Gay Marriage

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Not all pairs of consenting adults are allowed to marry. The law distinguishes based on the type of relationship they have. Some types of relationships the culture chooses not to legally sanction. They are free to make this decision about homosexuality.

That comparison is really making my head hurt.On the one hand, you have the idea that if the relationship is consensual, two adults should be allowed to get married; whether they be brother and sister, man and woman, or man and man, it makes no difference.But brother and sister come with certain stipulations. It would be irresponsible of them to have children. So would a government that allowed them to marry be forced to ensure that they didnt procreate? Would the government have to stipulate that they be sterilized? I would certainly be against that. Brother and sister getting married is different than gay marriage. Gay marriage is different than homosexual marriage. But in gay marriage and hetero marriage, there isnt a known genetic danger for any children. I honestly dont know how I feel on this one.I guess I'd say that gay marriage should be allowed, but incestual marriage shouldnt.

[timwakefield 68]

That comparison is really making my head hurt.

I think you're missing vb's point. Unless I am also missing his point, he is saying that the government makes laws about whether or not 2 consenting adults can marry. Therefore there is precedence for them to make laws allowing or disallowing gay marriage.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I think you're missing vb's point. Unless I am also missing his point, he is saying that the government makes laws about whether or not 2 consenting adults can marry. Therefore there is precedence for them to make laws allowing or disallowing gay marriage.

Yeah, I got that. But just because there is precedent doesnt mean its right.

[vbnautilus 48]

That comparison is really making my head hurt.On the one hand, you have the idea that if the relationship is consensual, two adults should be allowed to get married; whether they be brother and sister, man and woman, or man and man, it makes no difference.But brother and sister come with certain stipulations. It would be irresponsible of them to have children. So would a government that allowed them to marry be forced to ensure that they didnt procreate? Would the government have to stipulate that they be sterilized? I would certainly be against that. Brother and sister getting married is different than gay marriage. Gay marriage is different than homosexual marriage. But in gay marriage and hetero marriage, there isnt a known genetic danger for any children. I honestly dont know how I feel on this one.I guess I'd say that gay marriage should be allowed, but incestual marriage shouldnt.

Many people feel that there are psychological consequences for the children of gay parents. But what do you mean by "gay marriage is different than homosexual marriage" or is that just a typo?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Many people feel that there are psychological consequences for the children of gay parents. But what do you mean by "gay marriage is different than homosexual marriage" or is that just a typo?

I would say the psychological consequences can be outweighed by the love and support of two good parents. IF the child is raised properly, those "consequences" could become positives. Yeah, that was typo. Supposed to be heterosexual.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Let gays marry. Who does it really hurt? Only homophobes, fuck them.

[vbnautilus 48]

I would say the psychological consequences can be outweighed by the love and support of two good parents. IF the child is raised properly, those "consequences" could become positives. Yeah, that was typo. Supposed to be heterosexual.

I tend to agree. However, I think a lot of this discussion depends on what we think homosexuality and what its origins are. Im not sure I want to get into it here, but if you believe that sexual orientation is fixed at birth due to genetic factors then it makes sense to see the opposition to gay marriage as unfair discrimination. I happen to think the whole phenomenon is much more complex than that, and the social, environmental, and cultural factors also play a role. So I think it's hard to predict what this kind of cultural feedback loop is going to lead to in terms of changing gender roles and sexual behaviors in the long run. On the one hand, humanity has handled a lot of changes before and we will eventually adapt to anything, but I do feel like we are making these decisions from a position of almost total ignorance about what we are dealing with. The other thing is that we are so sensitive (perhaps rightly so) to the bad treatment gays have received that any position which isn't totally embracing of the whole gay phenomenon is quickly labeled as "homophobic" or "prejudiced", when in fact there is a lot of room for reasonable in-between positions on this issue that aren't driven by hatred or fear.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Im not sure I want to get into it here, but if you believe that sexual orientation is fixed at birth due to genetic factors then it makes sense to see the opposition to gay marriage as unfair discrimination. I happen to think the whole phenomenon is much more complex than that, and the social, environmental, and cultural factors also play a role.

The most compelling arguments I've heard about the origins of homosexuality are biological. One theory I heard was an overexposure of an opposite sex hormone to the brain of a fetus that works to "feminize" a male brain and "masculinize" a female brain. Another focused on analyses of brain structures that found certain parts of the brain to be different sizes in homosexuals than heterosexuals. Unfortunately I didnt pay attenion as closely as I should have and my understanding is limited. But those concepts make sense to me. I would say social factors are not significantly relevant to origins of homosexuality.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

OK, how about a brother and a sister? Consensual adults, should they be allowed to get married? ( or how about a father and adult daughter? )

Sure, what do I care? What should the government care? Do you think that the law is the only thing holding people back from marrying their brothers? Do you think that we're on the brink of going down in a blaze of inborn freaks and the government saying, "no" is the only thing preventing total marital chaos?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Sure, what do I care? What should the government care? Do you think that the law is the only thing holding people back from marrying their brothers? Do you think that we're on the brink of going down in a blaze of inborn freaks and the government saying, "no" is the only thing preventing total marital chaos?

Yeah, I cant see to many brothers and sisters lining up to get married if it was legal. But I dont think vb believes that. I think he's devil advocating.

[vbnautilus 48]

The most compelling arguments I've heard about the origins of homosexuality are biological. One theory I heard was an overexposure of an opposite sex hormone to the brain of a fetus that works to "feminize" a male brain and "masculinize" a female brain. Another focused on analyses of brain structures that found certain parts of the brain to be different sizes in homosexuals than heterosexuals. Unfortunately I didnt pay attenion as closely as I should have and my understanding is limited. But those concepts make sense to me. I would say social factors are not significantly relevant to origins of homosexuality.

The evidence for these things is very slim. The science of understanding sexual orientation is basically in its infancy. One of the issues is that at some point some members of they gay community felt that it would be to their advantage if homosexuality were seen as a biologically determined trait, and there were pressures exerted to view it this way regardless of the science. In the 90s a gay neuroscientist did a study on differences in the hypothalamus in the brains of gay people which was heralded by the media as proof that "being gay was not a choice". Might be hat you are referring to. The study of course showed nothing of the sort (the human brain is plastic and can change with experience, which its author is quick to point out), and the methodology is widely regarded to be faulty and hasn't been replicated (e.g. the sample size was very small and all of the gay men in the studied had died of AIDS, which affects the brain and hormones). I am sure that hormones play a role, and there is some evidence of this. However, hormones can also have effects on the brain throughout the lifespan and can fluctuate based on behavior. (For example, working out increases testosterone production). I think the most revealing line of evidence comes from twin studies. Identical twins have a concordance rate for homosexuality of about 50%. That means that even with identical genes and an identical pre-natal environment, knowing that one is gay it is still a coinflip as to whether the other will be gay. This pretty much proves that there are post-natal factor and that they are important (experience & choices play a role). I think we will find that a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, social, and experiential factors play a role.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I think we will find that a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, social, and experiential factors play a role.

You are right. And that study was the one I was referring to. Or at least I think so, one of my professors mentioned something like that.

[timwakefield 68]

Sure, what do I care? What should the government care? Do you think that the law is the only thing holding people back from marrying their brothers? Do you think that we're on the brink of going down in a blaze of inborn freaks and the government saying, "no" is the only thing preventing total marital chaos?

No but I'll marry your sister (if she's hot)!Probably if she's not very hot too just so I can zing you real good by actually marrying her. In this latter scenario though divorce may be on the horizon.

[over-it 0]

All right, you guys are at least trying to dissect this with an open mind, and I respect that. That said, you're all missing the point (which was stated in my previous post, which everyone seemed to ignore). First off, it is almost universally believed within the scientific community that homosexuality is genetic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is trusting the wrong sources. (I say 'almost universally' because anyone in the psychology field knows that nothing can be proven as absolute fact. That's one of the first things you are taught) Literally all evidence we have points to it being genetic, meaning zero evidence to the contrary. Second, there are homosexuals in EVERY walk of life. Every profession, sports, military, medical, hospitality, law enforcement, music, etc..., has homosexuals in it. I consider that to be pretty definitive evidence that IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SOMEONE IS GAY, regardless of situation or context. Lastly, anyone who thinks that having gay parents will have a negative psychological impact on the child isn't looking at this conversation objectively. Obviously it will have a psychological impact. Having two straight parents will have a psychological impact on a child. Ever hear of a broken home? Divorce? Abuse? Sheltering? Spoiling? IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THE PARENTS ARE GAY OR STRAIGHT. Do you think that having gay parents will influence the child to be gay? Get real. I don't think in the history of dating that anyone has ever listened to their parents about whom to date.As someone else here said: Why would anyone possibly care if two gay people get married?

[timwakefield 68]

^^^^ What he said.I would also like to reiterate my question about whether those opposed to "gay marriage" but in favor of "civil unions" would be opposed to "gay merriage," and if yes, how many letters must be changed in order for it to be acceptable?

[vbnautilus 48]

All right, you guys are at least trying to dissect this with an open mind, and I respect that. That said, you're all missing the point (which was stated in my previous post, which everyone seemed to ignore). First off, it is almost universally believed within the scientific community that homosexuality is genetic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is trusting the wrong sources. (I say 'almost universally' because anyone in the psychology field knows that nothing can be proven as absolute fact. That's one of the first things you are taught) Literally all evidence we have points to it being genetic, meaning zero evidence to the contrar

This is extraordinarily incorrect. There is no consensus on this issue in the scientific community. Very few of the studies that have looked for genetic linkages have found them. The influence that is often found is a weak association in maternal lines. The twin studies prove that its not genetically determined.

Second, there are homosexuals in EVERY walk of life. Every profession, sports, military, medical, hospitality, law enforcement, music, etc..., has homosexuals in it.

This is entirely irrelevant.

Lastly, anyone who thinks that having gay parents will have a negative psychological impact on the child isn't looking at this conversation objectively. Obviously it will have a psychological impact. Having two straight parents will have a psychological impact on a child. Ever hear of a broken home? Divorce? Abuse? Sheltering? Spoiling?

Your logic is unclear. So you are saying it does have an impact but that we should ignore it?

Do you think that having gay parents will influence the child to be gay?

No. That's not the claim. And the evidence suggests there is not an effect on a child's sexuality.

[ktjb23 0]

All right, you guys are at least trying to dissect this with an open mind, and I respect that. That said, you're all missing the point (which was stated in my previous post, which everyone seemed to ignore). First off, it is almost universally believed within the scientific community that homosexuality is genetic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is trusting the wrong sources. (I say 'almost universally' because anyone in the psychology field knows that nothing can be proven as absolute fact. That's one of the first things you are taught) Literally all evidence we have points to it being genetic, meaning zero evidence to the contrary. Second, there are homosexuals in EVERY walk of life. Every profession, sports, military, medical, hospitality, law enforcement, music, etc..., has homosexuals in it. I consider that to be pretty definitive evidence that IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SOMEONE IS GAY, regardless of situation or context. Lastly, anyone who thinks that having gay parents will have a negative psychological impact on the child isn't looking at this conversation objectively. Obviously it will have a psychological impact. Having two straight parents will have a psychological impact on a child. Ever hear of a broken home? Divorce? Abuse? Sheltering? Spoiling? IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THE PARENTS ARE GAY OR STRAIGHT. Do you think that having gay parents will influence the child to be gay? Get real. I don't think in the history of dating that anyone has ever listened to their parents about whom to date.As someone else here said: Why would anyone possibly care if two gay people get married?

As Mr VB said, this is entirely incorrect. Can you show this evidence please? Are you gay? Are you parents gay? Are your grandparents gay?The thing is, youre almost painting this in a light that having gay parents means that there will be no abuse, divorce etc, that is not the case. It is, of course healthier for a child to have a 'normal' stable family environment, and whoever can provide that, to me is quite irrelevant.You capitilise a lot of that last paragraph...I know it doesn't matter if someone is gay, most people do, but, you have to remember this is a very very very new concept to society, it will not change overnight. The US military is still stuck in the dark agee with the 'dont ask, dont tell' policy.

[mcgroover 0]

I would also like to reiterate my question about whether those opposed to "gay marriage" but in favor of "civil unions" would be opposed to "gay merriage," and if yes, how many letters must be changed in order for it to be acceptable?

I think the point is not to change the word to make everyone suddenly agree that it is now ok for gay people to be together. I think the point is that by calling it a civil union (and yes even merriage), it separates it from the links to the church that has its own "rules" (and will save debate since some people think this offends God).Even though marriage has started as a religious ceremony, it has now become something also done by people with nothing to do with religion, hence by calling it something other than marriage, it will define it as non-religious event.I think another important point is that if it is called a civil union (or merriage) it is applicable to gay or straight couples and is not defined by who is getting married, but is a union of two people separated from any religous attachment. The word 'Marriage' can be kept for people getting married in a religous ceremony and civil union can be for all people getting 'merried' by the state. I know it seems like petty semantics but a lot of people may not mind gay people having a civil union with the state as long as they don't break God's "rules" of marriage.

[vbnautilus 48]

Even though marriage has started as a religious ceremony, it has now become something also done by people with nothing to do with religion, hence by calling it something other than marriage, it will define it as non-religious event.

Actually I think it started as a civil thing. The Greeks and Romans married, and it wasn't a religious issue for them.

[KramitDaToad 0]

All we are saying is, damnit, leave us this. It's been between a man and a woman since forever, it's our dichotomy. ****ing get your own.

Complete and utter rubbish. What bit don't you understand? It's not yours. It doesn't belong to Christians.Romans were performing marriages, including gay marriages before Christianinty even existed. Asian & other European cultures likewiseIt was Christianity with it's homophobic teachings that came along and 'took it away' from gays.

[timwakefield 68]

I think another important point is that if it is called a civil union (or merriage) it is applicable to gay or straight couples and is not defined by who is getting married, but is a union of two people separated from any religous attachment. The word 'Marriage' can be kept for people getting married in a religous ceremony and civil union can be for all people getting 'merried' by the state. I know it seems like petty semantics but a lot of people may not mind gay people having a civil union with the state as long as they don't break God's "rules" of marriage.

I see no reason to do something like that just because it would make some Christians happy. What about Jews, can they still get married? Muslims? And I agree that the point is not to change the word - I think the point is to realize that "marriage" is just a word. The idea that marriage is uniquely Christian is simply mistaken. People in all cultures marry, including Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Scary Voodoo Worshipers, etc. Gays too, in a lot of places (such as California, Massachusetts, Europe,).

[over-it 0]

Just want to clear up a few misunderstandings about what I said:

This is extraordinarily incorrect. There is no consensus on this issue in the scientific community. Very few of the studies that have looked for genetic linkages have found them. The influence that is often found is a weak association in maternal lines. The twin studies prove that its not genetically determined.

I wasn't saying that if your mom is gay then you will be gay, but rather that you are born gay.

Your logic is unclear. So you are saying it does have an impact but that we should ignore it?

Not at all. I am saying that it is impossible for any situation to not have a psychological impact. So to say that gay people can't be parents because of the psychological factor is a BS excuse.

You capitilise a lot of that last paragraph...I know it doesn't matter if someone is gay, most people do, but, you have to remember this is a very very very new concept to society, it will not change overnight. The US military is still stuck in the dark agee with the 'dont ask, dont tell' policy.

I capitalized 2 sentences, and they were in the first paragraph, but okay. I don't think most people do realize that it doesn't matter that someone is gay, as evidenced by this thread's existence. But I do agree with the last two things you said. You also disagreed with my genetics statement. Again, I apologize for the confusion. I didn't mean it was hereditary, but that it is caused by a hormone imbalance pre-birth.

[mcgroover 0]

Actually I think it started as a civil thing. The Greeks and Romans married, and it wasn't a religious issue for them.

Yeah good point.

[mcgroover 0]

I see no reason to do something like that just because it would make some Christians happy. What about Jews, can they still get married? Muslims? And I agree that the point is not to change the word - I think the point is to realize that "marriage" is just a word. The idea that marriage is uniquely Christian is simply mistaken. People in all cultures marry, including Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Scary Voodoo Worshipers, etc. Gays too, in a lot of places (such as California, Massachusetts, Europe,).

Well I never mentioned Christianity specifically, I talked about religion in general. I agree it is petty to be changing a word but I think people of all religions might find it easier to accept without the religious links that marriage has come to have in everyone's psyche. I don't think it should be necessary, but maybe it needs to be with some people's views....

[neretva 0]

Well I never mentioned Christianity specifically, I talked about religion in general. I agree it is petty to be changing a word but I think people of all religions might find it easier to accept without the religious links that marriage has come to have in everyone's psyche. I don't think it should be necessary, but maybe it needs to be with some people's views....

If the goal of gays is to have legal marriage, there is a better and faster way of accomplishing it. Going "in your face" with straight people is belligerent and counter-productive. The answer is to pursue the goal of making civil unions legally and financially identical to marriage, and letting some time pass. Once civil unions that are identical to marriages exist for a decade or two, religious types will be forced to observe that society did not end. Family life did not end. Marriage rates did not change. Their primary argument, already referenced as the "slippery slope fallacy" will be observed as false. It will then be easier to dissolve the semantical distinction and the term "marriage" can be applied to everyone. These things are best accomplished through incrementalism rather than revolution.Another good approach would be to disassociate homosexuality from trans-genderism. Sexual orientation is one thing. Sexual identification is another. Society believes that transgenders are truly mentally ill. Homos suffer from "guilt by association" by aligning themselves with this group. I've always wondered why they did that.