It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay Marriage be Legal?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
See we have this national election coming up in a few months. Why don't we just put this on the ballot? Why not let America vote? Just a thought, majority wins, constitution stays the same and if we want to vote on this every 4 years so what? If those on the losing side (whomever they might be) want a change they would just need to spend the 4 years changing peoples minds.

If this is important enough for our president to change the constition then it is important enough to let us all vote and then live with our decision. Oh and if it passed then went away, we would just have to honor those married during the time it was legal. It is called grandfathering which is a tradition we have used often in this country.




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
RANT,

No matter what the government does on this issue they are dipping their hands into Religion because Marriage and Religion are so intertwined. The vast majority of marriages in this country are performed by religous officials and not judges. So how can you on one hand argue against government sponsered religions and then on the other hand support government intervention into marriage?

Jezebel,

I don't know every gay in the world but I know a few. I also know that a recent national poll showed that 81% of Gays would not accept civil unions even if that gave them the same rights under the law as married individuals.

Thus this is the reason for my statement. I know that it is symantecs but that is the whole debate. Marriage has always been for a man and a woman and should stay that way. A civil union would grant gays the same rights as a married couple but they are unwilling to accept it. Why, because they want to be able to say that they are married and all the good connatations that come with it otherwise they would accept Civil Unions.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
First and foremost, gayness is not biological, it is psychological. First and foremost, there are many studies that have shown that gayness can be cured. Check out the site of the American Psychological Society for details. The success rate is about 70%...that means that 70% of gay patients have been cured.

Could you please provide the APS link to verify this claim? Every legitimate study I have found regarding homosexuality as strictly pathological has shown that not to be true. As for a 70% success rate, I have never seen any reports that claim to have "cured" homosexuality. The so-called ex-gay ministries don't cure people that are strictly homosexual. They teach them to be celibate and suppress their sexual impulses. Any person who converts from being attracted to their own sex to being attracted to the opposite sex, was bisexual to begin with. If you know of a valid report that shows a 70% successfully-cured rate, please provide it.


A big role in gayness plays the pleasure received from the anal glands...it is an addiction equal to drugs; and because the rectum is not stretchable like the female's genitalia, once opened, it stays open, and then it must be filled with something for the male to feel pleasure.

The both men and women can have anal orgasms, and there are a number of women who engage in anal sex with men, and I am fairly certain that they are not gay (being as that they are of the opposite sex and all). There are also a large percentage of gay men that do not have anal sex. Are they still gay in your book? I don't know how good of friends you and your gay buddies are, but I think they are playing a joke on you to make you look ignorant.

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by jezebel]



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I don't know how good of friends you and your gay buddies are, but I think they are playing a joke on you to make you look ignorant.


That just made me really laugh out loud. I've had some pretty funny gay friends that would tell the new guy off the bus from farmtown some WHOPPERS just like that.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
The prostate gland is an errogenous zone on both men and women. There are a number of women who engage in anal sex with men, and I am fairly certain that they are not gay (being as that they are of the opposite sex and all). There are also a large percentage of gay men that do not have anal sex. Are they still gay in your book? I don't know how good of friends you and your gay buddies are, but I think they are playing a joke on you to make you look ignorant.


This is the first time I have heard that women have a prostate. The only thing in the female anatomy similar to a prostate would be the G-Spot.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
...81% of Gays would not accept civil unions even if that gave them the same rights under the law as married individuals.
Marriage has always been for a man and a woman and should stay that way. A civil union would grant gays the same rights as a married couple but they are unwilling to accept it. Why, because they want to be able to say that they are married and all the good connatations that come with it otherwise they would accept Civil Unions.


If Civil Unions and Marriage are the same thing then heterosexual and homosexual couples alike should get civil unions instead of marriages under the law. If they get the same rights and that is the only thing that matters then it should be no big deal for marriages to now be called civil unions, unless there is something more personal driving their desire to be married.
Why do you assume that their motivation for marriage is anything less than a straight person's? Here is an article I found that explains the significance of marriage, not as an institution, but as a bond. It is much more articulate on the subject than I am:


...the most fundamental characteristic of civil marriage which differentiates it from other contractual relationships is the fact that it establishes, legally, socially, and morally, a new kinship - and by extension, a new family.

A group of people can sign a contract for the purpose of setting up a new business, but they don't thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract assigning one the legal authority to make medical decisions for the other, but they don't thereby become kin or family. Two people can sign a contract to jointly share property, but they don't thereby become kin or a family. When two people marry, however, they do become kin - they are now related to each other. Furthermore, they also establish kinship ties with one another's families - and in some cultures, establishing kinship ties between the two families has been regarded as the purpose of marriage, not establishing kinship ties between the two people actually getting married.

All of this is makes marriage fairly unique among all other sorts of contracts that can exist in society - only adoption is at all similar. In fact, this is the one characteristic of marriage which seems to be common to all forms of marriage in all cultures and societies through time.

Marriage establishes a relationship which does not and cannot exist for people who are simply living together. However much a cohabiting couple may love each other and however long they may have been together, their relationship is not such that it can be described as "kin" and, as a consequence, they cannot make any legal, social, or moral claims on others to treat them individually and jointly as if they were kin.

Heterosexual couples have the option to establish kinship with one another by marrying. Homosexual couples, whose love and intimacy cannot be judged as any less valuable or significant than those of straight people, do not have this option: they cannot form a kinship bond with one another. Because of this, their relationships are at a social and emotional disadvantage.
There should be no puzzlement over a gay couple, whose love and relationship may be every bit as deep and enduring as a those of a straight couple, would want to become recognized as kin, thus creating a new relationship and new ties not otherwise available. There is also no surprise that many gay couples have chosen to have one "adopt" the other, which is the only way such a bond is even remotely available to them outside of marriage.

Yes, gays are asking the body-politic to recognize their relationships as being kinship bonds - and there is no good reason why they shouldn't be so recognized. There is nothing about the relationships of straight couples which makes them any more "worthy" of legal, social, and moral obligations we traditionally structure as "marriage."

I really just can't believe how incredibly shallow, self-centered, and unempathetic those of you opposed to gay marriage truly must be. Do you even stop to consider how hard it would be to born and live in a country that claims to be a land of freedom and equality, so long as you are attracted to the right person. It's just as wrong to deny them the right to be married as it would be for a wealthy father to refuse his son the right to marry the girl he loves because she is in a lower income brackett. Bigotry is a superiority complex that has been an embarrassment to the human race since the beginning and it's time that we grow up and realize that nobody gets to have a monopoly on marriage. The straight population just wants to feel like they still have something the gay population doesn't, and it is very disappointing to see. Even after all of the oppression that has been fought against and beaten, people still refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, and are therefore destined to repeat them.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This is the first time I have heard that women have a prostate. The only thing in the female anatomy similar to a prostate would be the G-Spot.

Sorry I misspoke. Women can have anal orgasms, but not from the prostate, that is just a guy thing. My apologies.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
If Civil Unions and Marriage are the same thing then heterosexual and homosexual couples alike should get civil unions instead of marriages under the law. If they get the same rights and that is the only thing that matters then it should be no big deal for marriages to now be called civil unions, unless there is something more personal driving their desire to be married.
Why do you assume that their motivation for marriage is anything less than a straight person's? Here is an article I found that explains the significance of marriage, not as an institution, but as a bond. It is much more articulate on the subject than I am:


Simple because Marriage has always been man and woman. Government should never involve itself into marriage because of seperation of church and state. If Homosexuals just want marriage for rights under law then civil unions should suffice for them.

I just don't see the issue.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I really just can't believe how incredibly shallow, self-centered, and unempathetic those of you opposed to gay marriage truly must be. Do you even stop to consider how hard it would be to born and live in a country that claims to be a land of freedom and equality, so long as you are attracted to the right person. It's just as wrong to deny them the right to be married as it would be for a wealthy father to refuse his son the right to marry the girl he loves because she is in a lower income brackett. Bigotry is a superiority complex that has been an embarrassment to the human race since the beginning and it's time that we grow up and realize that nobody gets to have a monopoly on marriage. The straight population just wants to feel like they still have something the gay population doesn't, and it is very disappointing to see. Even after all of the oppression that has been fought against and beaten, people still refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, and are therefore destined to repeat them.


Being Gay is not a condition, disease, or an inherited trait it is a choice.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   


Being Gay is not a condition, disease, or an inherited trait it is a choice.


So is being stright also just a choice? Myself there is absolutly no way I could be turned ion by a man, in other words my sexual oreintation is not a CHOICE but a part of me that will NEVER change, why should I think that it would be different for gays?

Are those of you saying it is just a choice saying that you are just as attracted to the same sex and it is just your choice not to act on it?

I will always be attracted to women and no amout of peer pressure will change it



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
My biggest problem with this issue is that, dont we have more important things to worry about than gay marriage?

[Edited on 26-2-2004 by daeldren]



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Being Gay is not a condition, disease, or an inherited trait it is a choice.


As I posted earlier:
There is strong evidence to support the position that homosexuality is a result of a number of different biological factors that occur while the mother is still pregnant with the child.


Alterations of sex hormone levels during pre- or perinatal sexual brain organization - [responsible for long-term changes of gonadotropin secretion, sexual orientation, and gender role behavior - can be caused by:

1. Genetic effects, i.e. mutations or polymorphisms of

a) 21-hydroxylase genes on chromosome 6,
b) b) 3ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase genes in chromosome 1 or
c) c) X-chromosomal genes, and

2. Epigenetic effects, such as

a) stressful situations - especially in combination with mutations - and
b) endocrine disrupters, e.g. the pesticide DDT and its metabolites, which display estrogenic, anti-androgenic, and inhibitory effects on the enzyme 3ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase leading to increased levels of dehydroepiandrosterone and its sulfate as precursors of endogenous androgens and estrogens.

In connection with the introduction and extensive use of the pesticide DDT, the following findings were obtained in subjects born before as compared to those born during this period:

1. The prevalence of patients with polycystic ovaries (PCO), idiopatic oligospermia (IO), and transsexualism (TS) increased significantly (about 3 - 4 fold).

2. Partial 21-hydroxylase deficiencies were observed in most patients with PCO and TS and some patients with IO born before this period.

3. In contrast, most patients with PCO and TS and several patients with IO born during the period of massive use of DDT displayed clearly increased plasma levels of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) and DHEA-S/cortisol ratios suggesting partial 3ß-hydroxsteroid dehydrogenase (3ß-HSD) deficiencies. Interestingly enough, geneticists could not find any mutations of 3ß-HSD genes in such subjects. However, o,p´-DDT and/or its metabolite o,p´-DDD are strong inhibitors of 3ß-HSD, indicating their possible co-responsibility for such life-long ontogenetic alterations. Finally, some data suggest that endocrine disrupters may also be able to affect the development of sexual orientation.

Sexual brain organization is dependent on sex hormone levels occurring during critical developmental
periods.
“Sex centers” responsible for gonadotropin
secretion are organized by estrogens, “mating centers ”controlling sexual orientation are organized by
androgens and estrogens, and “gender role centers”
responsible for gender role behavior are only organized
by androgens
(Dörner et al., 1987). Furthermore,
the organization periods for sex-specifi c gonadotropin
secretion, sexual orientation, and gender role
behavior are overlapping, but not identical. Thus,
specifi c combinations and dissociations in variations
of sex-specifi c gonadotropin secretions, sexual orientation, and gender role behavior are possible.
www.nel.edu...

Besides, I don't recall ever hearing someone claim that they chose to be straight, so why would you think someone would choose to be gay?



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
well thats weird i had that same discussion in school today...of course it should be legal isnt it violating an amendment??



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Here's what I posted in my Livejournal (www.livejournal.com...)

George Bush is bringing religion into the Constitution. This is simply not acceptable. This is discriminatory. Religion is what we do not want in our government. Religion does not belong in the Constitution. Am I right or what? An amendment for discrimination against gays is just like an amendment for discrimination against blacks. If every man is created equal, then why do gays get treated like #? This is the land of the free, but gays are getting some of their rights taken away because George Bush is a Christian and is attempting to submit a discriminatory amendment to the Constitution. This is pure religion influence.

Now, I don't like George Bush for other reasons, but trying to change our Constitution to discriminate against a group of people takes the cake. Gay people face several problems not being able to get married. For example, a gay person's life time partner is dying in the hospital. However, because they are technically not married they cannot see them in their last moments of life. He or she is forced to sit in a cold chair outside the room as their loved one dies.

This is the land of the free, and we want it to remain that way, no matter what a person's sexual preference is.

Gays are becoming the next greatly discriminated group, just like black people. If this amendment passes, then this country is seriously in trouble.

Canada allows gay marriage, and Canada seems to be doing just fine. It's not like gay marriage has really hurt Canada. In fact, one could say it's improved the country.

In my opinion, I have no problem with gays getting married. What could it hurt?



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
it could hurt football game attendence, sports channel ratings, and bud light sales.

and we all know we'd be in hell if any of that happened!



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Of course being straight is a choice.

Let me give you an example from society.

White guy, sometimes refered to as a wigger (for you older school folks) looks as if he is trying to be black. Was he born that way? No, but he is influenced by all the stimuli around him and he made a choice, even if not a concious one. Our brains are controled by the subconcious mind, which constitues most brain functions.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Of course being straight is a choice.


So when did you decide to be straight? For as long as I can remember, I have liked boys and I don't ever recall being attracted to girls. When I was 4 or 5 years old, I had a huge crush on the pastor's son that lasted for a couple of years. At that time I had no knowledge of what sexual attraction was, yet I was undeniably drawn to the physical appearance of boys, not girls. I was a tomboy and often wished I was a boy, cause they didn't have to where dresses or "act like a lady", yet I didn't grow up to be a butch lesbian.

White guy, sometimes refered to as a wigger (for you older school folks) looks as if he is trying to be black. Was he born that way? No, but he is influenced by all the stimuli around him and he made a choice, even if not a conscious one. Our brains are controlled by the subconscious mind, which constitutes most brain functions.

If that were true and our sexuality is decided solely by the environmental stimuli that surrounds us, then kids raised in heterosexual homes should grow up to be straight. Especially in homes that denounce homosexuality and would clearly disown anyone claiming to be gay.
Homes with a strong masculine influence and no feminine role model should yield only masculine boys and butch girls, while homes with only a feminine example and no masculine influence should only yield feminine straight girls and effeminate boys.

So how do you account for the gay adults that were raised by straight parents and in straight environments?



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
So when did you decide to be straight?

A long time ago.

For as long as I can remember, I have liked boys and I don't ever recall being attracted to girls.

Ah, key word is recall.

When I was 4 or 5 years old, I had a huge crush on the pastor's son that lasted for a couple of years. At that time I had no knowledge of what sexual attraction was, yet I was undeniably drawn to the physical appearance of boys, not girls. I was a tomboy and often wished I was a boy, cause they didn't have to where dresses or "act like a lady", yet I didn't grow up to be a butch lesbian.

You know, the problem with some of you guys is, is that 1) you take everything like people mean it's 100% applicable which nothing ever is, and 2) you use very limited examples to cover 6+ billion people


If that were true and our sexuality is decided solely by the environmental stimuli that surrounds us, then kids raised in heterosexual homes should grow up to be straight.

Did I say that it was solely based on outside stimuli? No. Here's something to clearify for you. Two identical people, who have a natural inclination to be alcoholics, grow up in separate areas. One in a suburb, the other in an urban area where crime is high. The urban kid, along with being in that neighborhood where people start drinking early and drugs are rampant, the urban boy is much more likely to become and alcoholic. The other boy, although the emotional/mental predisposition is there might never come close to becoming an alcoholic. Same deal.


So how do you account for the gay adults that were raised by straight parents and in straight environments?

Believe it or not, physical or emotional abuse, rape, incest, etc are proponants of sexual depravity.




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   


Of course being straight is a choice.


So you are telling me you are just as attracted to men but just choose women?

It was never a choice for me I like pussy........period. The thought of having sex with a man would make me puke. Why would gays be different?



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
So when did you decide to be straight?
A long time ago.
How do you know that you chose being straight, if you can't remember doing it?



For as long as I can remember, I have liked boys and I don't ever recall being attracted to girls.
Ah, key word is recall.
Well since I have no subconscious instinct or mental recollection that I was ever ambiguous about it, I am compelled to believe that my attraction to the opposite sex was/is innate as opposed to a voluntary choice. But you are right that nothing is every 100%, so I will acknowledge the possibility that, at some point during my infancy, my subconscious chose to be straight. Though if that is the case, I would like to know what enabled my subconscious, toddler mind to make such a seemingly complex choice.



When I was 4 or 5 years old, I had a huge crush on the pastor's son that lasted for a couple of years. At that time I had no knowledge of what sexual attraction was, yet I was undeniably drawn to the physical appearance of boys, not girls. I was a tomboy and often wished I was a boy, cause they didn't have to where dresses or "act like a lady", yet I didn't grow up to be a butch lesbian.
You know, the problem with some of you guys is, is that 1) you take everything like people mean it's 100% applicable which nothing ever is, and 2) you use very limited examples to cover 6+ billion people
I simply used myself as an example in response to the matter-of-fact statement, "Of course being straight is a choice". If you did not consider it to be an absolute, then you shouldn't have stated it as one.



If that were true and our sexuality is decided solely by the environmental stimuli that surrounds us, then kids raised in heterosexual homes should grow up to be straight.
Did I say that it was solely based on outside stimuli? No.
But you did say, "Was he born that way? No, but he is influenced by all the stimuli around him and he made a choice..." The example you gave to explain your point stated that 1. Sexual Orientation IS a choice and 2. that all the stimuli around an individual influences him/her to make a choice which reflects that stimuli.

The way I understood your argument, it was based on the claim that one chooses their sexual orientation after they are born, and that we are not born with a biologically pre-determined orientation. If you support the idea that it may be a result of something other than external stimuli then I apologize for not seeing that in your statement.



Here's something to clarify for you. Two identical people, who have a natural inclination to be alcoholics, grow up in separate areas. One in a suburb, the other in an urban area where crime is high. The urban kid, along with being in that neighborhood where people start drinking early and drugs are rampant, the urban boy is much more likely to become and alcoholic. The other boy, although the emotional/mental predisposition is there might never come close to becoming an alcoholic. Same deal.
So you do believe that it is an inborn predisposition, after all. But that it's possible, for a limited time, to override that predisposition through the environment & surrounding influences. So it is a choice because the sexual orientation can be changed, for at least a short while. Is that sort of the idea?
If so, even if that were true, I still don't see how it could be considered a legitimate choice. If someone grows up knowing they are gay, as in not at all attracted to the opposite sex, how can you say, Even though it was a subconscious one, it was a choice? Doesn't a decision have to be made consciously in order to be valid?
If that's not what you meant, then I guess I'm just not getting it, Sorry.



So how do you account for the gay adults that were raised by straight parents and in straight environments?
Believe it or not, physical or emotional abuse, rape, incest, etc are proponents of sexual depravity.
It would take an awful lot of abusive, perverted, heterosexual families to create half or even a quarter of the homosexual population. If this is what is causing a significant percentage homosexuals today, then we have some far more serious issues to address than whether or not gays have the right to marry each other.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join