Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
There is Nothing Wrong with Same Sex Marriage
theinformationparadox.com — There is no justifiable reason why homosexuals should not be afforded the same marital rights as heterosexuals. It is time for the religious folks to realize they have the right to disagree with the lifestyle but they do not have the right to govern this country based on their religious beliefs.
pariahjane- 93 diggs
- digg it
- Kizilbash, on 06/25/2008, -2/+21Over here in the Netherlands we now have the most Christian-dominated government in decades, but they have not dared to even put banning it on the agenda. It is a pretty popular concept here.
- pariahjane, on 06/25/2008, -3/+16I just think it's a shame that people are willing to deny rights to others based on their own religious beliefs. Gay marriage hurts no one.
- kelly, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3I just think it's a shame that people are willing to deny rights to others based on their own sexual preference. Christianity hurts no one.
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Fortunately, those are very few people who wish to deny people their right to equal practice of religion.
Vice versa, however, is not so few. - kelly, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1No, they just just to limit its scope and thus its influence
- pariahjane, on 06/25/2008, -3/+16I just think it's a shame that people are willing to deny rights to others based on their own religious beliefs. Gay marriage hurts no one.
- andruslinda, on 06/25/2008, -20/+2Jude 1:6-8
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness under the judgement of the great day.
7Even as Sodom and Gomoraha, and the cities about them in loke manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example,suffering the vengance of eternal fire.
8Likewise also these filthy dreamers file the flesh, despise domination, and spek evil of dignities. And vese 15 To execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them ofall their ungodly ddeds whichthey have ungodly committed, and of all theirhard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.16 These are murmurers, compaliners, walking after their own lusts, and their own lusts; and their mouths speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admirations because of advantage.- pariahjane, on 06/25/2008, -1/+19Again, these are YOUR religious beliefs and should not be used to deny the rights of those that don't share them.
Your holy text should not have any bearing on government decisions. Unfortunately, this shows just how bigoted Christianity really can be.- b0gus2008, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1Her religious beliefs are yours, whether you like them or not.
- pariahjane, on 06/25/2008, -1/+19Again, these are YOUR religious beliefs and should not be used to deny the rights of those that don't share them.
- Natitude, on 06/25/2008, -4/+25This is why I'm glad I live in Canada. We jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon a while ago and guess what? The world did not implode, god did not smite us, and we have continued to live happily as a nation where anyone can be married.
- hope4god, on 06/29/2008, -3/+3Oh Nat, please stay in Canada with your Gay Agenda crap
- b0gus2008, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1I'm sure Natitude will have no problem complying with your wishes. Everyone knows Canada is the greatest place on Earth. Have you even tried a butter tart?
- hope4god, on 06/29/2008, -3/+3Oh Nat, please stay in Canada with your Gay Agenda crap
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/25/2008, -2/+18Marriage is and always will be a human invention. This whole issue is about the meaning of a word, it's a semantic argument.
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Its not just semantics anymore when you receive extra rights and government benefits.
- Kellibu, on 06/25/2008, -3/+16Some of my best friends are now married gay couples. I love weddings!
- hope4god, on 06/29/2008, -4/+0Oh thats nice..wow you get to see 2 Gay men having anal sex and dying from Aids wow what a treat, or 2 Lesbians who have hair on their chest or under their nose nice......
- b0gus2008, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2***** hilarious! hope4god, you are awesome! Hairy lesbians, gay sex automatically equaling AIDS...I mean priceless.
- hope4god, on 06/29/2008, -4/+0Oh thats nice..wow you get to see 2 Gay men having anal sex and dying from Aids wow what a treat, or 2 Lesbians who have hair on their chest or under their nose nice......
- alapoet, on 06/25/2008, -4/+17Exactly right. Marriage is about love, not about your gender. It's a matter of human rights!
- qdkk, on 06/25/2008, -3/+7/sarcasm/ You must live the way I tell you to live because the bible says so.
- b0gus2008, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2It's sad that the "sarcasm" tag was needed for your comment.
- tatis44, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6If you love each other you should have the right to get marry no matter race or gender.
ww.dailyradical.org - johnnywatkins, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1To each their own. I'm not gay but if people of the same sex love each other, I got no problem with that. Just don't try to blow me.
- rootneg2, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3"I'm not gay but ..."
- npowel, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I'd keep clear of gay guys, I'm sure they'll jump at the chance to join that enormous queue of woman who can't resist trying to blow you.
- erictheturtle, on 06/26/2008, -7/+3What exactly is this "marriage" that people want so badly? When people say they want to get married, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, what do they mean?
Seriously. All this hype about who can and cannot get married, but no one ever says what it means.- flip2trip, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1You live under a rock?
- life38, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6It plain and simple. It is really about money and power. Marriage has become the largest profit center for religious organizations. The public has been fooled into thinking one can only get married in religious setting. What everyone forgets is that only the government can issue a marriage certificate. The government has delegated to others the ability to officiate the process. Everyone goes through a civil process to get married. The religious component is an add on base on what a person would like to add.
- flip2trip, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1"Marriage has become the largest profit center for religious organizations."
Please tell me how this is a profit center for religious organizations. Please cite references not your opinions.
- flip2trip, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1"Marriage has become the largest profit center for religious organizations."
- MacBigot, on 06/26/2008, -14/+4Religious arguments aside, it's undeniable. Homosexuals already have EXACTLY the same marital rights as heterosexuals. Today, any homosexual may marry any other person of the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual orientation, provided they are not a blood relative. "Same Sex Marriage," on the other hand, would be a completely new institution.
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -4/+12I addressed this argument to a fundie christian this morning...
I find it akin to saying, "Well, why should a black man have the right to marry a white woman? I mean, no one is allowed to marry outside of their own race. Why should blacks be given more rights than everyone else?"
From the start, it sounds fair enough but as soon as you give it a second thought it is bunk. The reason being is that everyone is born black/white/gay/straight by sheer happenstance; It is a genetic lottery. Also, and I would hope you agree, it is morally unacceptable to discriminate against those who have no choice in what they are.
To say that homosexuality is a choice is misinformed at best and malignant at worst (i.e. fundamentalist christians trying to "cure" homosexuals.) Most, if not all, homosexuals would say they had no choice in the matter and there is empirical evidence to back this claim.- MacBigot, on 06/26/2008, -10/+5Assuming for the sake of argument that sexual orientation is genetically determined, one cannot equate race with sexual orientation for the following reason. Race is neither a matter of preference, nor does one have a choice to act upon it or not. No one prefers to be black or white (with the relevant exception of finding political advantage in choosing to identify with one over the other when both equally apply [i.e. Obama]), or decides "I'm going to be white today."
Disagree, and a pedophile, thief, or liar could just as easily excuse their own predilection saying, "I was born this way. Accept me for who I am without judgement."- eir574, on 06/26/2008, -4/+17Except that pedophilia, thefts, and lies (at least some of them) have victims who have not given their consent. Homosexual activity between consenting adults does not.
- Cate320, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10People can help themselves from stealing, lying and harming children. Stealing and lying are things (most of) our parents taught us to be wrong from birth and are completely controllable actions (unless of course you have a mental condition, which most people do not).
Pedophiles on the other hand, can control themselves from harming or exploiting children, but just like homosexuals, they can't help what they are sexually attracted to. In that case, I do not judge the pedophiles for being pedophiles, I feel sorry for them. It is only the act of molesting children that makes them bad people. - Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11You said, for the sake of argument, that sexual orientation is genetically determined, then you double back on your own toes saying it is a preference. If something is genetically predetermined then it isn't a preference.
Also, I think you missed my analogy completely. The point is that if interracial marriage was illegal, a black man wouldn't be able to marry a white woman because of his preference (in this case, it actually is a preference but love is indiscriminate.) Another white man could marry the same white woman and tell the black man, "Hey, you have the right to marry within your own race, so don't be asking for extra rights." The black man was just unfortunate enough to be born black so he can't marry the white woman he loves. The same applies to homosexuals, if a gay man was born a woman, he could easily marry the man he loves, but he wasn't born a woman and gay marriage is illegal. This is morally unacceptable.
Your pedophile, thief, or liar analogy doesn't hold for reasons eir574 has given. - MacBigot, on 06/26/2008, -7/+3@Phyraxus
No, I did not contradict myself. In citing preference, I was merely pointing out that race's genetic determination is observable and BEYOND debate. Today, while I can concede genetic determination for the sake of debate, sexual preference is less observable and still hotly debated. In that sense, race and sexual preference are unequal. I'll concede it's a subtler argument than the issue of volition.
The issue interracial marriage is a straw man argument. Interracial marriage should never have been illegal in this country. It violates the notion that "all men are created equal" (and deserving of equal treatment under the law... which is what we're arguing), and natural law in the sense that traditional marriages, regardless of race, inherently have the potential for producing offspring (another obvious and unalterable difference between traditional and same-sex marriage). If a gay man was born a woman, then "he" could produce offspring from a traditional marriage, and we would be comparing apples to apples.
While I'll remove theft and lying from my analogy on the basis of victimization, Eir574's suggestion that homosexual relationships are victimless would lead us back to a religious argument. Regarding pedophilia, NAMBLA members would dispute labeling the objects of their affection "victims" or their predilection "molestation." - eir574, on 06/26/2008, -3/+9'Regarding pedophilia, NAMBLA members would dispute labeling the objects of their affection "victims" or their predilection "molestation."'
Sure, they might try to say that their victims aren't victims. That's why we have legal standards for what constitutes consent to sexual activity. In order to avoid any ambiguity, children can't consent to sex under any conditions. We don't allow the perpetrators of crimes to be the final arbitrators of whether their victims consented.
"The issue interracial marriage is a straw man argument."
The idea behind that argument is merely to debunk the idea that homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else. People frequently argue that since homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, they are granted equal marriage rights in the eyes of the law. However, demonstrating that marriage laws as currently written apply equally to everyone doesn't mean that they're free of civil rights violations, just as was the case with interracial marriage laws.
"Eir574's suggestion that homosexual relationships are victimless would lead us back to a religious argument."
That's true for many issues. But, it is not the role of the government to prevent me from making a mistake that victimizes myself. A religious argument also isn't sufficient to deny someone the right to do something. You'll need a legal argument that explains why same sex marriage (between consenting adults) infringes on anyone else's rights or that explains why the state has some compelling interest in regulating same sex marriage. The marriages of heterosexuals aren't weakened because two men down the street get married. Even the issue of homosexuals adopting children can be settled separately from the issue of same sex marriage. (Having their own children through surrogacy or artificial insemination would also be addressed elsewhere. Homosexuals already have that right regardless of whether we allow or disallow same sex marriage.) - MacBigot, on 06/26/2008, -7/+3@eir574
"However, demonstrating that marriage laws as currently written apply equally to everyone doesn't mean that they're free of civil rights violations, just as was the case with interracial marriage laws."
Neither does it mean civil rights violations are present. Moreover, thank you for conceding my original point that "marriage" as currently defined by law is EQUALLY available to all, and what we're talking about is creating a new institution under the law know as "same-sex marriage."
"You'll need a legal argument that explains why same sex marriage (between consenting adults) infringes on anyone else's rights or that explains why the state has some compelling interest in regulating same sex marriage."
On the contrary, same-sex marriage advocates must seek the assistance of activist judges to supplant the expressed will of voters on the issue of marriage. The state isn't attempting to regulate the hypothetical institution of "same-sex marriage." The state is protecting the long-established institution of "marriage," with laws you've conceded, "currently apply equally to everyone." - eir574, on 06/26/2008, -3/+10Voters don't get to have their way if what they want to vote for is unconstitutional. The job of a judge is not to enforce the will of the majority.
"thank you for conceding my original point that "marriage" as currently defined by law is EQUALLY available to all"
Yes, in exactly the same sense that marriage as defined not so very long ago was equally available to all who wished to marry someone of their own race.
Your church may protect the institution of marriage as it wishes to define it. However, there are legal rights associated with marriage that your church does not get to deny to others on the basis of religious belief or tradition. If you want to call the legal rights associated with marriage a civil union, I'm absolutely fine with that (as are many others), so long as we call it the same thing for everyone.
If you want to protect a religious definition of marriage, you should want government to disentangle itself from that definition.
Besides, how does allowing same sex marriages diminish heterosexual marriages? The strength of my marriage isn't dependent on what the homosexual down the street does. Assuming you're married, does yours? - lydecker, on 06/26/2008, -3/+9"On the contrary, same-sex marriage advocates must seek the assistance of activist judges to supplant the expressed will of voters on the issue of marriage. The state isn't attempting to regulate the hypothetical institution of "same-sex marriage." The state is protecting the long-established institution of "marriage," with laws you've conceded, "currently apply equally to everyone." "
Please cite evidence that same sex marriage advocates sought the assistance of judges, and others do not.
Please cite evidence that interpreting the constitution that deems a law unconstitutional is activist.
Please cite evidence that the will of the majority should trump the constitution.
Please cite evidence that allowing interracial marriage and same-sex marriage is inconsistent with protecting the long-established institution of marriage. - Nannybell, on 06/26/2008, -6/+3Society has no compelling interest to further weaken traditional marriage by permitting it to persons who are incapable of being what is best for the health and well-being of children and society. Traditional marriage is known to be the best model for raising future generations of citizens. It is the condition that best provides for the well-being of individuals. To permit homosexual couples into the state of marriage is to place them on an equal footing with the model that is known to be best -- it declares them to be the same thing as that, when in fact they absolutely are not. Society needs to invest itself in strengthening traditional marriage for the sake of children and thus society itself, rather than granting the selfish wishes of a group that in general is known to be compulsively promiscuous even in supposedly committed relationships, to be disease ridden due to those behaviors and to die early as a result -- not to mention the known psychiatric issues that attend homosexuality. Society should invest in getting them the help they need to overcome their sexual addiction and other psychiatric issues rather than granting them their selfish desires at the expense of children and the future.
P.S. Please don't bother asking me to cite, cite, cite. Everything I have stated is based on known data. Look it up. - lydecker, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8Please cite evidence that allowing homosexuals with the same problems that we allow
heterosexuals to marry would be a change to lower standards. You claim it's fact, back it up. Because I will back up the opposite claim.
If you believe we should be turning our efforts to taking away single parents rights to children, and having child services putting them in two-parent male female households, because you've deemed traditional parents the ones that will always raise the best parents, then focus your efforts there.
But lots disagree that we should make a utpoian society. We'll continue to focus on our freedoms and rights that America is all about. It's not just freedoms about sex, it's freedom about LIFE.
Homosexuals are not all beset with psychiatric issues, promiscuity, disease, and low life-expectancy. Homosexuality is not a sexual addiction. People should help homosexuals and heterosexual if they have psychiatric issues, AND help grant them equality which is not at the expense of children.
To place heterosexuals and homosexuals on equal footing is right, because the data shows there's no difference in family models. There is evidence that homosexual couples as parents are equally viable and not lowered standards than heterosexual couples as parents. Here's what studies have shown:
"This meta-analysis summarizes the available quantitative literature comparing the impact of heterosexual and homosexual parents, using a variety of measures, on the child(ren). The analyses examine parenting practices, the emotional well-being of the child, and the sexual orientation of the child. The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9010824
"The weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/f ...
"It seems that growing up in an accepting atmosphere enables individuals who are attracted to same-sex partners to pursue these relationships," Ms. Golombok and Ms. Tasker wrote. "But, interestingly, the opportunity to explore same-sex relationships may, for others, confirm their heterosexual identity."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0 ...
And here's plenty more:
http://life-before-profit.blogspot.com/2006/09/par ... - Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7"No, I did not contradict myself. In citing preference, I was merely pointing out that race's genetic determination is observable and BEYOND debate. Today, while I can concede genetic determination for the sake of debate, sexual preference is less observable and still hotly debated. In that sense, race and sexual preference are unequal. I'll concede it's a subtler argument than the issue of volition."
Yes, you do contradict yourself. You agree that being both black and homosexual are genetically predetermined, yet only the black man being black is beyond debate. Regardless of how well you can spot a homosexual man from a crowd, his "preference" is still genetically predetermined (for this reason, I doubt it should be called a preference at all.) Also, regardless of how much it is "hotly debated," most, if not all, scientific evidence points to the conclusion that homosexuality is, indeed, predetermined. (Evolution is still "hotly debated" but it does not detract from the validity of the theory.)
"The issue interracial marriage is a straw man argument. Interracial marriage should never have been illegal in this country....Moreover, thank you for conceding my original point that "marriage" as currently defined by law is EQUALLY available to all, and what we're talking about is creating a new institution under the law know as "same-sex marriage."
No, it isn't a straw man argument, as some have viewed marriage as between a male and a female of the same race, now people see it as between a man and a woman. The definition needs a tweak, just as it was tweaked for interracial marriage, in the eyes of the people and the law. Regardless of how this change occurs (i.e. via "activist" judges or "activist[?]" lawmakers), it will be for the better as there is less suffering in the world. - Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8@ nannybell: You cite no evidence because you have no compelling, UNBIASED evidence to cite.
- MacBigot, on 06/27/2008, -6/+1Again, interracial marriage is a straw man argument. Comparing the legality of interracial marriage to the legality of same-sex marriage is comparing apples to oranges. "Marriage" has always involved bringing genders together, whereas anti-miscegenation laws (laws forbidding interracial marriage) have always been about keeping races apart.
Regarding the United States, anti-miscegenation laws had to be passed to make interracial marriage ILLEGAL (no one questioned whether that such relationships met the definition of marriage as one man + one woman, or violated natural law in regards to procreation). Interracial marriage became LEGAL AGAIN when anti-miscegenation laws were REPEALED OR OVERTURNED. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_la ...
Whereas, LAWS WOULD HAVE TO BE PASSED (and DOMA and the will of the voters overturned) before same-sex marriage is LEGAL because it does not fit the long accepted definition of marriage as one man + one woman (and it certainly violates natural law in regards to procreation).
To reiterate, anti-miscegenation laws made interracial marriage ILLEGAL (to our shame), whereas new legislation (or new Supreme Court rulings) would be required to make same-sex marriage LEGAL. See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Ultimately, the will of the people can ALWAYS win out over arguments of unconstitutionality through passage of a constitutional amendment. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amen ...
Someone else may have the last word on this thread. - Phyraxus, on 06/27/2008, -1/+7"Again, interracial marriage is a straw man argument. Comparing the legality of interracial marriage to the legality of same-sex marriage is comparing apples to oranges. "Marriage" has always involved bringing genders together,"
Where you see two different genders, others see two different people. This is just the same as people used to see it as two different genders of the same race. I don't think you understand the analogy.
Even if we concede to the fact that marriage is "traditionally" between a man and a women, that doesn't change the fact that same-sex marriage deserves to be legal now. - lydecker, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6If an interracial marriage is a straw man argument, then don't make the claim that "Homosexuals already have EXACTLY the same marital rights as heterosexuals." Because that's strictly true in terminology, not in what people do with marriage. And the same can be said for interracial marriages.
If you're speaking strict terminology, it's a good comparison.
But you know that homosexual couples don't have the same rights as heterosexual couples, just as interracial couples didn't have the same rights as intraracial.
- digitronix, on 06/26/2008, -12/+1There is no gay gene. I'm tired of people repeating this lie. People develop homosexual urges because of the environment they grow up in, not because of some genetic trait.
- Cate320, on 06/26/2008, -1/+15Oh really? And where is your evidence? There is a growing amount of research out there nowadays that is proving you wrong.
Why is it that two (or more) siblings of the same sex can grow up together in the same household and only one is gay?
What environments, exactly, would turn someone gay? Are you one of those people that won't let your son play with dolls or do ballet, because he'll become gay? Or won't let your daughter play with toy cars and GI Joes because she'll turn gay?
In any case, even if it was environmental, that wouldn't make it a conscious "choice", now would it? Most of us had very little control over the things we were exposed to as children. - Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7http://richarddawkins.net/article,2725,n,n
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles ...
These two are a bit more in depth and on one topic.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/644
This one discusses alot of various topics which can be followed up via citations. - lydecker, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9There is no one gene that turns people gay, that is correct.
But you're not actually listening to what people ARE saying. - ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8Hmm. So if I grew up on a farm, I would want to ***** cows?
Back to the 50's with you. Welcome to my "blocked for being a mouth breather" list... - eir574, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9"There is no gay gene. I'm tired of people repeating this lie."
Not all of our biology is controlled by genetics. There are other factors that can affect us, some of which occur in utero. It has been shown that the sexual orientation of rats (or was it mice?) can be manipulated by changing the hormones to which they're exposed in utero. Rats/mice are not humans, of course, but a lot of basic biological mechanisms are shared across species.
As for whether there's a gay gene, you're correct that none has been found so far, and lydecker is correct that if sexual orientation were controlled by genetics, it's likely that more than one gene would be involved. That makes it all that much harder to track them down, especially when you consider that we don't even know where all of the genes in the human genome are.
- Cate320, on 06/26/2008, -1/+15Oh really? And where is your evidence? There is a growing amount of research out there nowadays that is proving you wrong.
- osko2052, on 06/26/2008, -6/+2Comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage is like comparing apples to oranges. They are totally different. one is natural because it is between a man and a woman. The other defies the laws of nature and God.
- lydecker, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7But they are exactly equivalent with regards to the argument that MacBigot made, because the EXACT argument can apply. People being attracted to those of a different race and to those of a different gender are completely natural for some, and doesn't defy the laws of nature. People used to say both defied God, some people still do.
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4You're a tool.
- Coven, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Why should the laws of your god apply to people who may not believe in your god? (not saying homosexuals are atheist, just making a point)
- b0gus2008, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1So what is your god going to do about it? Just wondering what to expect.
- MacBigot, on 06/26/2008, -10/+5Assuming for the sake of argument that sexual orientation is genetically determined, one cannot equate race with sexual orientation for the following reason. Race is neither a matter of preference, nor does one have a choice to act upon it or not. No one prefers to be black or white (with the relevant exception of finding political advantage in choosing to identify with one over the other when both equally apply [i.e. Obama]), or decides "I'm going to be white today."
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -4/+12I addressed this argument to a fundie christian this morning...
- digitronix, on 06/26/2008, -9/+2Except for that it is unnatural and serves no evolutionary purpose. The goal of mating is to reproduce, and help your species survive, so homosexuals are the weaker species, and natural selection automatically weeds them out of the gene pool.
Notice that this is an atheist's perspective.- Cate320, on 06/26/2008, -2/+12"The goal of mating is to reproduce".
True, but is it always practiced that way? No, it is not.
Is it "wrong" for someone to have sex without the intent of mating? Straight couples do it all the time. Some couples never plan on having children and/or will abort them if conception occurs. Are any relationships without intent of reproduction "wrong"?
Natural selection will only automatically weed something out of the gene pool if it NEVER reproduces. Homosexuals do very often reproduce, especially if they take awhile to "come out" and live a heterosexual lifestyle. In today's world, Homosexuals have every opportunity of reproducing if they want to. They don't necessarily have to be in a hetero relationship for it to happen. There are techniques like surrogacy and in vitro fertilization to aid them in their desire to have children.
Therefore, they are no "weaker" than anyone else in that regard (especially since they are still capable of reproducing normally) than anyone else.
Unless you want to extend your argument and say that anyone who CAN'T have children should refrain from marriage? What about women for whatever reason had to have their ovaries or uterus removed? Men who are infertile? etc. Are they "wrong" for wanting to be married even though no child will come from it? - Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7There are several reasons as to why homosexuality would actually be selected for; It is much like selection for altruism. Both homosexuality and altruism immediately reduce an individual's fitness, however, through social society and kin selection it is easy to understand why these genes would be selected for, to promote the well being of the entire family/society.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexu ...
This is a very good link explaining the selection for homosexuality.
Also, that isn't an atheistic perspective, that is a naturalistic/evolutionary perspective. - eir574, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6"homosexuals are the weaker species"
Ah, here it is again. Homosexuals are something other than human. Very nice, digitronix. What species would that be? - lydecker, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4There was a recent study that the genes in men that create their feminine aspects (and therefore the feminine attraction to men in homosexuals) also increases feminine aspects in females, and increases fertility. This would be a gene that makes each woman's egg more viable, and increase the chances of reproduction. In men, the masculine ones can still spread their seed to the females, and fertility in men isn't as much of a problem with thousands of sperm.
- Cate320, on 06/26/2008, -2/+12"The goal of mating is to reproduce".
- EffYoo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7Marriage is an institution that shouldn't have any kind of government involvement in the first place. It is a religious union before God (for people who are religious) and it is a personal commitment between two people to each other. From this perspective, the government has no role to play in marriage. Yeah, the government does have laws that designate certain legal rights/privileges to ones spouse, but this aspect should be nothing more than a legal contract available for anyone to sign with anyone else.
The government has no role in encouraging people to get married, judging the morality of personal relationships or 'maintaining the integrity of the american family'. This whole debate is a result of governmental attempts to engineer society through entitlement programs, mandates with special spousal privileges and a load of other stuff that the government was unwilling to address without including clauses that meant it would be forever sticking its nose into things that are none of its business.
The only reason that the 'religious' arguments against same sex marriage are able to influence peoples opinion is because of government intrusion. A romantic partnership needs only the approval of the two partners and, if they're religious, their church/religion/god whatever.- digitronix, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5Right on, EffYoo. Marriage is religious in nature, so the principle of separation of Church and State says that the government has no authority to make any law in regards to the free exercise of religion.
Most the debate in this forum irritates me, especially things like religion is just about the churches grabbing for money or marriage is "just about love". People need to grow some perspective.- lydecker, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Marriage is societal in nature. All societies that also do not have religions have marriage, and people who are not religious also have marriages.
- eir574, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6"Marriage is religious in nature, so the principle of separation of Church and State says that the government has no authority to make any law in regards to the free exercise of religion."
I have no problem with the idea of leaving marriage entirely to religious institutions. However, that would mean that the legal aspects of marriage would need to be separated out (and perhaps called something else, like civil unions) so that they could continue to be regulated by the state. If that were to happen, then instead of same sex marriage, we'd have same sex civil unions. If you're thinking that your church would get to decide whether same sex couples could have the legal rights associated with marriage, that would be incorrect.- digitronix, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1No, that was not my point.
- eir574, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2What was your point, then? You want your church to have full authority to determine who can and can't have the legal rights associated with marriage?
- Kizilbash, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Marriage is not religious, marriage is social. The church should stay out of it, at least as much as the state. Marriage is just a way to announce to the world how you feel about each other. Whether you do that in front of a civil servant or a priest is irrelevant.
- EffYoo, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5The church has played a role in marriage for most of human history and for religious people, it's one of the most religious things they'll do in their life. I couldn't care less if you agree with them but if you're going to tell anyone else what their marriage means than you can go ***** yourself.
You're no better than anyone who is trying to tell gay people that they aren't allowed to get married. You aren't any less of a useless bigot because the people you are trying to force your beliefs on are theists. - FyreGoddess, on 06/26/2008, -0/+16It's become a semantics issue, but EffYoo is absolutely right. Rather than all the fuss about whether or not to allow "Gay Marriage", I'd much rather see the government and the church go their separate ways on the issue. Let the churches decide for themselves who can and can't get married, and let's have the government offer "civil unions" for everyone, gay or straight.
Marriage, in and of itself, in the eyes of whatever god(s) you believe in shouldn't have anything to do with the benefits and rights and married couples currently have in the US.
You want a contract with your god? Get married. You want a contract with your government? Get a civil union. You want both? Get both, but let's get rid of the semantics argument once and for all. The word "marriage" is WAY too loaded.
- EffYoo, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5The church has played a role in marriage for most of human history and for religious people, it's one of the most religious things they'll do in their life. I couldn't care less if you agree with them but if you're going to tell anyone else what their marriage means than you can go ***** yourself.
- digitronix, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5Right on, EffYoo. Marriage is religious in nature, so the principle of separation of Church and State says that the government has no authority to make any law in regards to the free exercise of religion.
- greengarfield, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4"Who wants to marry a millionaire" and Britney Spears getting married and divorced in less than 3 days...there's your sanctity of marriage!
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10The social, secular act of marriage was originally based off of the religious definition of marriage. It is now apparent that these two definitions have diverged to the point that they are no longer compatible.
I suggest a separation of the two events citing irreconcilable differences and the fact that the religous overtones of a legal act may be a violation of church and state separation.
Since marriage was originally conceived by religous authorities, I recommend that they be allowed to continue to define their ceremonies as marriages. The state may still be allowed to offer Civil Unions to whomever they feel deserves that right. All legal marriages will be replaced by Civil Unions and all new Civil Unions will have the EXACT same rights as was held previously by marriages.
Problem solved.- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5"The state may still be allowed to offer Civil Unions to whomever they feel deserves that right."
I hope you mean everyone.- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Sure. If California wants to allow a civil union between a man and another man or a man and a tree, whatever.
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6I don't see what a tree has to do with anything...
- hope4god, on 06/29/2008, -4/+0Gays have no need to be married it is a farce a joke, the Gay Agenda wants to destroy marriage and make all people accept their mess of a joke Gay marriage.
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Gays have the same needs as straights to be married.
The equality agenda does not destroy marriage; allowing gays marriage equality does not destroy marriage.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Sure. If California wants to allow a civil union between a man and another man or a man and a tree, whatever.
- Phyraxus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5"The state may still be allowed to offer Civil Unions to whomever they feel deserves that right."
- hope4god, on 06/27/2008, -6/+0Same sex Marriage is so wrong and not good for the American Family. It is so sad to see people here with a Gay Agenda, and the Agenda is to shut up anyone who disagrees with them, and as far as the comparrison to Black or other Races this is the Gay Agendas way of getting people afraid, by using the Race card ,and it is so cruel and wrong for the Races that have been discriminated BY THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN...... The Gay Agenda wants everyone to think its ok for a man and a man to have sex, and then redfine Marriage and make everyone who believes Marriage is special, between a loving MAN and WOMAN as nile. Gays have no real reason for the title of Marriage its just about making sure Family people and children worlds are turned upside down.Its pure madness and silly and the gays should be ashamed of themselves but they wont they will be HATEFUL and attack anyone who has a Moral Compase..........
- somnambulator, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3NaNa NaNa NaNa NaNa, NaNa NaNa NaNa NaNa...Nutbag
Oops, spellcheck didn't like that.- hope4god, on 06/27/2008, -4/+0Ahhh.............Freaky Gay Agenda
- lydecker, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Same-sex couples are families, and same-sex marriage is completely good for their families.
And same-sex marriages do not alter the rest of American families at all.
The equality agenda is not to shut up anyone who disagrees with them (please cite?).
It's so cruel for anyone to be discriminated against for something they didn't choose, their skin color, their genetics, their gender, their sexual orientation, etc. Even for things they do choose, like religion.
The equality agenda wants everyone to treat people equally, and you don't have to agree if a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, is having sex.
It's not redefining a man and a woman's marriage by giving equality to a man and a man's marriage. Marriage is a special bond, between to people who are committed to each other. And a lot of people don't treat it that way, like Britney Spears, but that doesn't demean those of us who want something meaningful from marriage.
Gays have the same reasons to want the title of marriage as straight people do, and it can't turn other people's lives upside down, just like granting interracial marriages didn't turn everyone else's worlds upside down.
It's pure love, equality, and tolerance. Gays are just the same as the rest of us, they can be hateful or they can choose not to be.
- pariahjane, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Hope4god - You are a moron. There is no gay agenda, there is a human rights agenda but you are too blinded by your ignorance and your bigotry to see that. No one here is trying to shut you up, you ***** *****. I'm so sick of hearing that from ignorant people such as yourself. Just because we disagree with your antiquated prejudiced thinking doesn't mean we're trying to shut you up; we're merely voicing our own opinions.
Did I mention you're an idiot? Let me say it again - you're an idiot. I normally try to be nice to people as dumb as yourself but you picked the wrong day to leave some moronic comment about how gay people are purposefully turning this world upside down.
No one is trying to say that marriage between a man and a woman is vile (I'm assuming that's what you meant by 'nile', you ignoramus). We just want homosexuals to be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.
Homosexuals aren't attacking anyone. Religious people such as yourself are attacking homosexuals. You and your misguided arrogance that somehow you know what's best for the rest of us. Bugger off.
Oh, and this might come as a surprise to you. I'm not gay. Nope, I'm just a heterosexual who happens to think that sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue when it comes to human rights.- hope4god, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1Oh sure....................another HATEFUL Gay.....
- pariahjane, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3You have once again shown that you are an uneducated half-wit, congratulations. You obviously did not read my entire response. Perhaps it was just too hard for you.
You are the one who is hateful, not me. I'm just sick of your bigoted views. You find nothing wrong with oppressing other people's rights based on your silly little holy book that you can't even prove is true. I am certainly not hateful compared to the likes of you.
I can respect a person's right to have their beliefs but I draw the line when those beliefs begin to negatively affect others. - hope4god, on 06/29/2008, -4/+1Oh I see your nice language is part of the Gay Agenda trying to be a tough person for the GAYS, and if anyone opposes the Gays and then you come from the sewer with your threats and snubs, you Gay people are funny and you are from Jersey so thats a shock.............
- somnambulator, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3NaNa NaNa NaNa NaNa, NaNa NaNa NaNa NaNa...Nutbag
- hope4god, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2Ok seriously Aids is a std, and we know the root causes and its also in the drug community as well but more in the Gay Community. No Gay Sex no Aids for the Gays...........
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Yes, the root cause of transmission of STDs is sex. That's why they're called Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
No sex, no aids, no gonorrhea, no chlamydia, no genital herpes.
If you're going to have sex, use protection.
Seriously, it's that simple.
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Yes, the root cause of transmission of STDs is sex. That's why they're called Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
- hope4god, on 06/30/2008, -2/+0Great Hockey in Canada, and of course awesome band ''RUSH'' but sorry the other stuff.....aaaahhhhhh ''TAKE OFF!!!!!!!'' LOL Bob and Doug Mckensie.............
- hope4god, on 06/30/2008, -4/+1LieDicker, really you want to stop the Aids in the Gay Community then stop having the sex and it will stop..........But wait then the Gays will stop because that is what its about the sex, Bi-Men give the Aids virus to straight women and thats how it gets past to straight men. So why doesnt the Gay Community really care about human life? they dont its about their rights!!!! so health costs go up and we all pay for it, Aids and other STDs, and the Gay Agenda people say put on a condom is the solution..........If you bothered to check out the facts of AIDS and you probably know since you are a activist for The Gay Agenda you would see Gays are the cause of STDs, not all STDs but the ones that can kill you.Where is the real responsible Gay people who will tell the truth and say, Aids is a curable problem no Gay Sex and no drugs, needles, and it would seriously lessen or wipe out the Aids problem.Im not even bringing up the fact that this is a Sin to God and that God doesnt condone Gay Sex, and thats why Aids is on the Community along with drug use which again is not Godly........I know this sounds brutal to some, but people are dying of AIDS and they dont have too. Its a horrible disease and terrible for all involved and it doesnt have to happen.
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6If I want to stop the spread of STDs among the sexually active, regardless of their community or sexual orientation, I would advise them to not have promiscuous sex, get tested and know the status of your sexual partners, and use protection if engaging in sexual activity. Yes, I could ask everyone to stop having sex and then STD transmission will also stop. But we also have more methods of preventing STD transmission.
That's the real solution.
Are you accusing people who have sex of not caring of human life? That's absurd.
Please cite evidence that gays caused STDs. They did not. STDs evolved and have been around for a long period of time, and no person or group of people is the cause of STDs or ANY disease. Nobody is the cause of STDs, I don't believe we have the power to manufacture STDs.
EVERYONE knows that STDs are preventable.- hope4god, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1Yes LieDecker everyone knows STDs can be prevented, like husbands being committed to their wives and not having sex with other women or the Bi-Gay guys married in the closet having Gay sex, non-married straight couples not having sex before Marriage and with multiple people, and lastly but a goody maybe not for you..Gay people not having sex with each other at all, and drug users stop doing and sharing neddles with each others. Please try to spin that around there LieDecker..........................
- lydecker, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7Almost agreed, but you go to far than is necessary to prevent STD infection.
Don't have promiscuous sex! If you're going to, know your partner's status, and wear protection! If you have an addiction and need to use needles, use clean ones only!
It's false that you need to wait until marriage, as long as you wear protection and/or are sure your partner is uninfected, whether gay or straight. That's fact. There's no magical risk of illness that goes away once you're married.
None of your anti-homosexual pro-heterosexual spin required. - eir574, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7@hope4god
Why is it that you think monogamous heterosexual couples are protected from STDs, but gay couples can't under any circumstances have sex if they want to prevent the spread of STDs?
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6If I want to stop the spread of STDs among the sexually active, regardless of their community or sexual orientation, I would advise them to not have promiscuous sex, get tested and know the status of your sexual partners, and use protection if engaging in sexual activity. Yes, I could ask everyone to stop having sex and then STD transmission will also stop. But we also have more methods of preventing STD transmission.
- hope4god, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1@Boogus, God is free will and waits for you to come and be with him, free salvation people who were not raised in a moral God fearing home will not know this? unless someone says something or cares. I believe God cares and there is Hope with God and that all people are loved by God. People that choose to go a different way or not follow the Lord,God still loves them but if they want to enter Heaven then God must be part of their life. I hope and pray for all good people to know God as their Lord and Savior there is nothing wrong with that, Hate is when a person is cruel to someone for the way God made them, and God doesnt make Gay people, they choose to be Gay or if it is mental illness and The Gay Agenda people dont want to say that, then Gods knows what in the soul and he will speak to that person on Judgement Day.
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Gays do not choose to be gay. One cannot choose sexual orientation, neither you, I, straight nor gay can.
There is no evidence that sexual orientation is a mental illness, which is why intelligent people don't say that.
- lydecker, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Gays do not choose to be gay. One cannot choose sexual orientation, neither you, I, straight nor gay can.
- hope4god, on 07/02/2008, -4/+1Aids is past from Bi-Gay men or Drug dirty needles, or in the Gay Community and LyDecker as far as STDs in general when you are Married and Committed you dont have to worry about STDs in general. The people that have sex with anyone is going to have a higher rate of STDs so your spin points, to a Committed Married couple of a Man and a Woman as the best and safe way to have a healthy sexual relationship. Gay men look for sex and are at a higher rate of contacting STDs its the Gays Agenda to hide the fact that it is a problem, and they have no solution because they dont want to be honest and say end Aids, stop Gay sex...............and the druggys who share needles thats a whole other problem
- lydecker, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5HIV is passed through unprotected sexual activity and intravenous drug use, and it doesn't discriminate on your sexual orientation. To prevent HIV, like all other STDs, don't engage in unprotected sexual activity or unsafe intravenous drug use. It's that simple.
Marriage doesn't lower one's risk factor. Having less unprotected sexual activity, as is common in marriages, does.
Protected sexual activity among partners of known status and few partners is the best and safe way to haveou a healthy sexual relationship.
Many men look for sex, regardless of orientation, and not using protection increases the chance of getting an STD from your partner.
Gay is not the problem, even though you continually try and make it so.
STOP UNPROTECTED SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Everyone with a brain can see past what you're doing, even those who agree with your motivation for doing so.- hope4god, on 07/02/2008, -4/+1LyDecker you just proved my point No Gay Sex and the chances of someone getting Aids is over, as far as Man and Woman sex, again if you are Married and Committed to your spouse then how does one get a STD like the rest of the public that as you say should know their partner, wear a condom, would it not be smarter and better if 2 a Man and a Woman, Husband and Wife were together having a intimate life and sharing hopes of children, Family get togethers, school functions with the kids, Church you know the Normal stuff in life, free from such problems.........
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4If everyone maintained strictly monogamous relationships, sticking with one partner for life, then yes, STD's would never get anywhere - this goes for heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships, not just one or the other. That is an unrealistic expectation, however - life is not some idealistic, static thing in which two people stay together forever. People get divorced, people cheat, people die and their lovers move on to meet new people, etc.
- lydecker, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Hope4god no gay sex and no straight sex and no drug use and the chances of someone getting AIDS is over... but it's overkill, it's not teaching about actually how you can get HIV. I KNOW and would completely back up your assertion that if nobody ever had sex, nobody would get STDs.
You can't get HIV from MSM if they don't have it.
If you're married and committed to your spouse, you can still get an STD if they have one... therefore, no unprotected sexual activity and only with partners of known status still rings true. Even if you're abstinent until marriage, doesn't mean your partner was.
You're hiding your morality in this, you're saying the only way to prevent STDs and HIV is to have no gay sex, but really you're just trying to get people to follow your God's law.
It would be better if everyone lived without STDs. So prevent yourself from getting one by not having promiscuous sex, only protected sex, and know your partners status.
- lydecker, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5HIV is passed through unprotected sexual activity and intravenous drug use, and it doesn't discriminate on your sexual orientation. To prevent HIV, like all other STDs, don't engage in unprotected sexual activity or unsafe intravenous drug use. It's that simple.
- hope4god, on 07/02/2008, -4/+0I get that it was directed at LyDecker who is always trying to spin the truth to a new not so truthful way. Gays and drug users are the main reason for Aids if not the only reason. The Gay Community rather try to tell there people to be careful, condoms, checking etc, and thats good but wouldnt it better if they were honest and said Aids can be preventable by not engaging in Sex with the same gender. LyDecker its about the truth Aids is a preventable and if all the Gays stopped having sex and not passing it to the straight people, Bi-Guys etc then at least Aids wouldnt be an issue for the Gays.,.................
- lydecker, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Gays, drug users, and people in Africa are the main carriers of HIV, they are not the cause or main reason for HIV or AIDS. The gay community just as well as the straight community tells people how to prevent STIs and pregnancy, and that's by being protected, not simply by not engaging in sexual activity. People are sexual beings, and we can't stop everyone's sex drive. We can tell them how to avoid risks, and ONE way is abstinence, and ANOTHER way is protecting yourself. Nobody is going to lie and say the only way to be safe is to stop having sex.
I'VE COMPLETELY AGREED that HIV and AIDS and STIs are preventable by not having promiscuous sex, having protected sex, and knowing the status of your partners. REGARDLESS of your sexual orientation.
- lydecker, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Gays, drug users, and people in Africa are the main carriers of HIV, they are not the cause or main reason for HIV or AIDS. The gay community just as well as the straight community tells people how to prevent STIs and pregnancy, and that's by being protected, not simply by not engaging in sexual activity. People are sexual beings, and we can't stop everyone's sex drive. We can tell them how to avoid risks, and ONE way is abstinence, and ANOTHER way is protecting yourself. Nobody is going to lie and say the only way to be safe is to stop having sex.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by