I think this is a great video to contribute to this conversation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKfQ4LZ_svo
In my opinion, marriage shouldn't be based solely on religion, it's more of a right of passage or soemthing similar when you reach a certain age and meet that certain someone.
My argument is if marriage is between two people who love eachother homosexuals can't marry because being gay is not about love it's about lust.The average gay person has hundreds of relationships. They dont love eachother they just want to have sex with eachother.But of course marriage isn't about love itself it's a man and a woman who love eachother so homosexuals don't fit eather catagory'
*Category No...gay people feel what they perceive as love, just like straight people feel what they perceive as love. If you're going to be technical about this, love is a chemical reaction in the brain for everyone. I agree that marriage is about love, but homosexuals feel love for their partners just like everyone else. The average gay person has hundreds of relationships? Says who? Where's your proof? That's bs. And again, if you're going to be technical, love is lust for everyone, it's a chemical reaction and it's instinctual. And if you're going to make the "tradition" argument, when marriage was created it wasn't about men and women marrying each other because they're in love, it was about trading womens' lives in matrimony as a bargaining chip. And homosexuals do love each other, just as much as heterosexuals, so that argument is void.
Hypermnestra was pointing out that homosexuals are capable of love. If the argument is that love is a part of marriage then this would e relevant.
Both males and females are capable of love, so there is no reason a male with a female disposition or a female with a male disposition should not be able to be in love.
If you're going to be technical about it, love and lust are different emotions.
Since we want to get technical about it.
Romantic love, Dr Fisher explained in a lecture at the 2004 American Psychiatric Associationâs annual meeting, is not an emotion. Rather, itâs "a motivation system, itâs a drive, itâs part of the reward system of the brain." Itâs a need that compels the lover to seek a specific mating partner. Then the brain links this drive to all kinds of specific emotions depending on how the relationship is going. All the while, she went on to say, the prefrontal cortex is assembling data, putting information into patterns, making strategies, and monitoring the progress toward "lifeâs greatest prize."
Dr Fisher divides love into three categories involving different brain systems: 1) Lust (the craving for sexual gratification), driven by androgens and estrogens; 2) Attraction (or romantic or passionate love, characterized by euphoria when things are going well, terrible mood swings when theyâre not, focused attention, obsessive thinking, and intense craving for the individual), driven by high dopamine and norepinephrine levels and low serotonin; and 3) Attachment (the sense of calm, peace, and stability one feels with a long-term partner) driven by the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin.
i think its clear were all kinda stuck to our own here. i definitely have been persuaded to beleive that this is not a choice. but arguing back and forth with the same information for the last like 10 pages is getting old to read. condemn me if you wish, but i move for thread lock(not the glue).
How about you bring in some decent information to combat the decent information brought from our side? We have brought plenty, you are the only one chanting the same thing...
lol, whatever bucko, i made my point. yet again, we are STUCK on our points, there can't ba a loser if there is no winner. i am interested in how i am losing. enlighten me.
wheres my proof that its wrong?? never said i had proof, it is ,after all, my opinion isn't it. do i not have the right to voice my opinion. besides that, wheres your 'roof' that it is right. need i remind you that just because it could be a biological anomoly, does not make it 'right'. theoretiically everything stated in this forum is an opinion, and as you pointed out with the constitution, my opinion cannot be 'wrong'.
wheres your 'roof' that it is right. need i remind you that just because it could be a biological anomoly, does not make it 'right'.
We could easily say nothing is right, nothing is wrong. So whats the problem? I can accept you dont like it but if you had your way, would you ban gay marrage nevets?
my goal is not to ban it, but to make a distinction between hetero and homosexual marriage, thats all. they have every right to love, to commit to each other, and to be togethor without prosecution.im just trying to say there should be a different thing. still al legal matter, and all of that.
so, marriage should only apply to people who are straight? And have a totally different classification of being togther for gay people? Gee, that's a great idea! And why don't you do ahead and make blacks and whites drink and different waterfountains and go to different schools again. frickin brilliant. no, it is hurtful and very unneccisary. It excludes, and will only lead to more problems
