Lucern- thanks for the post and the link to the article.


I think it is clear that none of the labels attached to the "cause" of homosexuality can really be called facts, but some are supported better than others. Many claims are made, but what facts back them up? I read, not a long while back, that the facts which support homosexuality is caused by a genetic disorder could also be interpreted to support that homosexuality is a natural gentic trait. Conclusions can change depending on the interpreter.

I also find flaws in the logic that homosexuality is some kind of grand choice consciously made. No hard facts or statistics support claims that homosexuality is a choice and is chnageable- that I have seen. On the contrary in fact.

Link

[ 04-29-2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Parent, cousin, Sibling --- consanguinity laws are based on science, which indicates retardation results. Oh, and in every state I've looked at, only 1st or 2nd cousins are prevented from marrying, some states say 2nd cousins can, some saw you must be 3rd or more removed.

Paedophile --- children can't consent

polygamist --- that's not a "couple"

child --- children can't consent

Quote:

America does discriminate in an attempt to create and maintain a certain society.

But, can only discriminate based on gender where it can pass a strict scrutiny legal test. Which, everyone agrees would defeat a gay marriage prohibition.

Quote:

That society believed all were created equal and given by their creator certain rights of equality, and that clearly includes the right to marry an adult, non related member of the opposite sex, not just "whom you love or want to have sex with".

As I said, all of the limitations on marriage are fine, except that of gender. The gender discrimination is illegal. Men and women can't be treated separately under the law. Cases have been struck down where men were given a lower drinking age, women were given preference in college admission, etc. etc. There's no reason to treat them different in marriage either.

Quote:

That notwithstanding, gays are not prevented from engaging and maintaining loving cohabitational relationships with people they love.

And the jews can worship in church. And, in Virginia, before Loving v. VA was overturned, blacks could marry --- they just couldn't marry whites.

Thanks Lucern and Chewbacca, some great information there [img]smile.gif[/img] It does make you wonder how much choice we really do have in these matters...

[ 04-29-2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Have you heard of the term "looking at the glass half full?" Sometimes it's hard to do, but if you chose to count the things youhave right now, rather than the things you've lost, or fear you may lose. Of course if you're in physical pain, that's not pleasant, but physical pain usually passes, and in any case exists as the body's warning and self protection system. So actually pain is a positive thing if you choose to see it as such. Without pain, you'd be like a leper. Limbs falling off, blood flow stopping, breaking bones.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>So is the leper also just refusing to look at the glass as "half full" - or are you making an exception for them and conceding they actually have a valid reason for being unhappy?

Since you quoted the Declaration of Independence in support of your view (even though it is NOT a law-creating document, as <font color=tan>Timber</font> pointed out), how do you explain the fact that gay couples are being denied the "Unalienable Right" of "Pursuit of Happiness"? Unlike heterosexual couples, gay couples are forced to make of choice of "coupling" with the person they love OR "coupling" with an opposite-gender person to gain certain legal benefits granted through a union or marriage?

And finally, if you believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice, then (theoretically) you should be able change your current sexual preference (if you really wanted to). Can any heterosexual male here honostly say they could "decide" to start being attracted to other men?

Points to ponder.</font>

Hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts here Cerek [img]smile.gif[/img] For this point, I think the legal position is quite clear. Discrimination against a couple who live together and make vows in a civil ceremony, just because they're the same sex is intolerable. If the commitment is there, then they should be treated equally under law. Anything else is simply not equal.

Marriage is something quite different - it is a Christian institution, a matter of faith, and not something that I believe (with my uninformed opinion!) should be legislated over. It's a private matter between a private organisation (the church) and private individuals (the couple). I think the example Timber gave about private associations is extremely relevent here - putting aside the 'personal' relationship with a deity, marriage requires entering in to an association with the church and clergy. It's every bit out of the hands of government as joining a private members club should be.

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here - I would imagine that most (all?) heterosexual males here would say that this is impossible (as you imply in asking the question).

However, we are making decisions now, after we have formed our preferences and lived with them for years. I don't think that 'could you decide?' is as relevent a question as 'is it possible?'

Consider a counter-proposal - suppose you were raised in a society in which finding other men attractive was the norm. Is it not possible that (whilst being the same person) you would then in fact find other males attractive?

In principle, I cannot see the difference between this and other similar issues. Let me pick a random example that popped into my head:

If ever you've seen particular African tribes who elongate the necks of their women with bracelets for example, obviously the males in that society consider this highly desirable and attractive. The average Westerner however sees a mutilation (both in the large length of the neck and the fact it is so long that her neck would break were the bracelets taken off).

As culture manages to change the opinions of men over something as large as this, it doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that society could condition us (and therefore our preferences are not absolutely fixed) to like members of the same sex.

[ 04-29-2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[quote]Originally posted by Cerek:

Quote:

Originally posted by Melchior: <font color=plum>So is the leper also just refusing to look at the glass as "half full" - or are you making an exception for them and conceding they actually have a valid reason for being unhappy?

I don't understand your problem. I didn't devalidate unhappiness. I pointed out that we are in control of our reactions to what happen to us. It's incorrect to say to someone "you make me so mad". No-one makes you mad, you chose to be angry with a person, just as you can chose to calm down and let it go. Of course circumstances make that choice difficult, just as time passing make the choice easier.

If you deny this very basic concept you can live a powerless life, unable to control your emotions, be committed in relationships, create emotional art etc etc. Actors choose to emote for a living. That's why they fall in love with their leading partner all the time.

This is quite a common knowledge idea. Many have espoused it before me. I really don't understand your sarcastic attitude.

Quote:

Since you quoted the Declaration of Independence in support of your view (even though it is NOT a law-creating document, as <font color=tan>Timber</font> pointed out), how do you explain the fact that gay couples are being denied the "Unalienable Right" of "Pursuit of Happiness"? Unlike heterosexual couples, gay couples are forced to make of choice of "coupling" with the person they love OR "coupling" with an opposite-gender person to gain certain legal benefits granted through a union or marriage?

If you think a piece of paper makes you happy you've misunderstood marriage.

A homosexual is not discriminated against here. Homosexual relationships are, given the current aims of U.S. society. (Actually the way things stand now, homosexuals aren't being defined by their sexual preference at all.)

Look, if you want to change society by all means do so. Please don't try and take some sort of moral highground in the process though, because both camps are doing exactly the same thing. What changes is the picture people want to see their society become.

Quote:

And finally, if you believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice, then (theoretically) you should be able change your current sexual preference (if you really wanted to). Can any heterosexual male here honostly say they could "decide" to start being attracted to other men? Points to ponder.</font>

You bet. They often do.

Again I present my aquaintance: http://www.syrogers.org/

Then you could say same sex marriages are also based on science, in that they have -100% chance of healthy reproduction, compared to consanguinities 30% or so.

What has consent got to do with it? Kids were married off in other cultures by their parents.

Yes it is. Polygamy includes multiple couples inclusively. Say a man marries one woman, then another, then another. He makes a couple with each of the women individually. The women don't marry each other. You're precluding a man from marrying a woman he loves simply because he's already married to someone else. That's discrimination against couples that love each other, want to be together, and even procreate with all the legal and financial benefits.

Polygamy has worked wonderfully throughout history.

child --- children can't consent


Jews can worship in a church. Any building can be used as a synagogue, temple or church.
The black/white distinction makes a distinction based on color. Distinctions now are based on gender, but you would have distinctions based on sexual preference. So that only homosexual men can marry each other.

Marriage doesn't equal happiness or love. Love and marriage are different, and you can have one without the other.

Anyway I'm tired of this topic. I think this will be my last reply.

Shamrock: If marriage is a Christian institution, then the government would take its cue from Christianity, right? But people are divorcing and remarrying all the time, which is a religious no-no. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business if it's a Christian institution. And hasn't marriage been around for a really really long time? How long has Christianity been in the mainstream, a few hundered years? I don't know, it all sounds sort of iffy to me.

Well, having never had any first hand experience of marriage I could be wrong here, but when you marry don't you also register with the state in the same way that you would had you just gone to a registry office? So when you get a divorce, it's just this 'civil' side that is divorced? The marriage itself is annulled by the church I think.

Well, it reached the UK about 1,000 years ago but marriage is mentioned in the bible as far back as Genesis. Other religions and cultures have their own words for it, but according to google, a culture preaching a monogomous relationship is actually in the minority.

But I could be wrong - I just understood that marriage was a religious thing and we've just labelled civil unions as marriage because it's all the same in practice.

<font color=plum>My attitude is not sarcastic, I was asking a question. However, as you correctly pointed out, I cannot control how you choose to interpret and react to my comments - only you can. ;)

You are correct that we each control how we react to situations and circumstances, but to blithely state (or imply) that victims of severe emotional and/or physical abuse are simply choosing to look at the glass as "half empty" is naive' to the extreme. </font>

<font color=plum>Homosexuals aren't seeking a piece of paper to complete their happiness, they are seeking to have the same legal benefits granted to their relationship that heterosexual couples receive. Your comment IS applicable to that group of gay/lesbian activists that INSIST their union be labeled a "marriage" instead of a "civil union". The label shouldn't matter, so long as the rights received under both terms are equal. You are also right that - in this particular instance - it is the homosexual relationship that is being discriminated against. But you are wrong to say that homosexuals themselves are not discriminated against. Even if you choose to ignore the obvious prejudice some people feel towards them, you have admitted that homosexuals must currently make a choice regarding their relationships. They can be with a person they love, but they won't receive the same legal rights and benefits granted to heterosexual couples (in most states). OR they can choose to marry someone they don't love, but receive the legal rights and benefits simply because that person is the opposite sex. And to imply the second choice is actually an acceptable option is to truly misunderstand marriage.

<font color=plum>To be perfectly honost, <font color=yellow>Melchior</font>, you're the only one I've seen taking a supposed "higher ground" (whether morally, intellectually or both) so far. Well, with the exception of <font color=lime>Azred</font> - but then he shamelessly admits he has an elitist attitude. :D Maybe I am wrong to interpret your comments that way, but that is certainly how they sound when I read them. And I feel safe in saying I'm not the only one who has made this possible misinterpretation.</font>

</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>I'm not asking about acuaintances - I'm asking this question directly to you and to every other member here. Could any member here (males especially) honostly say they think they could become "attracted" to another guy and desire a loving, sexual relationship with them?

Because of my religious beliefs, I have always been firmly in the "choice" camp myself. I agree with <font color=orange>Morgeraut</font> that the "choice" may not even be a conscious one, but that it could have been affected by environment and social situations without the person even being aware of it. The examples <font color=lime>shamrock</font> gave help support this theory. However, when a gay member here asked point blank if I could ever "choose" to fall in love with a man, I had to admit that I could not.

I had a lifelong friend admit to me that he was gay. He also said he had always wanted to "date" me. When I told him that wasn't my lifestyle choice, he echoed the same sentiments expressed by <font color=white>Illumina's</font> friend...<font color=white>"Why would he CHOOSE to live a life that was ostracised by society?"</font> He did not WANT to be gay, but he could not help feeling attracted to men instead of women. He was also a strong Christian and the conflict with his beliefs caused him deep emotional turmoil. That is another example of how the "half full attitude" falls terribly short of truly understanding the full depth and seriousness of emotional pain.</font>