage.



I'm not sure how I feel about marriage destroying family values. I know that I would want to bring my children up with the idea that a family is a mommy and a daddy. I would also want to bring my child up to respect other people's choices, but at the same time, I don't want them confused about the family structure. Homosexuality isn't the norm and it shouldn't be treated as such. (Though nor should it be ridiculed or put "back in the closet").



Regarding the option that said government shouldn't be involved with gay marriage (thus legalizing it);

Giving gays the right to marriage is opening the flood gates (in my opinion) to many other things. When does the rule changing stop? Who is going to draw the line and say, "this is healthy and good, but this is not, we have to stop it." After legalizing gay marriage perhaps bigamy will be next. How many people will be allowed in group marriages? You can't stop at 3, maybe there is a group that wants to wed with 7. Or 12. Then maybe a few years down the line parents will think their children have the right to consent to sex and marriage before the age of 16 or 17. (The majority in most states I believe). If the age is taken down how far will it be allowed? 15? Or maybe 13 or ealier, because that is the age many kids are going through puberty, thus making them an "adult." Who will stand up and finally say "no?" Will we even remember that sometimes saying no is a good thing even if everyone isn't happy?

Granted, we aren't talking about bigamy and child's rights. We are talking about gay rights and them wanting equality.

With that equality comes a lot of change, some of it we've already seen. I wonder how this world will change when all of the books in schools are not allowed to say "mommy and daddy" because that phrase becomes offensive. I wonder when teens will start to get beat up by classmates because they are proudly hetrosexual. I wonder how many more gender confused teens and young adults there will be.

And I wonder how many straight men and women who are looking for traditional gender values will have a hard-f***ing-time finding a partner....



Honestly, I don't think homosexuality is such a big deal. I'm against marriage because that is my belief, but just viewing them as people...they are just like everyone else. They should be treated as everyone else if they aren't making a joke out of themselves. (i.e. Being obnoxious about their sexuality). I don't run through the streets screaming I'm straight, wearing straight pins and leaving my MySpace status on "I'm totally have straight sex with male boyfriend tonight." (I have seen several statuses like this from gay friends).



As for this being the new civil rights movement...perhaps some view it that way. I know a lot more good than bad came out of the civil rights movement, but we still carry the burden of the bad as a soceity today. I wonder how much bad we'll carry in this new 'civil rights' movement.

 

[Padre]

No, because polygamy IS a choice, whereas homosexuality is not.

I am not an expert, but my feeling is IF it can be proven that polygamy has no negative impact on society and that all participates are in agreement, and of age, then there is no reason NOT to allow it, and in fact it is legal in many parts of the world.

Again, there is no justification to ban something simply because we dislike it. There has no be an actual impact on society. If polygamy can be proven to be harmful to society than I would consider a ban.

Personally, one wife is more than enough. I don't think I could cope with two.

mMarsh, for a liberal, you are a bit narrow minded.

Pleny of polygamists and "animal-lovers" (as in beastiality) would argue that they were born with their psycho-sexual / relationship preferences, and that if you are going to recognise gay-marriages as marriages, then why not a man with six wives simultaneously, or a man with a horse?

I oppose polygamy, marriages between species (eg human and animal) and marriages between an adult and a child. But if you sanction one you have to sanction the others. I don't need the Bible to tell me that, I just need human reason and Natural Law.

mMarsh, what is your answer to a person who says that if you mMarsh support gay mariage why not show support for my birth condition and civil rights as a person with the need and desire (from birth) to have more than one life/sex partner at the same time (what Judao-Christians call adultery or polygamy, but what many Muslims and old-time Mormons call marriage). I realise I think you seem to support polygamy so obviously you are not a Christian.

And mMarsh, what do you say to a guy who wants to marry his dog or horse (which has happened by the way) and argues that since you support gay-marriage (and also polygamy it seems from your earlier post), why not support his inter-species marriage (may be you do or would?) If you argue against him, he can throw back at you all the arguments gays are now using to win recognition of their kind of love / preferece enshrined not only in law (civil unions) but in sacrament (marriages)? You can also apply this to a guy who wants to marry an 8 year old girl (or boy for that matter).

Don't you see? If you allow one deviation from a thousands years old tradition you can't stop other deviations. But then again maybe you do endorse every kind of "marriage?"

I base the above on LOGIC and NATURAL LAW and HUMAN REASON as a universal human language because the Bible can only go so far as an authoritive source for human conduct and behaviour - usually with Bible believing Christians.

Lots of liberal Californian Democrats voted to over-turn Californian court approved gay marriages and ban them, not because of any Bible teachings or teachings from Jesus (marriage is between one man and one woman only), but because of the "flood-gate" effect and the future consequences down the track.

 

[MontyB]

What about recognition of bestiality with animals that don't object?

Well there is a nice little loophole in the bestiality argument, a relationship can only be formed between consenting couples and I imagine it would be impossible to verify the consent of an animal.

 

[Padre]

Well there is a nice little loophole in the bestiality argument, a relationship can only be formed between consenting couples and I imagine it would be impossible to verify the consent of an animal.

Not a loophole in Boston or parts of California.

The judges there would say that after the human says to the dog "will you marry me" and the dog licks its Master (and spouse-to-be) and wags its tail that in Boston and parts of California would consititute CONSENT

 

[senojekips]

I'll settle for non objecting, if that will make you happy Monty.

 

[mmarsh]

Chukpike
Frankly I'm surprised you asked me for sources on something so basic. There have been lots of studies done on this including one that was published last month. You could have very easily "Googled" this yourself as it only took about a minute. But I'll indulge you...this time. Next time do your own research. I have included 5 sources and my conclusion is now Scientists are no longer asking if its genetic but are rather trying to discover which gene homosexuality is coming from. But based on the evidence, which is overwhelming, I think we can close this book.

Source 1

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1767311,00.html

The evidence
Let me give attention to only two scientific studies. There are hundreds of others readers can easily find on the internet.
It is outrageous that the results of two laboratory studies, published as far back as 1991 and 1993 in Science, are still ignored by religious fanatics. Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science, Vol 253, No 5023 (August 30, 1991), pp 1034-1037, and Dean Hamer et al, Science, Vol 261 (1993), pp 321-327 have come to conclusions that clearly show a biological link in the sexual orientation of people.

Source 2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

Source 3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Source 4

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html

Source 5

http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/555034.html

 

[Rob Henderson]

Proved your point, I proved exactly what i intended, that it is purely a "legal" state.

And that it is also purely up to the individual. It should not only be the religious obligations, but the legal obligations as well. The law should NOT interfere in a couple's lives as far as who they choose to marry. Just like you believe religion should play no part (I say should, because some people DO believe that religion plays a part.); I believe that the law should play no part.

I have asked you on several occasions to show me any occasion when marriage is not regulated and administered by law, and have been able to. I can easily show you occasions when religion, or ever personal choice has no part.

I'll take it you mean I have NOT been able to? I'm not saying marriage ISN'T regulated by the law... I never once said that. What I'm arguing is that it SHOULDN'T be regulated by the law, at least when it comes to the two people who are getting married. That particular aspect should not be up to the government, it should be up to the people getting married. My other point is that these people deserve to be married. They are not only getting married because of the benefits of a legal couple. How can we allow two people who hate each other to be married, then divorce, but not allow two other people who honestly love each other to get married? I don't get it.




Mmarsh, I've given him a source as to where homosexuality isn't a choice... I suppose 5 sources are better than 1. LOL

 

[Chukpike]

Sources please. You say they are born that way, prove it. Otherwise your statement is worthless. I will give you a hint: in researching this myself I found that a percentage of people could possibly be born gay. It is nowhere near the percentage of people the Gay and Lesbian movement claim. But you made the claim so prove it.

Chukpike
Frankly I'm surprised you asked me for sources on something so basic. There have been lots of studies done on this including one that was published last month. You could have very easily "Googled" this yourself as it only took about a minute. But I'll indulge you...this time. Next time do your own research. I have included 5 sources and my conclusion is now Scientists are no longer asking if its genetic but are rather trying to discover which gene homosexuality is coming from. But based on the evidence, which is overwhelming, I think we can close this book.

When I asked for proof I acknowledge that a percentage could be born gay. I had done research. You contended that Gay's and Lesbians are all born homosexual. None of your sources prove your contention.
This is your proof?

Source 1
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1767311,00.html
The evidence
Let me give attention to only two scientific studies. There are hundreds of others readers can easily find on the internet.
It is outrageous that the results of two laboratory studies, published as far back as 1991 and 1993 in Science, are still ignored by religious fanatics. Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science, Vol 253, No 5023 (August 30, 1991), pp 1034-1037, and Dean Hamer et al, Science, Vol 261 (1993), pp 321-327 have come to conclusions that clearly show a biological link in the sexual orientation of people.

"LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California, conducted autopsies on 19 gay men, 16 straight men, and 6 heterosexual women at 7 hospitals in New York and California."

19 gay men and 16 hetero sexual is a definitive study?

The National Cancer Institute study lead by Hamer, a Harvard trained geneticist, looked at 40 families with two gay brothers. Hamer and his team found evidence in 33 of the pairs for a genetically maternal influence in the determination of male homosexuality."

33 out of 40 sets of gay brothers were linked to genetic influence. This would translate into about 75% of gays being born gay. Meaning 25% of gays being gay by choice.

Source 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

"A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain. When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.
The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth."

90 subjects both gay and hetero and they only conclude "another mechanism" besides "learned" sexual orientation.

Source 3
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

"Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.
US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.
Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice,"

This study is not completed yet and so does not prove anything.

Source 4
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html

"The next step for the researchers is to locate the precise gene or genes involved and attempt to determine their biochemical effects. Will finding such "gay genes" rule out the idea that social and psychological influences can have a significant effect on a man's sexual preference? "Absolutely not," declares molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, who headed both the 1993 investigation and the new one. "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors."

Dean Hamer, this is the same researcher in your 1st source.

Source 5
http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/555034.html

"Women may have more fluidity of sexual expression than men, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a specific sexual orientation, said Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah who studies female sexual orientation.
One explanation is that women’s sexual behavior is driven more by relationships."

The sources you use that mentions Lesbians, makes no conclusion of determination being before birth.

The information in qoutes under each source came directly from mmarsh sources.

In short you have not proved anything. All your sources give the possibility that male homosexuals might be born gay. As far as women being born homosexual, I give you an F on your research.

As suggested in my post I acknowledge some portion of the homosexual might be born gay. But from the research I have done the percentage of homosexuals born gay would be far below those that choose to be homosexual. Some of my research appears to be the same sources as mmarsh.
A word of warning to anyone clicking on mmarshs sources, my security software gave me a warning on his first source.

 

[The Other Guy]

33 out of 40 sets of gay brothers were linked to genetic influence. This would translate into about 75% of gays being born gay. Meaning 25% of gays being gay by choice.

Which gives out the majority you are so in love with.

 

[pixiedustboo]

I think some people chose to be gay and some people just are.

Who really cares either way? If they aren't jumping on the fence all of the time ("wait, I'm gay, wait no I'm straight, wait no, I'm bisexual") and they are really trying to find a loving partner for life...then who really cares if they are born with it or they just "choose" it.

 

[The Other Guy]

I think some people chose to be gay and some people just are.

Who really cares either way? If they aren't jumping on the fence all of the time ("wait, I'm gay, wait no I'm straight, wait no, I'm bisexual") and they are really trying to find a loving partner for life...then who really cares if they are born with it or they just "choose" it.

Thank you, pixie, I needed to hear someone with logic. :smile:

 

[Rob Henderson]

As TOG already said... All the given sources give you that precious majority that seems to be your golden calf of worship.