Please explain to me exactly how it is that gay marriage would ruin the "American Family". I think with all the domestic abuse, 50% divorce rate, and all the other ways heterosexuals have messed up marriage, what's the worst that could happen? I don't see what the big deal is.

Wow, those are some solid points. Thanks for being so expressive and articulate in this crucial human right!

quote:

Originally posted by DropDeadGabby:
God created people to love the opposite sex...
Marriage was for the love of a man and a woman.
not two gay guys who enjoy each other very much.
or two gay women.
I wish people in society would see this.

You're saying that God created men and women to "love the opposite sex". So, if that's your argument, why do gays exist? And, if I see where you're coming, homosexuals aren't equal to heterosexuals because they see the same sex as sexually attractive? And why use the word "enjoy" for committed homosexual couples as opposed to "love" for committed heterosexual couples? Are you saying that a mutual commitment is only exclusive to heterosexuals?

There is more to marriage than "sex"; the most clinical definition of marriage is "a union of two individuals as recognized by the law." Marriage, if you think about it hard enough, goes under "pursuit of happiness" clause which all Americans are entitled to, not just heterosexuals, but homosexuals too.

For the record, using God as an excuse to deny hard working Americans with families, children, etc., the same rights as heterosexuals, is disgusting.

You should be very ashamed to have the gay pride flag as your avatar.

i don't know this for penguins but our dna is 96% the same as a cat's. we are very closely related to animals even though it doesn't seem like it.

personally, i don't see why people give a shit about homosexuals. i really don't care what you do in your private life as long as you aren't beating children and animals.

How much genes dictate in our lives is a big debate in the world of genetics right now. However, what isn't debated is that mental factors (or choices) can turn genes on and off. For example, you can be totally attracted to a person who would make an excellent mate (in animal terms), however the moment she/he does something that you disagree with one some level above the carnal, like say a religious belief, the chemical attraction is turned off, even though her/his ability to produce viable offspring is unaffected by this discovery. There's also the whole bear in the woods textbook example, but I think the above example is a lil more applicable.
Point being, while genetics has a significant impact in our lives, it wouldn't be perfectly accurate to claim nearly everything we do comes from our genes (identical twins for example have different likes and dislikes and make different choices as well.)

quote:

You didn't notice that I said I was lazy and that's why I gave you wikipedia. It really isn't that inaccurate. Plus I said to look at the resources themselves not the wikipedian article

I did miss that (I was pretty tired when I read that. My bad)... in any case there are 86 links at the bottom, not all of which deserve equal credit (attributing it to a disease? That guy was desperate for a grant.) and a lot are going against the idea of biological determined sexuality. But when I looked through, I didn't really find anything compelling enough to look at in depth (twin studies came close, but it seems as though statistical analysis proves inconclusiveness, hopefully more studies will be done with better analysis.) I didn't see anything on maternal hormones, but I was tired so after I post this I'll look again for it... 86 links one of them has to be something worthwhile.

quote:

silly goose

It has been forever since I've been called that... I think the last time was on an 8th grade essay and the teacher wrote that in the comments...huh... anyways...

quote:

Lol, I'm saying that homosexuality occurs in nature, so who's to say it is a choice? Animals don't choose their sexuality and humans are animals.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Ah now it makes more sense... hmm so Animals don't choose their sexuality and humans are animals... ergo humans don't choose their sexuality?
Lemme think about this:
Penguins don't choose their sexuality, penguins are animals, ergo animals don't choose their sexuality. <--- this isn't necessarily true. Just because penguins lack the cognitive skills to choose sexuality doesn't mean humans do. Besides, the inability to make choices isn't a trait that defines animals.
Although, homosexuality in animals is somewhat compelling. My issues with it are 1) penguins don't really have a lot in common with humans. 2) Just because a few do doesn't mean all (or even humans) do. It just gives evidence that it is possible to be natural.
3) Is the way penguins (or other animals) practice sexuality the same as the way humans practice it? That is, some homosexual penguins
are purely homosexual and will not mate with females or is it a societal thing?

Anyways, one point I feel we can agree on is that it is not firmly established that homosexuality is inherent. At the very least, I'm not way off the deep end in claiming there's not enough convincing evidence for me to buy that it is.

quote:

1) Rape aside, only choice dictates whether or not someone commits a sexual act.

hmm, i read this incorrectly, I thought you meant overall sexuality not an individual sexual act.

You know our instincts control a lot more than you'd think. Hormones, chemical responses, natural urges play a large role in our lives. Enough so that our logic is thrown out the window. When a person is attracted to someone it is because they are subconsciously thinking 'this person would be a good spouse for me and my offspring.' Nearly everything we do comes from our genes.

You didn't notice that I said I was lazy and that's why I gave you wikipedia. It really isn't that inaccurate. Plus I said to look at the resources themselves not the wikipedian article, silly goose.

Lol, I'm saying that homosexuality occurs in nature, so who's to say it is a choice? Animals don't choose their sexuality and humans are animals.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Well, 1st I should point out that I originally mentioned that a gay gene is possible, but not proven... and given normally something is found by now if there is a genetic link and nothing has come up...well anyways.
My point is size isn't a huge obstacle in tracking a gene because all you need to do is find comparisons.

And really? Wikipedia is why you believe what you believe?
Read it anyways and actually studies don't prove any sort of predisposition to homosexuality (for crying out loud, they're trying to link it to handedness).
I don't know if you've ever tried googling scientific research on something this political, but it is a mess. Even searching at pubmed is a headache to sort through.

ok my point wasn't that rape makes someone more likely to be gay. Where did you get that??

quote:

I don't see how this works since it is general instinct that makes us attracted to others).

Whether or not we are attracted to someone goes beyond basic instincts.

quote:

I don't know where I'm going with this sigh

Yeah, you kinda lost me back with the animals choice capability. Sorry...

The size is completely revalent. Do you seriously think we can track every single birth defect or hereditary condition with that process?

There are over 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. That is a lot. We haven't even decoded a quarter of it.

look it's wikipedia. yup i'm lazy, but they have good links in the resources section. you could google this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...d_sexual_orientation

Rape has no influence on sexual preference. Just because a women is raped and is afraid of men doesn't make her a full out dyke.

Well practicing herterosexuality is a choice then too. (I don't see how this works since it is general instinct that makes us attracted to others).

There are homosexual animals (like penguins) that will sometimes raise an egg together. Did they choose this? Do animals have the choice to practice sexual acts? No, they just do it to reproduce. Humans are animals, we all have instincts.

I don't know where I'm going with this sigh.

The size of the genome is irrelevant to tracking genes (if that makes sense.). Simply put, when tracking a hereditary condition, all you need to do is find common genes between the subjects (not sequence all the genomes of all the subjects, that's why too costly and time consuming.) This method has been employed to find several birth defects (not saying a gay gene would be a birth defect, just saying tracking it would involve the same techniques.) right down to the very locus.
Despite all the pressure to find something genetic linking homosexual behavior, nothing has been documented yet, that's a point many people don't know.

quote:

Anyways they don't think it has to do with a gene. They believe it has to do with the mother's hormones while she is pregnant. Someone hasn't done their research. ^.-

I have heard this hypothesis, but despite my efforts haven't read any research done to try to confirm or deny this. If you could link something to me, I would be thrilled (note, it's hard to tell tone on a forum, so let me be clear. I'm not being sarcastic, I actually have been anxious to see some good studies on this intriguing idea (makes a lot more sense then a "gay gene".). so far all I can get are news articles and the like.) While I state my beliefs strongly, I am reasonable to accept the possibility of being wrong and in the face of good evidence, I'll happily reform my opinions around what seems to be. I try my best to form my opinions around the evidence, not the other way around.

With the "Someone hasn't done their research" comment; that's just not fair... do you honestly expect me to be familiar with every paper ever published ever? I'm too busy trying to learn real stuff. O.o

quote:

So if homosexuals choose their sexuality, does that mean you chose yours? ^.^

Loaded question. Yes or no could both be wrong depending on interpretation.
Allow me then to oversimplify (for the sake of brevity) my opinions on choice for sexuality:
1) Rape aside, only choice dictates whether or not someone commits a sexual act.
2) Several factors have been identified to be associated with male/female attraction. In most (if not all) homosexuals studied, these factors appeared to be working normal (at worse, they seemed to be down regulated if anything. Admittedly, the exact mechanisms of these factors and what roles they play beyond what's stated remains a mystery since they seem to work in everyone.)

So here's the bottom line: Do I chose my sexuality: Well on the end, I don't chose the biological factors which caused attraction around early awkward teen years, and on the other end when I chose to have sex, it is definitely a cognitive choice. Really the question you proposed while interesting, lack sufficient detail to answer definitively.
With homosexuality, I think that practicing homosexuality is unquestionably a choice and biochemical factors have yet to be identified. That's all the detail I'll go into for now.

As far as my beliefs about homosexuality and choice in detail, well every time I write an answer in this box, it gets too long and boring for I'll have to think of a concise why of clearly saying what I think.

You do understand how large the human genome is right? That could explain why we haven't found a 'gay gene.'

Anyways they don't think it has to do with a gene. They believe it has to do with the mother's hormones while she is pregnant. Someone hasn't done their research. ^.-

So if homosexuals choose their sexuality, does that mean you chose yours? ^.^
peaceee

quote:

First, there are a lot of things that scientists have spent WAY more time (decades and centuries) trying to explain and still haven't been able to. AIDs, cancer (we know a little), UFOs, go here for a short list on what we don't know:

Ok first of all, don't miss the point of my post. Despite being a micro-bio major, I don't endorse the whole "Unless it's proven I don't accept it!!" philosophy. (although, some of the stuff on the list is outdated and some questions are too new to have a definite answer for.)
I'm pointing out Wolfie accepts one thing not proven by science, (homosexuality is natural) yet refuses to accept any evidence of anything else that isn't proven. It's a double standard.

2ndly, and less importantly just indulging myself with this since I just took an immunology class and it would be nice to use it on something other than tests, scientists can in fact explain AIDS and cancer. I could explain the causes, but that is not the point. When compared to the gay gene, well we can prove cancer and AIDS exist. I can show you a picture of the HIV virus infecting a CD4 t cell and I can show a cancer cell spreading to the liver.
What no one can show you is a gay gene. Maybe it exists, I don't know, but I do know that the assumption that it's there is unfounded and it seems unlikely that it does exist for a number of reasons that aren't politically correct.

3rdly?: Actually, I do think homosexuals have a right to participate in homosexual acts and in fact, may chose to have a civil union. They may receive all the tax breaks married couples get and everything.
Keep in mind legally, a civil union and a marriage are the same thing. The only difference is the religious implications.

When people start talking about how homosexuals are a minority, like it's they can't help like the color of their skin, I start to get skeptical.

quote:

Originally posted by nathan2142:
Since the early 90s, tons of research has gone into finding some sort of "gay gene" and it still has not been found. An article in time magazine way back when claimed to have found it, but then retracted it's article when it was disproven within a month.

So before you talk about gay rights, first prove that homosexuality is anything other than a choice. Right now, there is no hard evidence of that.

First, there are a lot of things that scientists have spent WAY more time (decades and centuries) trying to explain and still haven't been able to. AIDs, cancer (we know a little), UFOs, go here for a short list on what we don't know: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/30/what-science-knows-i.html

Second, America is all about choices, so whether or not it is a choice should have no bearing on the matter. You have a choice to own a gun, to drive a hummer, to go to whatever church you want, to be sexually active (active not attracted) with whomever you want to (provided they are willing). So why don't you leave everyone elses right to choose alone?

"So until you find real hard evidence that is KNOWN to be true (ie proven by science) like statistics, I'm going to blatantly ignore you. Oh and it makes me laugh when people say gays aren't natural. LOOK AROUND YOU. WOULD ANY OF THESE THINGS BE FOUND IN NATURE?"

I find your request for hard evidence puzzling. You readily accept the idea that homosexuals are born homosexual (or "natural" as you put it.) yet there is no evidence of this. Since the early 90s, tons of research has gone into finding some sort of "gay gene" and it still has not been found. An article in time magazine way back when claimed to have found it, but then retracted it's article when it was disproven within a month.

So before you talk about gay rights, first prove that homosexuality is anything other than a choice. Right now, there is no hard evidence of that.

Hey all religious people, do you realize how unproductive it is to use religion as an arguement? I'm not Christian so I completely ignore anyone who tries to use the Bible as a point of reference.

Let me explain this in a way some of you might understand. Let's say I follow the religion of Ancient Egypt. I say to you "Oh gays should have equal rights because of what the teachings and the word of the Gods in the Book of the Dead say." Would any of you listen to me? NO. You do not follow this religion, it does not affect you or you're belief system so why should I listen to you and you're religious "proof."

So until you find real hard evidence that is KNOWN to be true (ie proven by science) like statistics, I'm going to blatantly ignore you. Oh and it makes me laugh when people say gays aren't natural. LOOK AROUND YOU. WOULD ANY OF THESE THINGS BE FOUND IN NATURE?

quote:

Originally posted by audreee:
well.. coz us girls are running out of hot guys!! they all want men now! haha

Do you realize just how ignorant you sound? People don't "turn gay" and they certainly don't "turn gay" because they've never been with a "real woman" or "real man".

well.. coz us girls are running out of hot guys!! they all want men now! haha

When God made the earth he made a man and a woman to love each other in marriage now there are so many divorces that marriage was'nt what it was so i Think that we as people can accept change.

quote:

Originally posted by DropDeadGabby:
I don't want to get religion involved with this.
but God created people to love the opposite sex.
I think gay right are very absurd.
I don't want to get on anyone's bad side but a lot of problems have been created in this world just because of

quote:

GAY RIGHTS.

Marriage is not was it was.
and it probably will never be what it was.
Marriage was for the love of a man and a woman.
not two gay guys who enjoy each other very much.
or two gay women.
I wish people in society would see this.

quote:

I don't want to get on anyone's bad side but a lot of problems have been created in this world just because of
GAY RIGHTS.

No, she's right.

Gay rights HAVE caused a lot of problems...so have civil rights, womens' rights, etc. Do their problem causing nature mean that they are ultimately wrong? Not necessarily.



TBPrincess: Before you start applying the Constitution to your argument, KNOW the Constitution. Sure there is the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the laws...but we also have the first amendment which contains the establishment and free exercise clauses. (Which has been interpreted as the "separation of church and state.") Both need to be weighted in any Constitutional interpretation. Plus there is the struggle between the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the idea of Full Faith and Credit...there's a heck of a lot more to consider than one simple phrase in our entire nation's history.


Just some thoughts...

quote:

I don't want to get on anyone's bad side but a lot of problems have been created in this world just because of
quote:
GAY RIGHTS.

Marriage is not was it was.
and it probably will never be what it was.
Marriage was for the love of a man and a woman.
not two gay guys who enjoy each other very much.
or two gay women.
I wish people in society would see this.

There are sooo many things to rebut in this one post, I don't even know where to begin... How about that first sentence? "a lot of problems have been created...because of GAY RIGHTS" You know what else has caused a lot MORE problems in this world? Religion, especially Christianity, the Crusades for example, or how about the extremists (of all religions) who blow up buildings participate in terrorist groups, etc. etc.? So using your logic, if something causes "problems" then we should make it harder/deprive rights/illegalize those types of actions, therefore, religion causes problems, so relgion should be illegal--no more God.

Then you go on to blame all gay people for the ruin marriage is in right now. Hmmm, last I checked, gays have been around for about as long as...marriage, at the very least. So when marriage was "good" was that the because of gays too? And while marriage is defined as between one man and one woman; it's clearly becoming out dated, like racism and sexism.

Now here's a new idea: why don't we base our laws off our constitution? The 14th amendment says that all rights must be apllied to all people equally, and while marriage technically isn't a right, there are tax right offs, visitation rights, hospital rights, adoption is easier, etc. etc. so what makes it okay to ignore the constitution here? It's unconstituional to not allow gay people to marry, or to at the very least give them these same rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:

quote:

but God created people to love the opposite sex.

I know what and how God thinks, too.

So does that crazy dude on the street corner who warns us every time we pass him of the impending apocalypse. Aren't you so glad we all have the ability to rove the inner-workings of the mind of deities?