A lot of homosexuals are perverts. NAMBLA is a perfect example.
Most sexual offenses committed against minors are done by heterosexual males. So by this logic we can say heterosexuals are even more perverted.
This shows that a lot of it is just a choice....unless you are going to argue because of brain damage that his wires were crossed? If it proves anything, that its NOT in the genes.
The way our brains are wired can be effected by genetics. Really it may be more based on how genes are expressed.
Homosexuality doesn't harm me or anyone else, you are right. I just believe that regarding the DOMA, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
It doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is disgusting, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
1. This isn't a religious battle but one based purely on law.
2. At one point in our history two blacks couldn't be married or a black and a white. If there's injustice in one part of our society then there's injustice everywhere. So gays should be able to marry based purely on the reasoning that they are human beings just like a heterosexual couple and should be given the opportunity to marry just like a heterosexual couple.
Read it and weep Pause. This study proved that homosexuality is partly genetic.
Zakyman, I'm done talking to you after you decide that I am the reason for genocide.
I never said that you were the reason for genocide. I said that people like you are the reason that these crimes are committed because people like you are too narrow minded to accept that somethings you can't control, and you might as well just live with. However you seem to want to make everyone view homosexuality as "unnatural" and "against nature."
So you basically wished a homosexual child on me as a form punishment?
I never wished that on you. I said that if that happened, you would be getting your just desserts for your inflammatory words against homosexuality.
I do not tolerate it.
You are starting to sound like one of the die-hard Christians who commonly frequent this thread. You do not tolerate it. Why do you not tolerate it, if it has nothing to do with the way that you live your life!? It makes no sense for you to pass judgment on some people whom you have no idea about them, have not met them before, and you condemn them merely because of their sexual preferences. Like I have said before, this is shameful nowadays that one person can't go up to someone who is not exactly like them and state, "Hey, you are different, and are not exactly like me, but I accept you for that."
I disagree. I don't think anyone makes a concious decision, just one day they look at someone and go, "Wow..." as if seeing them differently. I know I never made a decision to like girls and to not like guys instead.
That's the point. It's people's choices to their sexual orientation.
You could make a choice about it, but it may not be you. A homosexual can choose to participate in heterosexual actions but they may not really like it.
If you're attracted to the opposite sex, you're heterosexual. If you're attracted to the same sex, you're homosexual. If you're attracted to both, you're bisexual.
You don't control how you feel about it. True, people can choose whether or not to participate in those actions, a heterosexual person could engage in homosexual activities and vis versa, but they won't enjoy it.
And I feel that this one unnatural issue is wrong.
Why it it wrong, what makes it wrong?
I just believe that regarding the DOMA, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Marriage is a human concept. Simply, it shows that two people are together. Why should this not extend to a homosexual couple simply because it hasn't previously?
The fact that you humans, as one of the most advanced and civilized races known, even need to decide this is rather pathetic.
...Aren't you human as well?
And what other "advanced" civilized races are known...?
1. This isn't a religious battle but one based purely on law.
No one said it was religious in this context. Yes, there are religions/religious factions opposed to gay marriage, and it is used as an argument against it, but that's not what we were discussing. Best not to bring this up as people will jump on it.
Like I have said before, this is shameful nowadays that one person can't go up to someone who is not exactly like them and state, "Hey, you are different, and are not exactly like me, but I accept you for that."
I remember when I was about 5 I was in the dentist's office waiting and I saw a black man walk in. I guess I had never thought about it before, and I walked up to him and asked, "Why is your skin all brown?" My mother nearly freaked out, but I don't see why. It's a valid question and he simply answered, "I was born that way." That is all there is to be said about it. People are born differently, but just because we are different doesn't mean we should be treated as such.
No one said it was religious in this context. Yes, there are religions/religious factions opposed to gay marriage, and it is used as an argument against it, but that's not what we were discussing. Best not to bring this up as people will jump on it.
Most people base their beliefs that gays shouldn't marry not on civil law but on 'because God said so' or 'it's in the Bible'. So yes there are people saying it is religious.
Most people base their beliefs that gays shouldn't marry not on civil law but on 'because God said so' or 'it's in the Bible'. So yes there are people saying it is religious.
Yes, and I said as much in my response to your first statement.
No one said it was religious in this context. Yes, there are religions/religious factions opposed to gay marriage, and it is used as an argument against it, but that's not what we were discussing. Best not to bring this up as people will jump on it.
Italics are me addressing your initial statement and the bold is me saying that this is off topic. This isn't about religion at the moment.
Breaking out the illegitimacy of argument to debate your point? That works huh.
I was explaining how your point was invalid, not how my point is valid.
I'm done with you too. Actually, heterosexuality is natural. And you argue the point that its in the genes when clear it has not been proven. So you are using false statements to justify yourself now?
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether heterosexuality is genetic or not. If it's genetic, then gay marriage should be legalized. If it's not genetic, then homosexuality should be legalized. Whether homosexuality is genetic or not shouldn't play a factor.
"A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed.5 Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. The high concordance of homosexuality among monozygotic twins and the clustering of homosexuality in family pedigrees support biological models. There is some evidence that prenatal androgen exposure influences development of sexual orientation, but postnatal sex steroid concentrations do not vary with sexual orientation. The reported association in males between homosexual orientation and loci on the X chromosome remains to be replicated. Some research has shown neuroanatomic differences between homosexual and heterosexual persons in sexually dimorphic regions of the brain.5 Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.4,5 Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."
lol, NoName your first post was decent. It was worth the read. But then your second post you lost composer. Don't do well to beliefs that are not your own?
I may lash out in anger towards people I disagree with, but what separates me and you is that I propose tolerance towards those whom I disagree with. I absolutely HATE how teenagers wear skinny jeans with a belt that still somehow manages to sag, showing off their boxers, but I believe they have every right to wear their pants that way, as much as I have a right to rant on how absolutely stupid said fashion statement is.
I may disagree with your opinions, and I may disagree with them to the point where I lash out with anger, but I am at least willing to tolerate those opinions.
Taking a completely impartial look at DOMA, let's consider the constitutionality of DOMA.
First of all, the first amendment does not protect marriage. The Constitution gives a long list of powers granted to Congress in Article 1 Section 8. Regulating marrriage is not among them. Since the tenth amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus, the states have the right to regulate marriage, not Congress or any federal agency. DOMA is unconstitutional. At the same time, an Act forcing all states to allow gay marriage is also unconstitutional.
The second part of this, however, is Article 4, Section 1 which states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and proceedings shall be proved."
This basically means that if I got my drivers' license in California, Kentucky would have to recognize my license if I decided to move there. Similarly, states should be forced to recognize the legitimacy of a marriage that took place in another state.
That, as far as I can tell, is what can and cannot be done under the Constitution. DOMA violates both the tenth amendment and Article 4 Section 1.
I think that the Supreme Court would find DOMA unconstitutional, but in order for that to happen, someone has to appeal it to the Supreme Court. Apart from appealing it to the Supreme Court, another recourse would be for the states to nullify it. Nullification of an unconstitutional Act of Congress has an if-fy history and no solid precedents.
So that was my attempt to be completely unbiased to either side. However, I will admit that I am for gay rights because I feel that if they're not hurting anyone, we should just let them be normal people. They shouldn't have to go through an extra gauntlet if they want to do something. On the other hand, I live in a fairly liberal state so I may be predisposed to think a certain way. On the other hand of the other hand which is really whatever hand I began on, there are plenty of homophobes in the Northeast.
As for how "natural" homosexuality is, there has been documentation of homosexual behaviors going on in animals. Bonobo chimpanzees, for instance, engage in homosexual behaviors. The difference is that bonobos are not exclusively homo- or heterosexual. In Sex, Time and Power by Leonard Shlain tries to give a scietific basis to the existence of homosexuality, among a myriad of other things many of which I don't quite agree with. However, I haven't seen anyone else come up with a more specific and coherent theory. (He actually gets this theory from the work of three anthropologists.) The argument is that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaption to ensure the surival of more children and less competition.
Lastly, I'm concerned about a phenomenon that I like to think of as "homophobia-phobia" in which someone, gay or not, will denounce and demonize someone who doesn't think that homosexuality is right. Tolerance should not be created by intolerance. Just because someone doesn't agree with homophobia, it doesn't mean that they are one-minded bigots about everything that ever existed. Someone can be homophobis yet still support race equality. Homosexuals are more than just homosexuals and homophobics are more than just homophobics. People aren't all bad or all good.
So much for the "lastly" but I'd also like to add that homosexuality is not an example of modern moral decline. It is well-documented in Classical Greece. There is even evidence of it in Mesopotamia, the birthplace of civilization.
I don't think that anything I say will change people's minds about homosexuality, but I'd like if it did. I don't have the right to tell anyone what to believe about this topic, it's a individual decision. Everyone is entitled to to their own sense of right and wrong. It's an un-written (and if you think like Agamben, should stay un-written) natural right. Personally, I think America's heading on the right track with homosexuality. We're getting there with the issue. As equality of race and gender have come along, I think equality of sexual orientation will start to sink in too.
