POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

I believe this one is relevant

 

I don't think that is true either. There are all sorts of behavior, traits, etc., that we see in nature - many due to genetics - that are readily observable, outside the normal behavior of the species, and yet wouldn't be considered unnatural. However, you seem to be of the opinion that some deviant behavior is natural while others are not natural, without providing a basis for why some are and some are not.

Go to any zoo where they have a bunch of the same type of animal in a cage together. You can readily spot one that is acting differently from the others. Now just because this action may be considered deviant from what the others are doing, are you going to consider it unnatural?

How about a real life example. It has been observed in nature that some monkeys will wash their food before eating it, if there is a readily available water source. However, the vast majority of monkeys will not. So if we have a group of 20 monkeys, and two stop to wash their food before eating it, are these two individuals deviant and therefore acting unnaturally? While can't both actions (although totally opposite of one another) both be considered natural?

Perhaps you feel that the Universe is very structured and ordered, and that to you there is a natural order to things, but that is simply your own opinion. I am of the opinion that there is always going to be an aspect of what is considered the societal norm when making any kind of value judgements (like what is natural and what is not) and thus this places it outside the realm of science. As such, since such a question is outside the realm of science, no amount of species evolution can ever lead to giving a scientific answer to a non-scientific question.

 

Look at the example of the Bonobo chimps. Approximately 75% were found to be bisexual, therefore even by your definition, the natural behaviour of a bonobo chimp is to have sexual relations with members of both sexes.

"Natural" is plainly not defined in terms of commonality. That is like saying that having red hair is not natural. There are, after all, fewer people with red hair than there are homosexuals (assuming the 10% figure is even remotely close). OK, red hair is a physical characteristic rather than a behaviour, but they both would appear to be genetically coded and inherited traits (albeit homosexuality being indirectly inherited).

 

Yeah, imagine the outrage in the gay-community, if there was a "I´m heterosexual, and I´m proud of it!"- parade.

 

Have you thought (and here's hoping you are acting on rational thought not reacting with fear) that the reason they are so in your (society's) face, is because you (society) want to shove them under that rock in the dark corner so that you don't have to deal with them.

 

I really do not understand (religious) people taking offence from the fact that someone is homosexual.

As long as they don't force it up on me or create uncomfortable situations I don't see the problem.

And Christians, explain something to me. What happened to the "God loves all people"? If God loves all people, why don't his followers?

For the record: I am not gay, but have many aquantances who are. Furthermore the question to the Christians on this board is not intended to offend anyone, I am just curious.

 

'likes of you' -- whoa partner, them's fightin' words....

 

I'd like to echo Drugar's enquiry why is it that christianity a religion based on the principles of tolerance and fraternal love, breeds such discontent, disharmony, narrow-mindedness and outright bigotry.

If you were standing in that square with Mary Magdalene could any of you throw that first stone ?

 

Hey, I couldn´t care less, as long as it´s legal for gays to marry, be my guest... And it is actually legal in some places.

 

You see, the problem is not so much about rights as it is about recognition, acceptance. Those people who go to parades want us to affirm them in their belief that what they are doing is normal and right. In short, as a crude parallel, they want us to pat them on the back and say it's okay. Why? Logic suggests you need support for your confidence when your confidence can't hold it on its own. So, it's a confidence issue. A security thing. Flaunting it around to make it feel more normal and natural to themselves in the first place, before the rest of the world.

Just to point out, there's no evidence the harlot was Mary Magdalene. It's just alleged by some theologians and also that she was a harlot at all (at least not a paid one -- she was rich, after all, so she didn't need that money).

Anyway, the point of that Biblical scene is not only "don't throw rocks" but also "go and sin no more". Jesus didn't give the woman a leave to have her sins. He said He wasn't going to change a iota in the law, either, and He didn't in her case. He said He didn't condemn her but she wasn't to sin anymore (and the verb was "sin", not "do what you were doing").

Basically, that's what a gay Catholic would hear from a priest in Confession nowadays. He would be absolved of the sin of homosexual carnal acts, given regret and desire to engage in those no more.

If the woman had raised her chin and told Jesus in the face, "Everyone has his quirks and I have mine, leave me alone!" what do you think the reaction would be? Or, "It's my body and I can do what I please with it?"

I'm not offended by that. More like I think how hard it would be if it happened to me and, believing what I do, I had to deal with it.
What offends me is an act that goes against nature, though it's hard to keep offended when you see two people who think they love each other (or even really do) "this way" and you're telling them it isn't right... It's hard. Nonetheless, those people deserve better than to be told that their problem is not a problem.

Loving someone doesn't mean agreeing with his lifestyle. The godhatesfags site looks like someone really hates gay people as persons. However, I don't, and I still disagree with what they do. I love my relatives but if one of them attempted to do something wrong in my presence, I would tell him what I think, and I have. Does this mean I don't love the person? No. Sometimes love is painful and you have to say what (you believe) the person needs to hear rather than wants to hear. Telling people what they want to hear and allowing them to do all they want is love but of oneself. It's taking the easy, false we-all-get-along path that gives a delusional sense of well-being by avoiding confrontation and tough decisions.

 

Christianity (at least the version I practice) loves all people but does state that people should follow the laws of God. The example of the woman taken in adultery was recently brought up -- Christ told the killers that "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." The men departed.

He then turned to the woman and said "where are those who did condemn thee?"

"They have gone" she replied (this is a paraphrase of the biblical text.)

HIs reply was (I think this quote is accurate) "Neither do I condemn thee -- go, and sin no more "

The point of this little quote is that love does not preclude the fact that people can sin, or do something wrong.

Anyone who says "God wants all Gays dead" is clearly not very loving or Christian in approach. But the people who say "Homosexual behaviour is something that God has told us not to do, and those who do it are wrong" are neither hate mongers of hypocrites -- they are people who believe the tenets of their religion.

I write this as a response to the people who brought up the Christian issue -- I am well aware that not everyone is a Christian or wishes to follow its tenets, so please take this response in the specific context it is written in.

 

It might come as a surprise to you, but we already live in a secular society.
Last time I checked, if we live in a society where the church and the state are separated, there should be no outside pressures to force the church to accept marriages, which is what most "libertarians" do.

Marriage is a religious concept, yes. You might argue civil union, but not marriage.
So, do you think a 16 years old can not consent a sexual relation with a 45 years old pervert?

Yes, it is a pity it is "libertarians" like you who go out labeling everyone not in touch with the NWO as a nazi.
That said, you are not very good at understanding arguments, because I did not say you share a lot with either of them, but rather I said your line of thinking can easily scale to such a system. No, I dont mean libertarianism, but imorality and relativism.
Not only that, but I am skeptical about your kind of libertarianism. NWO supporters are very "tolerant", to their own beliefs.
It gets even more interesting when "libertarians" such as you demand state intervention to guarantee the "rights" of group X or Y.

Marrying does not make someone not a pedophile, but I meant your argument had no bearing to the discussion at all. Marrying is not a pedophile's behaviour, which means one could not be regarded as such by getting married. In order to be labelled as a pedophile, one has to practice pedophilia, in which case he should be jailed; thus, he could not get married.
You should attend a logics course.
----------------------------------------------------

Once again you are confusing things. The monkey behaviour you described seems perfectly fine to me. Two different modus operandi that ensues the same result in the end, and neither compromise the survival of the species.
It is not the case of homosexuality. We have the majority behaviour, which ensues both procreation and the survival of the species - which are both, undeniably, natural. In the other hand we have a behaviour that is against both procreation and the survival or the species; it can not be anything other than un-natural, unless self destruction is also natural to you?

Oh, I wish I could be the one so bright as to be the creator of such a theory. Fortunately - or unfortunately - those are not my words, but what the greatest scientific minds have concluded so far.
Actually, if you think about it, it is very logical. There could be no existance, no life forms, if there was not a natural order to things. No one can live in chaos, we live because we are part of a whole that is structured in such a way that enables us to live. Procreation is certainly one of the pre-requisites for that.
If there was not a natural order to things, Science could never exist.

[ September 23, 2005, 18:51: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Quote from Chevalier:
"Loving someone doesn't mean agreeing with his lifestyle. The godhatesfags site looks like someone really hates gay people as persons. However, I don't, and I still disagree with what they do."

Can you explain to me WHAT it is exactly you disagree on in regards to people being homosexual and having a relationship? YOU do not have to do it! They don't bother you with it, so why do you still disagree with what THEY do? The only thing the homosexual people close to you expect is respect, acceptance and love, just like everyone else.

I hope you understand where I'm getting at. I haven't read a single argument here from people disagreing with homosexuality that can't be countered with a "But why" question.

No offence intended Chev, you just had a good example.

 

Let me see if I can field that one, Drugar. Religious people like myself believe that homosexuality is not part of God's plan, and is thus wrong or sinful. Sin affects not only the sinner but the society in which the sinner lives.

Homosexual urges may exist, but that does not make them right. All of us have felt urges to do all sorts of things (run over someone annoying, steal something cheap, slander a colleague to get a raise, etc) but that does not mean these urges or desires are acceptable or right.

People can say "but why doesn't God want people to be gay?" -- and a person who believes in God as seen by many Christian churches will answer "he has told us he wishes for people to not engage in Homosexual activity -- He tells us that it is a sin, and that we will be happier if we obey his law." Since we believe he is infinitely wise, we trust his judgement.

 

I'm not sure why you are asking this question. It totally depends upon where you live. The age of consent varies from state to state in the U.S., and country by country worldwide. I don't know where you live, so I cannot answer that question for your case. I live in Maryland, where the age of consent is 16, so the answer from my location is "yes".

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! You are showing your mettle with this statement. I showed how frequency of an action cannot be the basis for determining if something is natural or not. By this statement, you have stepped up to the challenge and clearly articulated a definition of natural devoid of any reference of frequency. Essentially, you state any action that compromises the continued viability of a species could not possibly be natural. Good job!

OK, I agree with most of this too. I don't think any reasonable arguement can be put forth stating that procreation is not necessary for the survival of the species. If every member of the species stopped procreating, that would be the end of the species as existing members died.

So the challenge here, going with your definition of natural, would be to show how the possibility of homosexual behavior would not compromise the continued viability of the species. Actually, I think the challenge has to be taken a step further. Not only would it be necessary to show that it doesn't compromise the survival of the species, but also provide some benefit to the species under certain conditions.

And, I must admit, that you have me here. I can think of only one benefit that homosexual behavior could have on a given population, and even that is conditional. Homosexual behavior would be beneficial to a population in danger of out-stripping it's food supply. It would serve as an effective form of population control. Of course, there is a strict condition that the population is in danger of out-stripping it's food supply.

This theory is easily testable, but I'm completely unaware if any studies have been done on the subject. For this theory to hold water, we would have to observe animal populations world-wide and find two pieces of information: 1.) Species that have some prevalence of homosexual behavior in them. Obviously, if there is no evidence of homosexual behavior in a species, it provides no benefit or refutation of my theory. 2.) Of those species that DO show some evidence of homosexual behavior, is the frequency of such behavior increased when faced with population pressure?

Now the first point is easily answerable with a "yes". There have been studies conducted that show that some animal populations show signs of homosexual behavior. Unfortunately (for me, not for you), I know of no studies ever conducted to answer the second point. So, I'm basically saying my theory could amount to pure bupkis.

I'm only going to briefly comment on the end of your post, because I think this is simply a difference of opinion that neither of us are going to be capable of overcoming. While I do agree that there is some level of natural order in the world around us, and that science can help explain some of these phenomenon (examples would include Newtonian physics, relativity, natural selection, ecology (the biological, not political definition of the term), gravity, conservation of mass, et. al.) that it cannot answer what is or is not natural. I don't see how any test can be applied to it - or more specifically a controlled test accounting for variables. The uncontrollable variables have been the nadir of many studies in genetics and evolution, and a major reason why some of the outcomes have not been universally accepted. Sadly, I think that specific actions by individuals in a larger population goes beyond the scope of any genre of science.

 

Well no. I doubt most libertarians want to force a religious institutuion to accept homosexual marriage and neither do I. Dmc pretty much allready answered this quite throughly so I won't bother to repeat the same rant.

Marriage is a religious concept, yes I can probably accept that, and if we have a Church (there are a few as far as I know) that accepts gay marriage they are allowed to use the term then right? Anyway the fact that the origins of marriage come from religion does not mean it should have to remain so.

16 year olds are entitled to their own free sexual life where I live and it can't be called paedophilia if a 45 year old sleeps with a 16 year old, it would in fact not be criminal.

I did not call you a nazi nor thit I imply that you your thinking is similar to one. It was you who brought up the nazism, remember? I find it strange that now you're trying to turn it against me. Also I'm not very fond of this NWO crap and I don't know what you're trying to pull with it. I have my own political ideology which is very well implemented in my country, there are exceptions of course since in a nation of 5 million inhabitants it's nearly impossible to get the nation shaped fully into your liking unless you're a dictator of course and I have no intention of being one.

Morality is a very subjective thing, what might be immoral to you might not be immoral to me, so don't start with the holier than thou attitude. I don't find myself supporting relativism either, I support gay marriage but it does not automatically make me a relativist now does it? Or if it in your mind does then your sight must be even more narrower than I would have thought it to be.

I tend to consider myself as tolerant to all sorts of beliefs even those that I don't agree with. A functioning democracy needs political diversity in order to work, so I'm not trying to smoke out those who oppose gay marriage or anything like that.

It's the very core of libertarian beliefs actually. In the ideal libertarian system (which I don't support since I don't consider myself to be a libertarian anyway) the government's sole and most important duty is to secure the rights for all groups, it's not the same thing as anarchy you know.

Marrying is not a pedopihile's behaviour? How would you know? You know exactly what a pedophile's behaviour is? Humans are more complex than that and some pedophiles have indeed been married even if it's more often that they're not. One can also be a pedophile without being labelled as one by the society, just like one can be homosexual without having gay sex.

Further more I don't see the need for a logic course just because I don't agree with your logic. Logic tends to be a subjective thing too.

 

@LKD

"Homosexual urges may exist, but that does not make them right."

But it doesn't make it wrong either. Is there a passage in the bible or religious text that teaches against homosexual urges? I'm no religious man, so I do not have any knowledge of any religious texts.

I just think that everyone should make out for themselves what influence a homosexual has on your own life. I am not affected by the fact that some of the people I work with and are in my social circle are gay. If I where religious and the community around me thinks otherwise, I wouldn't be tempted to change my view. What I am trying to say is don't let others influence your opinion on people that are "different" than you are.

 

I asked that to Morgoroth, because he mentioned personal consent vs forced enslavement. I wanted to make a point someone can be old enough to have a formed mindset and autonomous responsability by the age of 16, giving her own consent, but it would still be disgusting nonetheless that a 45 years old pervert would have sex with her.
If morality is not something he cares about, I could lower her age to 14, making it illegal to have sex with her, even though by the age of 14 someone would be old enough to have a personal notion of what can be done or not.
My point is that even though consent might exist, the action could still be wrong.

Yes. It was not my intention to imply frequency = naturality. I am sorry if I gave that impression.

Yes, that is the only scenario possible, but Thomas Mathus have long been disproved.
That said, I dont see nothing benefitial with homosexualism.

Yes, I did not dig deep into such scenario, because as I said, economical laws already disproved the possibility of over population and sortage of food. But I see your point.

But dont you agree that if the universe is structured in a rigid form, with natural laws and order, then it is only the logical next step to assume there is one thruth and naturality to things? And if we fail to reach it, with our limited knowledge, or if we conclude opposing results with different researches, this is due to our own ignorance and not because a natural order does not exist?
Anyway, sorry for my half assed reply, but now it is friday night.

I will reply to the others tomorrow.

 

There is a genetic basis for homosexuality. If you take a two identical twins raised in the same household, the chance they will both be homosexual is far greater than the chance two fraternal twins raised in the same household will be homosexual. (Also, environment seems to play a little part in homosexuality.)

The natural response is probably to say that if homosexuality were genetic, a species would not have survived. Not necessarily true. A "gay gene" (this term really, really oversimplifies genetics) that, say, increases an organism's sexual attraction to males could be located on the X chromosome. Females have XX, males have XY.

See the picture? Females with the gene would benefit here, since they would have a greater drive to have offspring. Then the females' daughters would carry on this trait.

As for the males? Well, they're screwed. But not really. That's like saying deer are screwed because a cheetah has learned to run fast. Males will also evolve things on their Y chromosome that allow them to, say, increase sex drive (thereby impregnating more females, thereby making sure that more Y chromosomes are produced).

Don't think of genomes as happy-go-lucky adventuring parties with cooperative clerics and meat shield fighters. It's really every gene for itself. The X and Y chromosome genes will be, yes, working against each other. This is sexual antagonism. It's in human beings, and explains certain genetic disorders, but hey, we're still here. Sexual antagonism doesn't screw a species over any more than a genetic arms race between wasps and spiders screws over a population of such insects.