Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
dp.
Actually, I wasn't addressing gay marriage directly in this above post – only addressing the question of “difference” and raising the possibility that this difference had more biological value before modern science since it was critical to the survival of the species.
I think that sentence speaks to the apparent view that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are a choice. For, if both weren't a choice, society, or the government, could never encourage or discourage either one. Except for, maybe, making homosexuals hide their true identity and agree into heterosexual relationships. Which, very sadly, is the case in reality all too often.
If we're to follow the "continuation of th species" logic, then infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry, since they cannot biologically reproduce.
Nevermind the fact that your argument contains it's own rebuttal (modern science), ignores reality (child rearing is not a requirement of marriage and there are many more things in marriage that are beneficial to society than merely procreation) and again dodges the real question.
and again dodges the real question.
I would like to reserve this question for later, because it is a good one and I think it deserves more attention than I can give it right now.See below:
Can you answer these questions for me, AEON: do you think that homosexuality is a choice?
Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.And, if so, do you think that by allowing gay marriage, it would encourage others, such as myself, to say 'hey, gays can marry now! Why don't I find myself a nice man to settle down with?'"
Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.
I would like to reserve this question for later, because it is a good one and I think it deserves more attention than I can give it right now.
Ultimately, as you may or may not know - I have come to the conclusion that the state should have nothing to do with marriage.
Again, the only question I was addressing above was that of difference. I used Irvine's accepted definition of a male and female to demonstrate that there is at least a biological difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. For some reason, it seems difficult for all of us to get past this point before continuing the discussion.
AEON/INDY/whoever -- why do you think there are gay people?
I'm not sure what causation has to do with the conversation at hand, but I read an interview with Terrance Dean a few years ago and found this quote fascinating:
I had not had a desire or thought of being with another man until I was molested by the male next-door neighbor. An incident helped spark, I would say, or created an opening for me to start questioning or start experimenting. ~ Terrance Dean, author, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.
Guess Who's Gay in Hip-Hop - TIME
To be fair, he says he doesn't think it's a choice, but his own experience negates a belief that it was innate in him; he may be still processing his own sexual identity, but I find it telling that he points to this incident as the formative one in his sexual journey.
I don't quote Terrance to perpetuate a stereotype that abuse is a/the primary cause of homosexuality, as I don't think that's true. I only quote him to illustrate the fact that there may be an abundance of reasons/causes for homosexuality, and in the absence of a demonstrated gay gene, such causes may be biological, chemical, sociological, etc. If one believes in the spectrum of sexuality, then there are those who are going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of sexual expression, and then there will be those who are in flux.
But I still don't know what it has to do with this conversation...
I'm not sure what causation has to do with the conversation at hand, but I read an interview with Terrance Dean a few years ago and found this quote fascinating:
I had not had a desire or thought of being with another man until I was molested by the male next-door neighbor. An incident helped spark, I would say, or created an opening for me to start questioning or start experimenting. ~ Terrance Dean, author, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.
Guess Who's Gay in Hip-Hop - TIME
To be fair, he says he doesn't think it's a choice, but his own experience negates a belief that it was innate in him; he may be still processing his own sexual identity, but I find it telling that he points to this incident as the formative one in his sexual journey.
I don't quote Terrance to perpetuate a stereotype that abuse is a/the primary cause of homosexuality, as I don't think that's true. I only quote him to illustrate the fact that there may be an abundance of reasons/causes for homosexuality, and in the absence of a demonstrated gay gene, such causes may be biological, chemical, sociological, etc. If one believes in the spectrum of sexuality, then there are those who are going to be at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of sexual expression, and then there will be those who are in flux.
But I still don't know what it has to do with this conversation...
I
Gays and their supporters can not tell people what to think and believe in their hearts. That is what religion is for, and government must keep it hands off of religion.
Washington State did it right, they put Unions on the ballot and won.
We should be advocating for unions so gays can have equal protection.
All this whining about marriage is a non-starter and sure loser.
gay kids are far more likely to be sexually abused.
i understand the broader point here, that sexuality is a complex thing, but you also realize the extremely dangerous ground you're treading here -- sexual abuse turns you gay?
gay kids are far more likely to be sexually abused.
I understand that people might want to infer that, particularly the ignorant ones, but I thought I was pretty clear about NOT making that point. My point was simply that yes, sexuality is complex and dynamic, and in the absence of genetic evidence, no one can be completely certain why things are the way they are, particularly when there isn't a red pill or blue pill.
And regardless, not sure about the connection between the question you raised ("why are there gay people?") and the point of this thread. Gay people are here, and are looking for (and deserve) certain rights. We have to figure out what that means in the larger social context.
so, separate but equal, then?
what kind of kids do pedophiles tend to target?
I think a legal 'union' by a government agency has more value for 'equal protection'.
it is not really separate
the separate but equal, included 'jim crow' laws, segregated schools, etc
the gays in Washington State are not segregated
they have equal protection
liberal minded Churches do 'Marriage Ceremonies" for gays now with no legal benefits -
I think a legal 'union' by a government agency has more value for 'equal protection'.
But government does do marriages, and many gay couples are religious and want to be married, not unioned.
Pedophiles target kids full stop.