Homosexual Marriage - Page 4

Again: Why does it matter if its genes?

Genes or environment or choice who gives a shit? No theocratic christian fundamentalists have the right to stop two faggets from loving each other.

Because it would have a huge IMPACT on the way society viewed homosexuality!

Schizophrenia was discovered to be caused by a gene mutation, now both society and science see it a lot differently than did generations before us that just thought people and their lineages of famillies went crazy for no reason and thus were SHUNNED from society instead of accepted!

Argh.
Blatant disregard for the scientific impact of such a potential question really irritates me.

And those christians are going to have a lot more to think about in terms of okay, well, if this is a gene, why would God have any right to condemn homosexuals if it were in their DNA?!

So? Because Gays do it by their own free will means banning it is OK?

Its irrelevant to the question of banning it or not.

Okay, who was the last post directed to, DT?
I wasn't even talking about banning, it was about the change in perspective!

if being gay is a choice, it should still be allowed and accepted by society. same with people who have "blind faith." both groups are and will continue to be criticized heavely for a long time to come though.

All this mixing of government and religion is so damned depressing...Well, I won't condemn or condone homosexuality...I mean, that isn't the question..The question is about "gay marriage, right?...Aww, heck...Why does it have to be called marriage?...and since when did marriage become such a hot moral issue?...As soon as the concept of "marriage" became a "legal" term incorporated into governmental realms, it should have ceased to be a moral issue..that is, a religious issue...You see, because current Christain thinking associates marriage with a religious concept, there is an attempt to define it according to biblical terms...that is, between a man and a woman...The problem is that the government should not be influenced by any religion whatsoever...Marriage should have ceased to be a "biblical" term...and should have become a "union between two people"...The term marriage should be removed from laws and statutes regarding legal unions...that would end the problem...Unfortunately, too many religious groups believe that if they let gays marry in any way at all, that America will become some kind of Sodom or Gomorrah...They think they have to make this country a "God-like" Utopia in a sea of godless countries...That's why they love George Bush so much...He's the guy battling a world of savages without Christ...and bringing Christ back to America...Strangely enough, I don't think Christ would like that at all...He wouldn't want laws enacted for his benefit...to coerce people into following His Word...He would want people to freely chose his path, and do so in a world that provides opposing options...This elevates a person's decision to follow him in the first place! Being forced to follow him via laws tends to create hippochrates who are forced to hid their sins rather than face up to them and the challenge of doing what they may feel is right in thier heart...I'm not a Christian, or any other religion, although I believe in some higher power...and i believe in democracy as freedom to do as you please as long as you do no harm...gays can "marry" if they want to as far as I'm concerned. They should have asked to have it called something other than marriage, considering the psuedo-religious mindset of the nation...But they didn't, and that's probably why they're getting this all-out attack on thier agenda...Let's hope Bush's efforts are thwarted and that they'll have a second chance at rethinking their whole plan of action next time.

To say the genetic VS free will argument has political relevence implicitly means that if it is indeed free will, that it should be discouraged or that its their *fault*.

Right, and so how do people get away with it, well, they appearantly believe it in large enough voting numbers. Current Republican rhetoric is all about how the people have spoken and the morals have won out. This would be the answer given by anyone in an important possistion who would dare to say anything.

Then the whole confusion of the sanctity of marriage point, no one cares about the sanctity of marriage issue but the christians and whoever and the confused gay christians that thought christianity might be about Jesus' message of love and acceptance.

Its like everyone has been saying, if your gonna mix church and state, your gonna have these problems, because although it doesn't hold up its end all the time, the constitution still promotes equal rights for all, and the bible does not, which is one of the big reasons the constitution tends to have a problem holding that promise too, one of the other big reasons is the capitalist issue of course.

Hmm.

We're already populated, I'm thinking in terms of resources on Earth versus the growing 6+ billion, most of which live in poverty and hunger and continue to add to this population putting future generations into misery and the same strife that they went through. Let's call this the status quo - obviously, it is.

Now, if you look carefully at the progression of evolution in any specie that has walked the face of this Earth - without adaptation, the organism pretty much went extinct and was replaced with a better form of its existence because it couldn't deal with the predation and environmentnal pressures..so the individuals that posssessed "mutations" or what weren't seen in a majority of the population, survive basically.

So ..
I pose a conundrum to you, a riddle if you will !

Homosexuals obviously do not reproduce to have viable offspring. Do you think that as a result of them not having to deal with the pressures of population/unwanted children/resulting drags in life, that they perhaps have a sort of adaptive advantage in the long run? I mean hell, if that were the case, I wouldn't be too pissed off with these stupid, crazed conservatives because evolutionarily-speaking, they're setting up for their own demise really. Or at a disadvantage.

And I'm sure we're further along enough to be able to maintain a sort of balanced population synthetically if need be.

Hmm.
Just a drastic, radical thought.
*shrugs*

That only works at a level high enough:
- gays don't make babies, hence we have less gays
- societies which make gays potentially don't destroy themselves. hence gay societies *might* survive better

I say might because for this to work overpopulation would have to destroy societies almost completely.

I see this issue as hardly anything more than a smoke screen.

quote:

---

Then the whole confusion of the sanctity of marriage point, no one cares about the sanctity of marriage issue

---

As pointed out the only sanctity in marriage is in the faithfulness of those in the union, which is an individual issue.
They already support ( to some degree) anualments in the churches to sidestep calling it a devorce & government agents accept the premarriage agreements on material assets.
So what is really at issue?

Who are the "they"s in your post, and that's not what Bush considers to be the issue concerning the "sancity" of marriage.

Just watching the news about polygamists and a girl who called the police after being sent to live with an older man as husband and wife by her parents, she is 14 or 15. I'm aware of polygamy as having multiple spouses but I wan't aware of the underage aspect, now, I brought this up because of the sanctity of marriage point in the argument of gay marriage, well these people don't even go to courts for marriage, and whats worse to you, gay marriage or kids being forced to be with anyone especially older people as a spouse? Ahhh, gotta love the faithful, Mormans are an interesting bunch.

The particular religious people who site the bible and their religions beliefs as the source of their views against gays usually also claim that the hold a higher moral standard and understanding than those who disagree with them on this and issues like it. Yet the ones who take the strongest stances will go so far as to consider gay people as an abomination, possibly even worthy of just being wiped off that face of the earth. That they will fear and teach others to fear and or hate them, just as they have with so many other colors classes or creeds.

And the general cores of these beliefs is the moral of loving and caring, doing unto others, do not judge, etc.

So what does it say when a person like me who disagrees with an apparent "moral" judgement, has "moral" posistions closer to those found in the books and religions of the faithful than that of those who actually follow these faiths, how does that make sense? And how is that so missed as an observation?

I could care less if one was gay or not. I say let em marry, they would still have to deal with it and all that is associated with marraige...such as inlaws