Gay Marriage?

[Doan]

I didn't see a post about it so I decided to start a thread.

My Opinion:

As a Buddhist, I am not influenced by the Bible and therefore, believe that gay marriage should be legalized. I do not understand why marriage should be between a man and a woman, especially when two people love each other; it doesn't really matter what gender they are, as long as they want to be together.

So for those non-gay marriage people: What is your reason? They have the same rights as we do; we are all humans and brothers. Religion should not get in between a man and his rights.

Discuss on!

[bhupendra2895]

If we want to discuss gay marriage then we should discuss what is marriage first?While I am not married but I understand that concept of marriage was created to bring new human beings on the earth in a genuine way.Birth of child by married couple in a genuine way is only possible if one of them is male and other is female.Two male or two female can't produce a child together without scientific help.I am not an animal experts but I didn't see any gay animal couple in my 22 years of life doing sex in street or in discovery channel.So how we can assume that sexual attraction of two people of same sex is natural .Just analyse the body of male and female and then ask yourself which makes the best couple?

People often say that in a gay couple one partner behaves like a person of other sex because his mental system was like that since birth.So it is natural and it should be allowed.I am sorry to say that but if some body have some disease from birth than we don't try to cure it?How such practices can be permitted by religion and society which are unproductive and unnatural?People say in a democratic country people are free to do anything privately.I think marriage is social act not a private act.Democratic laws have to allow gay marriages or live in relationships because it don't harm anybody's independence but religion and society can't accept it and it was the religion & society together who invented the concept of marriage.Also Religion and society never assumed the marriage between person of same sex when they would have thought about it.One would never love to see his childrens to become gay because if they are gay then he won't be able to see his grandchildrens.Finally I feel that religion and society cannot allow the concept of gay marriage.

[innominate]

If we want to discuss gay marriage then we should discuss what is marriage first?While I am not married but I understand that concept of marriage was created to bring new human beings on the earth in a genuine way.

Marriage has been developed in some way by almost all cultures in the past few thousand years, for the most part as a way to ensure that people remain faithful. In tribal cultures, where marriage originated, children were raised by the community regardless of parentage; marriage had nothing to do with children.

Birth of child by married couple in a genuine way is only possible if one of them is male and other is female.

Or if one or both of them are viable intersex.

Two male or two female can't produce a child together without scientific help.

And neither can a man and a woman if at least one of them is infertile. Do you also campaign against "barren marriage"?

And I'm pretty sure that you don't need science to put sperm in your uterus (unless you count a turkey baster as science).

I am not an animal experts but I didn't see any gay animal couple in my 22 years of life doing sex in street or in discovery channel.

You're right, you're not an expert. I'd go so far as to say you're completely naive. Homosexuality is prolific in the animal kingdom, from bonobos (close relatives of humans), who are exclusively bisexual, to penguins (who will raise eggs abandoned by other couples that would otherwise die). By some estimates, 1500 species of animal practice homosexuality regularly.

So how we can assume that sexual attraction of two people of same sex is natural .

Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?

Just analyse the body of male and female and then ask yourself which makes the best couple?

Let's see. Men have one hole and one rod, while women have two holes and no rod, but both sexes have tongues. Given that almost all men have a g-spot in the anus which causes intense sexual arousal when stimulated, I'd go so far as to say we're biologically wired to take it from both sides.

People often say that in a gay couple one partner behaves like a person of other sex because his mental system was like that since birth.So it is natural and it should be allowed.

Which people say that? I'm finding it hard to get a reference to a legitimate source.

I am sorry to say that but if some body have some disease from birth than we don't try to cure it?

Yes we do. But what about homosexuality is a disease exactly? It isn't pathological, it doesn't cause severe interruption of a person's ability to live (though homophobes certainly do that for them, making them more of a disease than homosexuality), and, most importantly, it is completely incurable. In fact, it's easier to change a person's sex than it is to change their sexuality.

How such practices can be permitted by religion and society which are unproductive and unnatural?

You're right. Condoms should be banned, as should the pill. After all, use of contraceptives is both unproductive and unnatural. In fact, if somebody ever has sex and doesn't have a child that person should be branded immoral.

People say in a democratic country people are free to do anything privately.I think marriage is social act not a private act.

So two people who don't know anyone else aren't allowed to get married? Or do you mean "social" as in "regulated by social bodies such as governments", which would of course be a tautology?

Democratic laws have to allow gay marriages or live in relationships because it don't harm anybody's independence but religion and society can't accept it and it was the religion & society together who invented the concept of marriage.

The person who invented a concept doesn't own it. Otherwise all monotheistic religion would still be Sumerian.

Also Religion and society never assumed the marriage between person of same sex when they would have thought about it.

Sorry, which religion is it that owns marriage? Because some of them, say, the ancient Greeks, were all for homosexuality. And marriage is much older than organised religion, so I call bull**** on the whole thing anyway.

One would never love to see his childrens to become gay because if they are gay then he won't be able to see his grandchildrens.

I know two couples, one of two lesbians and the other of two gay men. One of the men donated sperm (multiple times) to the other couple, and since then they've had two children, with a third planned. The four of them are the best parents I know, and the children are growing up with twice as much love as any single couple can provide.

Finally I feel that religion and society cannot allow the concept of gay marriage.

Well it's a good thing that religion doesn't have a ****ing say. Secular countries, remember? As for society, depending on where you live, most people are supportive of same-sex marriage. Even in the US, the most socially backwards of all first-world countries, support is around 44-47% for same-sex marriage

The case against same-sex marriage doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Doan]

^ Wow. That was a really good argument. However, lettme add in some or theories that scientist have:

They believed that homosexuality was always in society, but it was not accepted, and therefore, they stayed dormant. The increase in homosexuals, is not really an increase, but rather a increase in reveling themselves.

Other scientists also believe that if there was an increase, it is because there is an unnatural overpopulation, and nature must find a way to make humans stop breeding; therefore there are homosexuals out there.


There are many other things to worry about that are "unnatural and immoral" than gay marriage. I agree that the case against same-sex marriage doesn't have any proof except for the concept of what "marriage is". It doesn't really matter what the concept of marriage is, because basically all the argument is: they can't be married because marriage means blah blah blah blah.


Technicalities guys... just technicalities.

[Sharky]

There's gay, and then there's:


I don't see what the big deal is. My personal opinion is that I wouldn't want to try gay sex or a relationship with another man. It's not a "don't knock it until you've tried it" thing. I have never looked at a man with attraction and therefore from personal experience couldn't understand why anyone would.

With regards to the "Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?" comment: prove it. This isn't the first time homosexuality has been debated. I'd suggest joining IRC, as that's the place for random debates for no reason. Many of which in the past have started with someone (...me) coming out with a controversial comment and waiting for someone else to bite. Great fun, is debating for no reason.

[Doan]

With regards to the "Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?" comment: prove it.

Prove that you are straight... that is basically what you are asking us to do, we can only speculate and use logic to define these loosely used terms.

[truthguild]

considering that nearly all the arguments against homosexual marriage are based on religion - and the government is secular - those arguments really don't apply to any legal case against homosexual marriage and i won't even bother to cover them. so let's look out the few secular arguments against it and see how well they hold up.

argument #1 - if we allow gay marriage, then before we know it we will be saying "what's wrong with people marrying chldren/animals/etc?".
response: this is a perfect example of a slippery slope (aka camel's nose) logical fallacy. allowing one does not in any way indicate we will allow the rest.

argument #2 - marriage is for producing children.
response: tell that to all the married couples that are either too old, infertile, or do not want to have children.

argument #3 - if we allow gay marriage, we will have to redefine in society what marriage is.
response: so what? society changes over time. when we allowed interacial marriages, we had to redefine marriage within society and it hasn't caused any major social collapse.

argument #4 - but if everyone was gay, there wouldn't be future generations.
response: are you kidding me? with only about 1% of the population being gay, i'm not too worried about that. the same thing would happen if everyone born was female - and that's a more likely occurance and no one seems to worry about it.

argument #5 - but i think it's gross/disgusting/offensive/etc
response: so what? the price to living in a free society is you risk being exposed to things you don't like or are offended by. if everything that someone thought was disgusting or offensive was illegal, we would all be in prison. fortunately, no one has the right to not be offended.

If anyone is aware of any other secular arguments against it, feel free to post them for me.

[innominate]

With regards to the "Perhaps because humans have been practicing homosexuality for thousands of years at least, and likely since we first began using tools?" comment: prove it.

I admit it is very difficult to prove, as there is no direct evidence for any sexuality during that period; all we have are shaped stones and notches on bones. I'll try however.

Homosexual behaviour is expressed in 33 species of primates (13 of them only under conditions of captivity; 7 of them express it only when not under captivity) including our closest living relative, the Bonobo (which is exclusively bisexual). Unfortunately I can't seem to find any papers which detail genetic proximity of other primate species to humans, but I do recall reading one which explained that there is a statistically significant correlation between proximity and frequency of homosexual interactions; in other words, the more "human" a primate is, the more it has homosexual sex. Even if we disregard this link (because I can't find the paper again, that seems fair), it is still apparent that our close genetic relatives share our tendency for homosexuality, which strongly implies that it is natural.

Homosexuality at the very least predates the ancient Greek city-states; a rite of passage in tribal communities involved being taught about life by an older man (the older man kidnaps the younger, as it happens), with sex being involved. Finding a date for this is proving difficult as well, but it appears that the tradition was well-established by 1650-1500 BCE. A piece of Mesolithic art suggests that homo-eroticism was present somewhere between 10000 and 8000 BC. In 600 BC, Sappho of Lesbos was writing love poems to young women (hence the term "Lesbian"). There's much more as well. Homosexuality has been present in some form for most of written history. This, again, suggests that it is a recurrent feature of human nature.

Lastly, from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality is an adaptive trait stemming from the potential for population imbalance. When there is an over-abundance of males, sexual competition is intense, but the number of children who survive is not increased. Homosexuality provides additional people to raise the children of their kin, which in turn greatly increases the survival of their genes. Further, twin-studies suggest that genes account for 50% of instances of homosexuality, with some of the remainder being explained by the tendency for extra male children to be homosexual. In other words, we have strong evidence which suggests that homosexuality is entirely natural, and no evidence to suggest that it was not present at the dawn of man.

[conzone]

Thought it was proved "gay-ness" was down to a gene "defect".
Another point is "marriage" or contracts going back to tradesmen and soldiers.
Spartans and their no women training system also poke holes in the marriage/contract idea was for just between men and woman.

[Doan]

I'm glad most people here on x10 hosting are open minded.

Some scientist say that "Gayness" is a gene. Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't really matter does it.