Gay Marriage thread...

College Confidential Community
101

<p>Maize&Blue wins...but how do you prove the presence of CHOICE?</p>

<p>choice of action?</p>

102

<p>You scholarship is abysmal. The lurking masses recognize your ineptitude. I will briefly respond to [EDIT: all, actually] of your points. Your academic conscience will lead you to the truth regarding the rest.</p>

<p>


This and a more recent publication demonstrate the first one for one CAUSAL relationship between a single gene and observed sexuality in the animal kingdom. That's a landmark by anyone's standards. Drosophila, or the fly, is a model group of organisms that often serve as the first line research tool in biological studies. Next in line is Danio rerio, commonly known as the Zebra Fish. If you have qualms with this type of research, you should take it up with the epidemiologists who have used E. Coli and the aforementioned animals to save your life several times over.</p>

<p>


Well, no. If you read the study, you'd see that it concluded that people who are gay are more likely to be left handed than their heterosexual counterparts. Scientifically, there is a huge difference. Other than that, you seem to get the hang of it now. Handedness precedes birth. With an extraordinary percentage of gays reporting left-handedness, a trait totally unrelated to culture and proven to emerge in eutero, this study is mind blowing in its implications. Chalk one up for the the before birth "theory."</p>

<p>


You seem to have gotten the numbering mixed up, but I can still follow. One gene with no observed direct causal effects could be correlation. That doesn't make it any less interesting a conclusion, mind you. But the interactions of somewhere around 54 unique genes is more than a nudge in the direction of partial genetic causation. Once you prove to me that people have no genetic predisposition to particular traits, be them beneficial or detrimental, I'll look at this study in a skeptical light. Good luck accomplishing that, by the way.</p>

<p>Your cultural arguments are scandalous and embarassing. Some of what you claim can be attributed to societal norms. Take the ancient Greeks, for example. I'd compare their behavior to be the heterosexual "switch hitting" that a previous poster referred to. Mainstream Greek homosexual sex was more heterosexual mutual masturbation than homoerotic fantasy. Your claim that there were few, if any, homosexuals in medieval times is downright fallacious. A quick search reveals whole volumes of research devoted to topic. Your Brazil comment is outrageous, founded on stereotypes and hearsay.</p>

<p>I am tickled by your ignorance. I've learned a lot in the process of schooling you.</p>

103

<p>I may be absent for the next several days, so don't interpret the lack of a response as "defeat." I will try my best to log on and educate you during this period but I make no guarantees.</p>

104

<p>I'm for complete equal rights to any and everything for homosexual couples. There's no reason why no two people shouldn't be able to openly declare and affirm their love for one another. Just because 51% of America is braindead doesn't mean that people who have been prosecuted against for years should have to suffer and be singled out.</p>

<p>Also, I would like to point out that many people who are uneducated on this topic will state that most homosexual people are somewhat promiscuous (moreso than heterosexuals). If this IS true, which I highly doubt, but in any case, why is it now WRONG for them to want to commit to one another for an extended period of time? Do homosexuals not have any rights or can they not do anything without being ridiculed? Maybe most of America would be happier if they were shipped out to a modern-day Gulag somewhere in Wyoming.</p>

<p>Next, I think it's imperative that all of America realizes that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. In fact, I defy many of you to recall more than 10 instances in which you saw a blatant PDA between either two men or two women that wasn't influenced by alcohol or a dare. Now think of how many times a day you see some girl on a Juicy Fruit commercial straddle her boyfriend and scream wildly. Or watch two people have sex in a hot tub on "The Real World." Then, tell me if homosexuality IS wrong, why shows such as Will and Grace win awards for their wry and witty comedy and are openly broadcast on <em>gasp</em> network tv.</p>

<p>I could go on and on as an advocate for equal rights for all citizens (yes..even homosexuals) but I'm starting to think that it's futile. I just don't see how what someone does in their bedroom (or bathroom or kitchen or living room...it's their prerogative) is a determinant for tax breaks and legal rights. My best friend is opposed to the idea of homosexuality but supports marriage. Her reasoning sounds somewhat odd, but it did make sense. What if there were a gay President and he/she decided to make heterosexual marriage illegal and suspend all rights for male/female marriages and civil unions? </p>

<p>With that said, I'm going to leave this up to the harsh criticism that it will be receiving shortly. I hope all of the supporters enjoyed this and all of the bigots have fun defaming and twisting this around.</p>

105

<p>Nom,</p>

<p>The English, to me, seems a bit rough but this is the full quote (I think):</p>

<p>"As an individual who is firmly convinced that sexuality is a biological trait that is repressed understandably and only permitted to surface in cases of extreme will or understanding social climates,"</p>

<p>I'm not sure exactly what to make of "repressed understandably", but beyond that I fail to see how the meaning is changed; you seem to be, in your own words, “an individual who is firmly convinced that sexuality is a biological trait that is repressed” unless adding “understandably and only permitted to surface in cases of extreme will or understanding social climates” somehow alters “a biological trait that is repressed”.</p>

<p>Sounds Freudian to me. Moreover: </p>

<p>…..“Yes, out of context and in ignorance of my rebuttal. Bravo. I foresee a long and successful career in debate for you”…</p>

<p>seems somewhat uncalled for, but perhaps this is just your style of, as you say, debate. You also seem to have a particular gift, as Maizeandblue points out, for being a bit loose and fast with taking quotes, as you say, “out of context,” but they are what they are and anyone can read them and make a judgment about their usefulness as either science or rhetoric.</p>

106

<p>The word "repressed" is not limited to the psychological definition.</p>

<p>American Heritage 4th Edition reads:
re·press (r-prs) v. re·pressed, re·press·ing, re·press·es v. tr.
1. To hold back by an act of volition: couldn't repress a smirk.
2. To put down by force, usually before total control has been lost; quell: repress a rebellion.
3. Psychology. To exclude (painful or disturbing memories, for example) automatically or unconsciously from the conscious mind.
4. Biology. To block (transcription of a gene) by combination of a protein to an operator gene.</p>

<p>Upon your request, I clarified that I intended the first defintion. Another way of phrasing it, in layman's terms, would be: "I believe that gayness is biological but people cover it up on the outside until either: a) they have a lot of courage and will and come out of the cloest or b) they know their community will accept or embrace their differences."</p>

<p>And yes, I made this clear in my posts**.</p>

<p>I provided sources. If you object to the parts I quoted to save space, you can quote sections you would have preferred to see.</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
Just because 51% of America is braindead

[/quote]
That is quite pretentious of you.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Next, I think it's imperative that all of America realizes that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. In fact, I defy many of you to recall more than 10 instances in which you saw a blatant PDA between either two men or two women that wasn't influenced by alcohol or a dare. Now think of how many times a day you see some girl on a Juicy Fruit commercial straddle her boyfriend and scream wildly. Or watch two people have sex in a hot tub on "The Real World." Then, tell me if homosexuality IS wrong, why shows such as Will and Grace win awards for their wry and witty comedy and are openly broadcast on <em>gasp</em> network tv.

[/quote]

This is a purely religious matter. You can't really debate morality with respect to homosexual behavior. Simply having homosexual desires is of course not wrong, but for many people, their religion clearly states that homosexual activity is wrong. As a matter of fact, Catholicism states that any and all sexual behavior before marriage, whether it be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or whatever, is immoral.</p>

<p>Regardless, just because someone acts on homosexual tendencies doesn't give anyone the right to judge them. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."</p>

108

<p>Some religions say that dancing is immoral. And so?</p>

109

<p>I'm not going to read 6 pages of crap, but I don't see why this should even be a debate. Gay marriage is okay. Its not like your church is doing it.</p>

110

<p>I had to participate in a debate on gay marriage in one of my classes, and I was forced onto the "against" side. I seriously could not come up with a logically consistent position, except for one: fascism.</p>

<p>The State is supreme. It must exist at all costs, or else everybody will die. (Straight Hobbes here).
Because the State must survive, it is necessary to preserve its stability.
Enforcing a uniform set of values and regulating people's behavior and beliefs minimizes dissent, and therefore the chances that the State will be destroyed.
Because a majority already opposes gay marriage, it makes the most sense to enforce this view, as it will be necessary to oppress fewer people in the process.
Therefore, since gay marriage tends to destabilize the State, it ought to be banned.</p>

<p>That was seriously the only position I could come up with. Honestly, I see absolutely no argument against gay marriage.</p>

111

<p>Besides anonymous and tbs, I think that there is a general consenus on this board--gay marriage should be allowed.</p>

112

<p>TheDad- I was referring to xanderman's statement mocking the idea of those that believe homosexuality is wrong.</p>

<p>I stand by saying that marriage should not be legislated by the government. Marriage is an inherently religious ceremony. Civil union certificates should be identical, however, for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.</p>

113

<p>Ah. Okay.</p>

<p>But the government issues marriage licenses (a civil function) which is signed off by a religious functionary, when so employed. </p>

<p>If a church does not wish to participate in a religious marriage ceremony for whatever reason, that's its business...it happens all the time. But for churches that are willing to perform gay marriages, they should not be forbidden to do so, which is the current state of affairs.</p>

<p>It also smacks of more than a little hyporcrisy to rant the gays are promiscuous (I've known several gay relationships more stable than many marriages) while denying them the social mechanism by which we acknowledge stability. Egg and chicken.</p>

114

<p>With our current system, there is a 1,400-right deficit for partners in civil unions. That is, civilly married couples reap federal benefits that same-sex couples can only dream of. Even if civil unions are assigned universally, there will be problems. You overlook the fact that civil unions, unlike civil marriages, are not recognized outside the state's borders. Marriage is both a religious and legal word. Until "civil union" emerges as a legal synonym for "marriage," same-sex couples will settle for nothing less. Civil. Marriage.</p>

115

<p>out of curiosity, are you in high school or college nom?</p>

116

<p>I'm in transition. Summer orientation is right . . now. I begin college this fall.</p>

117

<p>12 REASONS TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.</p></li>
<li><p>Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.</p></li>
<li><p>Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.</p></li>
<li><p>Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.</p></li>
<li><p>Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; just like women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.</p></li>
<li><p>Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.</p></li>
<li><p>Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.</p></li>
<li><p>Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.</p></li>
<li><p>Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name, are better because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.</p></li>
</ol>

118

<p>Wait before i carry on in a long raving responce.... i need to know.... r u serious?!?</p>

119

<p>i think it's INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS that the 12 reasons actually support gay marriage.</p>

120

<p>I'd just like to jump in here and offer my personal view on this topic, because I'd hate for a debate about the merits of gay marriage continue any further without input from <em>gasp</em> a real, live gay person!</p>

<p>I don't have any philosophical or scientific sources to quote, or any pages-long logical arguments to bestow upon you all. All I have is my own personal experience.</p>

<p>I know for a fact that homosexuality is not in any way, shape, or form a choice. It's an oft-quoted question, but if I may ask, when did you choose to be a heterosexual, TakingBackSaturdayx? Choosing a way of life that can lead to discrimination, drastically changed family relationships, and life in the constant minority is, frankly, one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Is homosexuality an extremely creative, worldwide self-destructive behavior, like suicide (which was mentioned before) and self-mutilation? Maybe the only gays you've been exposed to were punk rawk sk8er bois who you assumed had adopted homosexuality to fit in with their countercultural identities, but in the real world, gays come in all shapes and sizes.</p>

<p>I was raised in an upper-middle class, suburban, Catholic home. I did not consciously meet (or become aware of) any gay people until at least the age of 12. And yet I've always had certain gay characteristics. When I was in elementary school, my parents yelled at me for "mincing" instead of walking. When I read books or watched movies, I identified with the heroine instead of the hero. I've been attracted to males for as long as I can remember, before I even knew what "gay" meant.</p>

<p>Can you really tell me that at some point along the way, I decided, "You know what? I think I'm going to like men now"? If you were to say that to me in person, I would laugh in your face, because you telling me what I think is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.</p>

<p>With all this said, I do actually believe that there are a combination of factors in deciding someone's sexuality. "Nature or nurture?" is not a valid question, as both play some role in different people's experiences in maturing sexually. In some cases, yes, abuse or a certain treatment as a child can affect them psychologically and make them gay, but this does not by any line of thinking make it a "choice." Looking back at my childhood, I can think of no reason at all that I would be "turned gay," but rather that it's a part of my personality and being that has always been with me.</p>

<p>Despite the horrendously offensive statements certain people have made on this thread regarding my sexuality and generalizing an entire group, I'm not personally offended by anything that has been said. Rather, I'm saddened that people can be so closeminded that they cannot see what is right in front of them.</p>