POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

Well, I don't *encourage* gay marriage or homosexuality as such, but I really, really don't see what the big deal is or why any government has a say in it. If people want to be gay and to marry, it's absolutely none of my business and none of the government's.

 

@EI: Try to look on it from this perspective: Homosexuals are not forbidden to marry in the secular law. As anyone else, they are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender. What isn't granted is redefining marriage so as to allow same sex marriage. But they are still no more forbidden from traditional marriage than anyone.

People with disorders may and sometimes should be forbidden to marry, depending on the nature and intensity of their problems. This is not to torment them, but to prevent the potential spouse and children from harm. Also, some disorders limit or even preclude consent.

 

None of the answers really do my opinion justice. I voted for #2, only because that came the closest. I think it is extremely presumptuous of anyone to "encourage" people to get married in any way, shape or form. That having been said, I don't really have a problem with homosexual marriage. Basically, it boils down to me not having any stake in the fight. I am not gay, I do not have any gay family members and I only know a few passing acquaintences who are gay - certainly no close friends. As such, I feel I have nothing to either gain or lose if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Because of this, I am more inclined to say it should be legal, but regardless, it doesn't really bother me one way or another.

 

While I am not really fond of gays, I agree with what Aikanaro says.

I will have to be contraversial and state that the worst thing that can happen to lots of gays (you can choose of this is a minority/majority) is that they are completely accepted by society.

I mean I am a different race than most people, but you don't see me making a big deal about it.

 

I agree with Aldeth. The choices were so limited and stereotypical that I did not vote. Traditionally, marriage has foundations in religion which forbids homosexual unions. I understand the distain many have for allowing homosexual unions to be marriages. However, there is a real need to have a civil union for homosexuals -- you should be able to form a partnership with another individual legally.

Make all weddings by a justice of the peace a civil union, all church weddings marriages.

 

Why must Homosexuality be thrown in the face of the religious or ardently straight? Our core doctrine forbids homosexual activity using very strong terms, therefore it is a grave offense to most of us.

Ont more thing that needs to be clarified. There is a difference between Love and Sex. Just because you love someone does not mean that you are having sex with them.

Furthermore, attraction towards ineligible partners (already married, same gender, underage) is a temptation, not a disorder. This doesn't make it acceptable, nor can accountability be denied for any sexual sin (fornication, adultery, beastiality, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality).

Marriage is, in religious terms, stirctly defined as between a man and a woman. Calling it gay marriage instead of Civil unions is an offence to many Christians.

 

I voted don't care. I can't say that I encourage anyone to get married, though obviously I'm happy enough for them to do so. As others have mentioned, I would be happy as long as they are granted the same civil and legal rights as those enjoyed by married couples.

An aside:
The EU court of justice has just deemed the British law that in-laws are not allowed to be married is in breech of human rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4243420.stm

It is relevant from a biblical sense as, as well as the homosexual version, this is another of the laws laid down in Leviticus.

 

First off, Dendri:
Sorry, but that link holds no sway what so ever. One, it was just a theory without any real evidence cited to support it. Two, it assumed a number of facts that have never even come close to being proven, most notably that DNA has a significant and detailed impact on personality. Three, the very statement that the odds of a child becoming homosexual depends on the order of birth supports the MUCH simpler theory that homosexuality is a social phenomenon, not genetic. Sorry, but it just doesn't hold much weight in my book.

Now, everyone else:
There is a great deal of evidence to support that homosexuality is an unnatural state of being, whether a disorder or a perversion, or a destructive choice, or whatever. There is not, however, enough evidence to prove this, or else it wouldn't be much of an issue.
That said, I believe it can be any of the three unnatural states mentioned above and is sinful, whether we are talking about a purely sexual atraction or real sexual love.
As for marriage, insofar as it is the government's place to regulate and enforce morality (which it is to some degree), the government should support the people, whatever that prevalent opinion is. This is the job of government. As for marriage, church-supported marriages are out of the question. The Bible is rather clear, if taken in context, on the issue of homosexuality and it is a sin. I don't support state-sanctioned marriages or homosexual adoption of children, but see above about government and such.

 

So which is it? When is a "great deal of evidence" at the same time "insufficient" to convince people? Oh wait - I get it - it's like evolution - a great deal of supporting evidence and yet some people still disregard it.

 

I only know of one bit of evidence that homosexuality is unnatural. And that ignores a very important part of human sexuality. I wonder how many others understand the main difference in sexual behavior between humans and other mammals....

It is this difference which makes homosexuality almost unheard of in animals.

 

Is it that we make love T2Bruno? Well...not me and you specifically, but you understand...

You know, Construction Worker and Police Officer had nothing but a shared randy vice, but Indian Chief and Navy Seaman had a love that was both achingly deep and timelessly true.

 

@T2Bruno:
Not really. My (former) next door neighbor had two gay golden labs, who would sometimes start going at it right in their driveway, despite her near-constant efforts to discipline them for it. It was even somewhat funny to see the 'dominant' one occasionally get rejected by his partner simply sitting down.

 

Fel: Canine alpha males and females often show dominance in that way. It is a public display of 'who's the boss.' It is an act of power, not sexuality. Very, very rarely is the act consumated. As you observed, the incident ends when one of the participants displays proper deferance to the alpha and will either sit or lay down.

Being a cat person you may not have known....

 

I've seen a dog do it on a cat.

 

I saw Chev watching a dog do it on a cat.

 

@T2B:
Actually, I'm quite familiar with the dumber race. The occasional sitting down would only happen if the 'submissive' dog didn't want it at the time. Usually they'd go at it until it was consumated (as you put it), and then simply separate as if nothing had happened. There was no deference shown, and if anything, the 'submissive' one had more power in being able to deny his partner by the simple act of sitting down before he even got started. The parallel it draws to male-female (or even male-male) relations in humans is what amused me the most.

 

@ NOG
No sway? No evidence? Then the extensive list of references provided by this article means so little to you? Okay.

Where then is your evidence that homosexuality is what you make it out to be? Ah, got it - there is, by your own words, not enough evidence to prove this. Okay.

Aside that this is off topic (sort of), I feel its an *utter* waste of my time to discuss this with a person calling himself No Other God. No offense intended, but I know a lost cause when it presents itself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior

Just one or two species there then, and er... particularly apes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

Not convinced? How about National Geographic as a reasonably unbiased and scietific jounal?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

From science news:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n1_v151/ai_19027025

On the other hand, there are plenty of texts on the net which dispute some of these findings. Alas, they all seem to be religious based and I have yet to find any of them with any scientific studies attached. One looked promising regading penguins in captivity, but they then went on to make lots of unsubstantuated claims about homosexuals being more likely to be criminals.

All I am disputing is anyone claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural". As homosexuality has been found in studies of animals in their natural environments then it is frankly laughable that anyone can claim otherwise.
Before anyone twists my words, the rightness or wrongness of natural behaviour is a different issue.

Medical studies showing it as a genetic trait, heavy going unless you're into genetics. I think I'm correct in reading that Homosexuality is genetically linked. Perhaps someone more biologically minded can clarify? (It's from John Hopkins Uni by the way)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=306995

 

Rape and infanticide happen among animals sometimes. Is that natural, too?

 

Carc: very interesting articles. You've hit very close to my intent. The wikapedia list is a bit broad in that it includes 'sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting' all as homosexual acts. However, the other articles show the commonly used examples (which is really only a few species with a couple of lone observations added to it). These hardly refute the conservative 'it's unnatural' contingency -- as Chev pointed out, some species can do very bad things. There is even a famous case of cannibalism in primates documented by Jane Goodall. Most captive animals (and some domestic animals) show signs of serious neurosis which could explain 'abnormal' behavior.

The majority of cases you list involve homosexual activity with affection and bonding (except the Japanese macaques -- that one was new to me). It is the affection and bonding aspect I'm referring to -- just like LNT said, we make love.

Human females do not go 'in heat.' No pheromones are given off that signal to the males of the species. Sex is mainly for pleasure and building intimacy -- it is both emotional and physical. However, bonding is not limited to opposite sex. We all bond with same-sex and opposite-sex individuals. I know men who are closer to their drinking buddies than they are to theier wives (and those men are certainly not homosexual). I also know women who have divorced their husbands when that relationship interfered with non-sexual relationships with female friends. I, for one, bond strongly to my wife (even in my first marriage) and that relationship is more important than any friendship or even my own family. In a species where emotion and bonding is the most important part of relationship, it is easy to see why homosexuality is present (and, IMHO natural).

By the way, I do agree that homosexuality is probably genetic -- although it may also be chemical (which the anti-gay community jumped on with vigor claiming homosexuality as a chemical-imbalance issue, even though there is no evidence that any attempt to 'balance' the chemicals has any affect).