Thanks for taking some of it for me, Dave. Sometimes being the only person with these kinds of views grows tiresome. Thing is, sometimes people just don't understand until they have a personal stake in things.

I'm not really bothered, and I don't see what the big deal is here (in terms of why people are opposing it).

Straight, gay, whatever...just let people who love each other get married.

What's the problem? Religious beliefs? If so, than I'm pretty sure that if there is a benevolent God almighty he'd be more than happy for his creations to express their love for each through marriage (regardless of their sexual oritenation), rather than all the unneccesary conflict that follows by not allowing them to do so.

Well thats by no means assured, the God of the Old Testament isn't exactly portrayed as being particularly open-minded.

Hmm...this is quite interesting. It's a bit weird, a study involving sniffing underarm sweat, but the results are quite revealing.

The preferences of gay men are quite different from anybody elses and they are particularly attracted towards other gay men's sweat. Heterosexual people tended to rate the gay sweat as being least attractive.

The chemical inside sweat also produces different reactions inside the brains of homosexual people - I'd say this is pretty compelling evidence that there is some biological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The test subjects don't have a clue about the person that the sweat came from which makes it very difficult to argue that this is the result of 'choice'.

What is also quite interesting is that lesbian women shared the same preferences as heterosexual males and females - only homosexual males react different in both their preferences and brain activity.

[ 05-10-2005, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I thought "The Bible: version 2.0" (the New Testament) changed God's image from that of "MR Fear of God" to "I love everyone equally"?

Dave, if given the choice, would you accept a Civil Union that was equal to marriage in everything except name, or would you hold out and demand marriage?

Timber - Hell yes. But I would not stop there either. Of course a civil union is the next step for us, but once that is attained rest assured the gay community is not going to stop lobbying for marriage rights.

You may say "it's just a piece of paper"... but if that is the case, why do YOU care so much, eh?

What a lot of people have to realise is that some homosexual people ARE religious, therefore marriage is going to be a big thing for them.


Shamrock - puhlease. You cannot seriously tell me that because of one study - one that might not even have been carried out professionally - you can sit there and tell me I'm biologically different to you, or moreso than the way everyone is different to one another. And you base this on UNDERARM SWEAT? Forgive me for thinking that a bit ridiculous.

Illumina - I'm just sorry it took me so long to get here.... how the heck DID I miss this one for so long?

Well there are quite a lot of similar studies out there, so I don't think its an isolated case.

And if you read the article more closely, they go on to administer the particular pheremones found in the sweat for the brain scans. The 'sniffing' is only done for the basic ranking by the individual.

And sure, it sounds ridiculous, but there are still some striking results.

And surely if you're not homosexual because of choice then the only other explanation is a biological difference? Doesn't it follow naturally from your claim?

[ 05-10-2005, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I'm Gay. Therefore I am. Who knows why I am gay, shamrock? Why does it matter so? I do not choose to be a homosexual, the way I choose what I have for lunch. Just because we do not choose to be gay does not mean it's a biological reason. It's entirely possible that it's a reason NONE of us have thought of yet.

I have always been gay, I have never been attracted to women. I found out I was gay in year 10... 15 years of age. Why on Earth would a 15 year old boy choose to be gay? Don't be nuts ;)

Anyway, that's not really the issue.

Cerek - although I appreciate your support throughout this thread, I would like to ask you something. If all we want is equal rights... don't we have the right to the SAME label of marriage? And to be honest, it's not all about rights. You yourself said you have a gay friend of very religious background. The "name" marriage means something. It means more than the words "civil union". Of course, non-religious people may find that civil union is sufficient for them. Many religious homosexuals will not. I, myself, would love to be able to get married one day, in a church, surrounded by the people I love and whom love me.

The benefits of a marriage are definately a major part of the issue, but not the entire issue.

My friends, marriage is much more than "just a label".

Dave, not to put too fine a point on it, but it strikes me that you would like to remake religion to accept you, when at present it doesn't.

Hey, Kings of England remade religion to fit them, so you'd be in good company.

I'm just pointing it out, though. When I ran afoul of the teachings of my church, rather than remake the church, I simply left it.