Gay Marriage

I'll post my opinions about gay marriage in a bit, because it might take a while. But for now: Support or Against gay marriage? And... discuss homosexuality in this thread, not the religion thread.

I voted 'don't care'. I think it is up to the religious institutions themselves (after they've become independent from the state - yes, I support separation of church/place of worship and state too) to decide. Over here, some priests take kindly to it, while a minority do not. I suppose it's not the same over there, but get over yourselves. What the hell do you expect?

I am against gay marriage because I am a Christian.

Really? You stumpeth me, jkbpb0^.

jpb6891 wrote:I am against gay marriage because I am a Christian.

See what I mean? To say religion is harmless and nice, deluded but nice, is pretty outrageous.

But regardless. Jpb: Why is gay marriage bad? If "god" hates it, why does "god" hate it?

I agree with Wizzie, jpb. Can't you state your reasons WHY you don't like gay marriage other than you being a christian? I don't have a problem with your opinions, but I HATE the way people like you present them to others.

WolferCooker wrote:I agree with Wizzie, jpb. Can't you state your reasons WHY you don't like gay marriage other than you being a christian? I don't have a problem with your opinions, but I HATE the way people like you present them to others.

People "like him" are Christians. Those who don't support gay marriage because they are Christians don't have a good reason, it's simply because god says so. By its very nature, there is no explanation.

I think Desmond Tutu, a devoted Christian from South Africa is a good exception. From what I've heard he has no problem with gay marriage - this was all about love and not about petty morals, rules and autocratically inherited bigotry.

He was in Holland this year, and for an 80-year old he can really bust a move on the dancefloor. Kudos to him.

So Desmond Tutu wore a tutu to a Toto concert? Did you wear a tutu to Toto too?

Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a relationship between a man and a man. It is not a relationship between a woman and a woman. I hate the sin, not the person. Jesus was a friend of sinners. I have people that I know who were gay and they were nice people. I use to agree with gay marriage, but after seeing the real definition of marriage, I am against it. I have always thought that being gay is a sin though.

jpb6891 wrote:Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a relationship between a man and a man. It is not a relationship between a woman and a woman. I hate the sin, not the person. Jesus was a friend of sinners. I have people that I know who were gay and they were nice people. I use to agree with gay marriage, but after seeing the real definition of marriage, I am against it. I have always thought that being gay is a sin though.

That depends on which dictionary you use. And even if that is the definition, it may need changing to reflect our change in understanding of morality. Hell, a person was once a white guy in some parts. Does it mean that cannot change? No. You want to dictate human rights because of the definition of a single word (of which there is no universally agreed upon definition)? If everybody were gay, you would say marriage is the union between two members of the same sex. What you're doing is, you're picking what you are familiar with.

So to you, your (flawed) vocabulary > Human rights and equality.

Also, your god created mankind with gay people. So god created people and designed them to be conked-out sinners, so he can send them to hell? That's immoral, but it makes no sense. You need to back up your arguments. Is it fair to us that don't believe in your god that you vote and act in a way based on your beliefs? Seperation of church and state.

Thomas wrote:I think Desmond Tutu, a devoted Christian from South Africa is a good exception. From what I've heard he has no problem with gay marriage - this was all about love and not about petty morals, rules and autocratically inherited bigotry.

So how far can you stray from believing in the bible until you're not a "Christian"? Can one simply believe the good stuff only and be a Christian? You'd have to take out hell, which is a hallmark of Christinanity.

i voted i don't care becuase......well.....i don't care...if a man loves a man thats his bisnuss not mine if a woman loves a woman it's not my problum...it's there bisnuess not mine...thats the way i see things...

I really dont care at all, making any difference between peoples due his sexual preferences...well, is stupid.
They can vote, drive, get married, etc.

There is one thing i dont like at all.
I am against they adopting childrens, that is just out of question, because involve a third person who needs a mother and a father, not two moms or two dads....The family is the basis of our entire society, and it cannot change.

Do you wanna kids?? Then get straighT!

Imed wrote:I really dont care at all, making any difference between peoples due his sexual preferences...well, is stupid.
They can vote, drive, get married, etc.

There is one thing i dont like at all.
I am against they adopting childrens, that is just out of question, because involve a third person who needs a mother and a father, not two moms or two dads....The family is the basis of our entire society, and it cannot change.

Do you wanna kids?? Then get straighT!

Then you are against single people adopting kids?
And this argument that "the family is the basis of our entire society" just seems like pointless BS. You can't just SAY that a child needs a mother and a father and then not offer evidence.

It obviously can change, it can change with the law. Already single people can adopt kids. You cannot "get straight" just as you cannot "get gay".

Agreed, at least over here most people still wonder why the nuclear family is still seen as the ideal, as there are soooo many single people, gays, lesbians, what-have-yous, and most people don't bother with kids (or marriage - maybe even not) till they're way over 30.

I actually approve gay marriage - Every human has the right to love someone, whether it's a same-sex relationship or not. 

However, in the case of adoption of children by gay couples, the question gets FAR more complicated tho, and I won't bother expressing my opinion here 'cause I'm very bad in arguments

EDIT: 22.000 post WOOT

Dark_wizzie wrote:

Imed wrote:I really dont care at all, making any difference between peoples due his sexual preferences...well, is stupid.
They can vote, drive, get married, etc.

There is one thing i dont like at all.
I am against they adopting childrens, that is just out of question, because involve a third person who needs a mother and a father, not two moms or two dads....The family is the basis of our entire society, and it cannot change.

Do you wanna kids?? Then get straighT!

Then you are against single people adopting kids?
And this argument that "the family is the basis of our entire society" just seems like pointless BS. You can't just SAY that a child needs a mother and a father and then not offer evidence.

It obviously can change, it can change with the law. Already single people can adopt kids. You cannot "get straight" just as you cannot "get gay".

Then you are against single people adopting kids?
Yes. ¿Do you know about those kids who lose one of their parents...how happy they are about it?

And this argument that "the family is the basis of our entire society" just seems like pointless BS. You can't just SAY that a child needs a mother and a father and then not offer evidence.


I dont speak english, so i dont understand what do you mean with "pointless BS" ¿What is BS?

Do you wanna "evidence"?. The kids as they grow, they need two figures: male and female... is a question of psychology, if that boy/girl grows in a house with "two moms" or "two dads", what kind of example are you giving them? Is like indirectly you teach them to be gays or even when hi didnt end being gay, he/she will have to go through a "hell" in school, you know how cruel are kids.

He will not see himself like other kids, other kids has two parents (female and male) and you are the "weird" with 2 mom/dads.

How is going to develop sexualy? is he going to choose his sexual preference with "conscience" or is he influenced?. Someone may say, "well, but the kids who grows in a "heterosexual" house are being influeced to be heterosexual?. True or Not, is not problem with that. Heterosexuality is normal, natural. Homosexuality is a decision of some people and belongs to his private life, it doesnt involve any other people, lot less childrens.

In summary, nobody in their right mind will expose his own kids to homosexuality when they are too young to understanding it.
So why allow it with orphans???


The familiy is the basis of our entire society, dude, in the family you develop your first social interaction, in family you receive the most important and basic education...Most part of who we are  and how we make realtionships with others is related to our families. When mom or dad is missing, the kids lose one of the most important pillars of healthy human development.



Yes, you can change the law, that doenst mind is right. Think in those kids,first, is all i say.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

One doesn't adopt a kid from a family, one adopts a child who doesn't have a family at all.

You say kids need mother and father figure when growing up. Science does not back up your claim. You cannot simply say something is true, you must offer evidence of it via scientific studies.

You also claim that having two mothers or fathers is teaching people to be gay, which is implying that sexual orientation is taught and in addition, that children of gay couples have a higher chance of being gay. No evidence. You think it's a decision, that is false.

There are many people who grew up with only one parent that do fine.


You make a boatload of assumptions, none of which are true.

I think you're stuck with the conservative viewpoint of a nuclear family post World Wars where we have a small family of a dad, mom, and a child or two being the ideal and only right way to run a family. If you think being gay is a choice, I challenge you to go have sex with somebody of your own sex, enjoy it, and come back asking for more. You can't and you won't. 

Check this link out:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If your likelihood of being gay can be tweaked based upon birth order, that's hardly a choice to the child, is it?

One doesn't adopt a kid from a family, one adopts a child who doesn't have a family at all.

Again, two moms/dads is not a normal family. You are condemned those childs to more social/psychological chanllenge in his life. But hey, who cares?


You say kids need mother and father figure when growing up. Science does not back up your claim. You cannot simply say something is true, you must offer evidence of it via scientific studies.

Here is an article, the only one i could read and understand (remember i dont speak english), read just the first paragraph.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

¿Science dont back up my claim? First at all, remember, we are talking about "human culture/behaviour/psychology" this is not mathematics. So can i say "Yes, 100% of the kids who has gay parents are going to be gays or have tremendeus psychological problems". Of course, not...and i am not saying that.

In the same way, you cannot claim "Yes, 100% of the kids who has gay parents are going to be straight without any psychological problems."

I am an expert on this matter? Do i have kids? NO, and No. Do you? Even that link i provide to you, is not "100% accurate", because we are talking about humans.


My "evidence", the basis of my words, are very simple, the influence of the family (parents) in the development of a person. Again, how much of  you parents are in you?. You cant denied that, even if i dont have a wikipedia article to prove it, is something everybody can "see".



You also claim that having two mothers or fathers is teaching people to be gay, which is implying that sexual orientation is taught and in addition, that children of gay couples have a higher chance of being gay


Lets take an example, lets say that a little kid grows in a home (or a country) where homosexuality is everywhere, exaggerating obviously, but imagine, tv-gay, radio-gay, wolf3d with gay nazis,
to wherever you look, a "gay message" is present. How can you claim that is not going to "influence" that child to the point to think "this is normal"?
From seeing his own "parents", like and example of his own future....(This happens to all of us, even if we dont notice it!!!)

Remember when i say the family is where a person gets his most basic education, and the importance of having a male and female figures? .


Here in Argentina, last year, we have a case of a male child of only 6 years old!!!! having a new DNI (that is the National Document of identity here) where his sex is going to be changed to female, because acording to his own parents , that child "think" is a girl since 2 years old.

Tell me...do you think that a little kid of only 2 years!!! have any concience about his sexuality??? or 6 years old???---
Those are his own stup... parents, taking a terrible descision because from now, that boy is going to be educated like a girl...so, is not going to be "gay" in ten years??? What do you think??? The parents arent going to change the personality of this kid?. There is not any influence there?

Here is the article, sorry i dont found it in english.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Believe or not, that was authorized without any professional opinion. So is that kid really a girl because the hormones in his brain or is just due to his fathers?. Nobody ask that here. All assume that everybody can make whaerever they want...¡¡¡EVEN IF THAT IS NOT HE´s DESCISION!!!.



You think it's a decision, that is false.

I am aware of those cases of people who has hormonal changes that affects his sexuality "concept", here in Argentina we have a case some years ago, of a girl who always feels like a boy (17 years old, i think). But there where a medical backup, explaining the thing.

So, for you, people who is heterosexual until 30 years, i doesnt convert into bi/homosexual? that doesnt happens??? They dont have a choice in those cases?



You make a boatload of assumptions, none of which are true.

Like almost every person in the world, we have a concept about how our country has to be, what path should choose. Like a most little group, i believe this, for a better country you need to think not only in big descision like in economy, you need to think in the individual development as the nucleus of the society. That is the reason why i claim the importance of a family concept. Is and objective to keep in mind, not a mathematic rule.



I think you're stuck with the conservative viewpoint of a nuclear family post World Wars where we have a small family of a dad, mom, and a child or two being the ideal and only right way to run a family. 


"The conservative viewpoint of a nuclear family post WW"" Wow.
My own family is not the ideal family, we are 8 people (two parents, three boys, three girls).
We have problems like anyone else and not being a ideal family is not a limit.
The question that comes to my mind reading your words, is this:
If we had been 2 childs instead of 6, our life could be more easier? our parents will have more time to spend with us and dont have to work extra to feed us. for example.

So, the "ideal" is better or worse? useless??. Is like a "good advise". (Obviously, dont attach to this
thought things like "Hey, the ideal family is a Christian family.."...that is nonsense.)

Other people, with same number of family members and better economic conditions have kids that behave like idiots, they dont  appreciate the things they have. The reason? i have to respond: bad parents.

Do i have a "The conservative viewpoint of a nuclear family post WW"? I know many differents families situations with his owns pros and cons. From knowing that, is like a natural step to me, visualize an "ideal", something that keeps the people far from "our" problems, but keeping the good things. And that phrase that you use to refer to me, i am not agree to that, because that "typical" idea, sounds weird to me and inaccurate.




If you think being gay is a choice, I challenge you to go have sex with somebody of your own sex, enjoy it, and come back asking for more. You can't and you won't.


Funny request, but no, thank you. .
i have 23 years, and my sexual appetites are very defined. I am not gay, so obviously, how can i suddenly choose something that sounds repulsive to me???

But lets take for example, that my parents were a gay couple...Your "challenge" could sounds less weird to me. Well "me", is not me if you change my parents. I will be gay? cannot say, all i say, there will be for sure an influence that change my viewpoint to that. How far is that "influence" from being a
stimulus in "that" direction?  

Maybe i grow up thinking "Well, my parents are "different" and the people see me different because  i am "the son of.." so, maybe i am educated to feel proud of that....which give me the strong to live among those "bad looks", but lets face it...would i look to form a family "normal" (ideal if you like to say) or i will fell more identificated with gays who face the same "social agression"



Check this link out:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If your likelihood of being gay can be tweaked based upon birth order, that's hardly a choice to the child, is it?


Certainly, also, could be people with that "biological inclination" be heterosexual? could anyone says "Yes, every third boy in a family is a Gay". "If an orphan kid has that "biological inclination", then we allow gay couples to have that kid, is going to be gay anyway...."

I am aware of the biological effects, but you cannot dismiss the social and cultural effects on the people´s development.

Also, there are people who live "heterosexual" until certain age and then "choose" the other path.
Which could be or not influence for a biological predisposition or a rational choice, it doestn matter.

Would you be a cannibal?. I think, your answer is No.
If i put you in a cannibal tribe right now, for the rest of your life...¿How much do you think you could be a "not-cannibal"? Maybe never, maybe tomorrow, maybe in ten years when you start to asking the meaning of your life, or whatever. Your family education arent a influence here? to keep you as non-cannibal?

Certainly, there is a highly possibility of being a full cannibal, if you live and grow in a cannibal family.

Of course, this example is total extreme, but i just wanna to make this clear for you, and all. The family counts! in every people´s formation..the family is like the main ingredient. (with an wikipedia article or not)

 

So can i say with 100% of certainty "kids growing with gay parents will be gay"?, of course not, and i think, not even science can say that.

So then, can i say with 100% of certainty "kids growing with gay parents will be "normal" "?

not, either and i think, science cant say that too.


Why we cannot be sure 100% Because is people.

So why i am against this if i cannot be 100% sure?
Two things comes to mind:

1_ It is not fair to the kid have that influence and face future social/psychological problems due his parents. (no father wants that to his own childs)


Is like, you put kids only in families with certain political idea. That put in danger the free will / free thought of that kid. right? or you can ensure that kid will be "open-mind"?


2_The homosexuality is something that lives and die with you, you cannot affect other people with that in any way. "Hey, we choose to have sex with people of the same sex....lets change the whole system to reflect our lifestyle..." ¿How many gays are in comparison to the rest of the people?.


Whatever you do in your private life, do it in private, we dont need to know (we dont wanna know )
and cannot influence the life of other people who doestn have the possibility of make a rational analisis of this.




There are many people who grew up with only one parent that do fine.

After all i say above, all i have to say is this . "Yes, but also there is many other people who grew up with only one parent and they has problems in his life."
So what? Nobody ask for have only one parent. That happen in very particular situations, (many times  due a tragic circunstances),  but is not right make something to "increase" the families with only one parent? is like obvious.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, is a question of time. In next decades, when all those kids with gay parents grow up. And the studies/statistics comes to light, we will see if all this was or not a good descision. Specially, in the consequences in the whole society. ¿What would be the morality principles in 30 years? What is good or wrong?...Whatever anyone wanna see the things, the reality is just one.

Thanks for answers, and sorry for the long text, but my english is bad and is difficult to express complex ideas. So keep that in mind when you read my examples or comparison, they are just "for educative proposites", not a equivalent type and value comparison.

Cheers.!

Thomas wrote:Agreed, at least over here most people still wonder why the nuclear family is still seen as the ideal, as there are soooo many single people, gays, lesbians, what-have-yous, and most people don't bother with kids (or marriage - maybe even not) till they're way over 30.

Possibly, we have to analize the causes of people that is away from ideal. Because in many cases, there are economics needs that keep the people away from family until 30, for example. Or the people get married without thinking too much in it, or with wrong concepts of how to manage a family and they end up divorced,with kids in the middle.

So what is the problem , the divorced couple of the education of each individual?.
Is people being alone the result of economic, cultural and social problems. or the natural progress of the humans?.

The whole thing is always like a doctor, who treats his patients diseases but no the origin of it.

Imed wrote:

Thomas wrote:Agreed, at least over here most people still wonder why the nuclear family is still seen as the ideal, as there are soooo many single people, gays, lesbians, what-have-yous, and most people don't bother with kids (or marriage - maybe even not) till they're way over 30.

Possibly, we have to analize the causes of people that is away from ideal. Because in many cases, there are economics needs that keep the people away from family until 30, for example. Or the people get married without thinking too much in it, or with wrong concepts of how to manage a family and they end up divorced,with kids in the middle.

So what is the problem , the divorced couple of the education of each individual?.
Is people being alone the result of economic, cultural and social problems. or the natural progress of the humans?.

The whole thing is always like a doctor, who treats his patients diseases but no the origin of it.

I don't see it that way. I just think of it this way:

-Do you want a romantic relationship?
-Are you able to get one you want?
-Then, do you want to have children?
-If not, make sure no accidents happen.
-If you end up with a child, grats, now you're a dad, time to act like one.
-But if you either never want a romantic relationship, or never get one despite wanting one, or you never end up with children because you are careful, then more power to you.

No diseases here per say, just human choices and self control. Consequences to actions.


"Again, two moms/dads is not a normal family. You are condemned those childs to more social/psychological chanllenge in his life. But hey, who cares?

Define normal. Normal is merely what you see more often than not. It is a statement about probability, not what is moral or what ought to be. If you look at marriages that are older than the timeframe you are looking at, then the nuclear family doesn't really stay nuclear. 

You act as if scientific studies are outside the realm of mental health. That is not true. Nothing in life is 100% accurate. The only way to be absolutely certain is to omniscient, but that is an irrelevant point. If we can be relatively certain, that is good enough. Excessive fat intake is bad for our health? Can't be 100% sure, as all humans are different right? Well, not really. The fact that you might or might not have kids is irrelevant. Unless you plan to care for thousands of children, your sample size is too small to matter at all. Too many times I see anti-gay parents end up accepting gays once they find out their child is gay. Just goes to show how people's opinions can change even after they have children. No, having children doesn't make you an authority. Statistics do.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


My "evidence", the basis of my words, are very simple, the influence of the family (parents) in the development of a person. Again, how much of  you parents are in you?. You cant denied that, even if i dont have a wikipedia article to prove it, is something everybody can "see".

This line has no meaning at all. Let's strip this sentence down to its bare minimum:

'My evidence' In quotes, means nothing.
"The basis of my words, are very simple", has no content.
"The influence of family in the development of a person" You're equating 'Family affects children' to 'Therefore a family should be 1 mom and 1 dad', which are two seperate claims.
'Again, how much of you parents are in you?' I don't know what that means but I suspect it's irrelevant. 
And the last part makes to sense to me because the sentence before it, I didn't understand.

You also claim that having two mothers or fathers is teaching people to be gay, which is implying that sexual orientation is taught and in addition, that children of gay couples have a higher chance of being gay


Lets take an example, lets say that a little kid grows in a home (or a country) where homosexuality is everywhere, exaggerating obviously, but imagine, tv-gay, radio-gay, wolf3d with gay nazis, 
to wherever you look, a "gay message" is present. How can you claim that is not going to "influence" that child to the point to think "this is normal"? 
From seeing his own "parents", like and example of his own future....(This happens to all of us, even if we dont notice it!!!)

Of course it will influence to think it is normal.
And the reason for that is because it is. Observe the family kingdom. Observe the behaviors of our fellow humans. Normality is only about what occurs often. The question is whether this is bad or good. Your same arguments could all be skewed towards discriminating interracial couples.

Remember when i say the family is where a person gets his most basic education, and the importance of having a male and female figures? .
Here in Argentina, last year, we have a case of a male child of only 6 years old!!!! having a new DNI (that is the National Document of identity here) where his sex is going to be changed to female, because acording to his own parents , that child "think" is a girl since 2 years old.
Tell me...do you think that a little kid of only 2 years!!! have any concience about his sexuality??? or 6 years old???---
Those are his own stup... parents, taking a terrible descision because from now, that boy is going to be educated like a girl...so, is not going to be "gay" in ten years??? What do you think??? The parents arent going to change the personality of this kid?. There is not any influence there?

The irony of your example is in that case, the parents are a male and female couple having a child. You mistake transexuality with homosexuality, rendering your example irrelevant.


Believe or not, that was authorized without any professional opinion. So is that kid really a girl because the hormones in his brain or is just due to his fathers?. Nobody ask that here. All assume that everybody can make whaerever they want...¡¡¡EVEN IF THAT IS NOT HE´s DESCISION!!!.

Again: You're saying, "Gay marriage is bad because in this specific incidence in this one country, a child was given trans surgery".


I am aware of those cases of people who has hormonal changes that affects his sexuality "concept", here in Argentina we have a case some years ago, of a girl who always feels like a boy (17 years old, i think). But there where a medical backup, explaining the thing.

So, for you, people who is heterosexual until 30 years, i doesnt convert into bi/homosexual? that doesnt happens??? They dont have a choice in those cases?

What do you mean by medical backup?
You have to define mental illness and physical ailment. Right? You can't say, gay people, trans people, are sick because they are not 'normal'.
No, I don't really see people who are straight for 30 years of their life suddenly turning gay. More like they were gay the whole time. If I had sex with a guy, I would not enjoy it. No amount of trying will make it enjoyable for me.


Like almost every person in the world, we have a concept about how our country has to be, what path should choose. Like a most little group, i believe this, for a better country you need to think not only in big descision like in economy, you need to think in the individual development as the nucleus of the society. That is the reason why i claim the importance of a family concept. Is and objective to keep in mind, not a mathematic rule. 

Your family concept being the idea of a man and woman and child, a straight child who identifies the same gender as his or her sex. Once I pull out your hidden claims in that sentence, your sentence doesn't look nearly as logical anymore.
If you feel, for example, that having two moms increases the chance of the child being gay, that is a measurable statistic.


My own family is not the ideal family, we are 8 people (two parents, three boys, three girls).
We have problems like anyone else and not being a ideal family is not a limit.
The question that comes to my mind reading your words, is this:
If we had been 2 childs instead of 6, our life could be more easier? our parents will have more time to spend with us and dont have to work extra to feed us. for example.
So, the "ideal" is better or worse? useless??. Is like a "good advise". (Obviously, dont attach to this 
thought things like "Hey, the ideal family is a Christian family.."...that is nonsense.)

And yet, you still  have those opinions where you tell me what the ideal family cannot have.


Funny request, but no, thank you. .
i have 23 years, and my sexual appetites are very defined. I am not gay, so obviously, how can i suddenly choose something that sounds repulsive to me???
You just destroyed your own point.
You called being gay a choice. And then you ask me how you can choose to be gay when you've been straight.

Well... that's the point.



But lets take for example, that my parents were a gay couple...Your "challenge" could sounds less weird to me. Well "me", is not me if you change my parents. I will be gay? cannot say, all i say, there will be for sure an influence that change my viewpoint to that. How far is that "influence" from being a 
stimulus in "that" direction?   

Maybe i grow up thinking "Well, my parents are "different" and the people see me different because  i am "the son of.." so, maybe i am educated to feel proud of that....which give me the strong to live among those "bad looks", but lets face it...would i look to form a family "normal" (ideal if you like to say) or i will fell more identificated with gays who face the same "social agression"

Again:
All of your claims come from the same few premises and concepts:
-Being gay is bad
-Children of gay parents tend to be gay
-The ideal family has a guy and a girl and deviation from that is harmful.

All three of which you cannot begin to prove.



I am aware of the biological effects, but you cannot dismiss the social and cultural effects on the people´s development.

Also, there are people who live "heterosexual" until certain age and then "choose" the other path. 
Which could be or not influence for a biological predisposition or a rational choice, it doestn matter.

You put your own points in quotes, lol. And that's exactly how I'd address them to you: It's not a choice.

Would you be a cannibal?. I think, your answer is No.
If i put you in a cannibal tribe right now, for the rest of your life...¿How much do you think you could be a "not-cannibal"? Maybe never, maybe tomorrow, maybe in ten years when you start to asking the meaning of your life, or whatever. Your family education arent a influence here? to keep you as non-cannibal?

There's nothing morally wrong with being a cannibal.


Two things comes to mind:

1_ It is not fair to the kid have that influence and face future social/psychological problems due his parents. (no father wants that to his own childs)

Is like, you put kids only in families with certain political idea. That put in danger the free will / free thought of that kid. right? or you can ensure that kid will be "open-mind"?

That's like saying, if your parents are straight, you're depriving the child  the viewpoint of gay people. Not really. It's up to the type of parents the parents decide to be.

2_The homosexuality is something that lives and die with you, you cannot affect other people with that in any way. "Hey, we choose to have sex with people of the same sex....lets change the whole system to reflect our lifestyle..." ¿How many gays are in comparison to the rest of the people?.

One second you're saying homosexuals turn others into gays, the next second you're saying it cannot affect others.



After all i say above, all i have to say is this . "Yes, but also there is many other people who grew up with only one parent and they has problems in his life."
So what? Nobody ask for have only one parent. That happen in very particular situations, (many times  due a tragic circunstances),  but is not right make something to "increase" the families with only one parent? is like obvious.

Nobody asked for anything.
You are asking for the outlaw of gay marriage. That is a law that infringes upon the free will of others. If you allow a single person to adopt, you should allow gay couples to adopt. Unless you want to outlaw both. In which case your repetitive claims about how you know you know you don't know with 100% certainty? It would be directly contradictory to this:

'I know I don't know what is right with 100% certainty, but I do know with 100% certainty that these people should not be legally allowed to marry or have a child!'

In the end, is a question of time. In next decades, when all those kids with gay parents grow up. And the studies/statistics comes to light, we will see if all this was or not a good descision. Specially, in the consequences in the whole society. ¿What would be the morality principles in 30 years? What is good or wrong?...Whatever anyone wanna see the things, the reality is just one.

Gayness is not new... It's been with us since the dawn of time. People have been people regardless.
There's a difference between not agreeing and banning something. To ban something there needs to be significant and demonstrable negative effects on society which I do not think anybody can prove.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.

The admin of this forum needs to fix the quoting system.  

With all respect, i am really tired of write. Anyone can see my arguments and your arguments. The can take his own conclusions at this point.

So i will resume my concepts to the most simple form:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
GOOD, I dont Care.





[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
THAT IS JUST WRONG!!!!...
BECAUSE....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
.

I AM TIRED OF THIS DISCUSSION.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just 4 fun.

What's with your inclination towards posting Simpsons pictures to illustrate your points, lol.

Dark_wizzie wrote:What's with your inclination towards posting Simpsons pictures to illustrate your points, lol.

I dont know.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LOL I do that too when I get served cake.

Same sex marriage has just been legalized in Indiana and I already live in Indiana.  One reason why gay marriage should be legalized in all 50 states would be because every time that 2 monogamous gays marry it frees up 2 chicks who are more fish in the sea for me!

Just saw a trending topic on FB today.. Apparently Tim Cook is gay?
He didn't really set off my Gaydar, not that my Gaydar is functional.

Personally I couldn't care less about the gay marriage but I still support it... Why? Well, I see no reason why two adults loving each other couldn't get married.

I was originally going to write a long rant about why do I think this way but in the end my skills of writing in English weren't good enough to convey all my thoughts about the matter. However here is a reason why I don't think you should use religion as a reason to oppose gay-marriages:

Concept of marriage is older than most of the religions and considering what marriage mostly means today, it is more juridical than religious matter. However I understand that church doesn't want to bless the same sex couples and I think that the church doesn't have to...

Why? Well, because we are talking about two entirely different things here. Marriage and wedding: Marriage is a legal union between two adults so you do not need a priest to confirm it. Wedding however is a religious ritual for marriage so it is only natural that the church is against changing it to something that doesn't follow their dogmas.

Things have changed in Indiana since I last posted on this thread.  They are trying to ban gay and lesbian marriages in Indiana again so that only the marriages that already happened here would be valid.  So it would sound like what happened in California.

So much for the land of the free lol.

there is a lot of nice and smart even high class gay people, they should be allow to do whatever they want as much as possible. i personally like girls though