Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
I have heard entirely rational sounding reasons why scientists that are Christian hold their beliefs. Stop to think about what you are saying for a moment. You are saying every scientist that is Christian puts aside a lifetime of trained critical thinking to follow a belief you don't hold.
Not logical on your part.

While diverting somewhat from the original topic, the supernatural is by definition something that cannot be defined by science. It is interesting from a psychological point of view how people can hold diametrically opposing viewpoints simultaneously. Most commonly I have heard that people essentially maintain the spiritual beliefs in a separate box from the rational world of science.

Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.

By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

I'm all for gays and lesbians committing to a union, but don't call it marriage.

If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination. Which is what I think the gay/lesbian militant group want to do.

But all in all. The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.

Technically marriage is not a constitutional right. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it state that marriage is fundamental natural god given right.

It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.

There are no reasons against it what so ever, some people just still don't like the idea but like to pretend they aren't homophobic by hiding behind religion (that says nothing about it) and tradition, when people have finally accepted it then there will be no arguments against it.

Although personally I don't see why marriage should be available for anyone as it is religious and a giant portion of the world isn't religious and it has too many traditions in it.
Why not scrap marriage and let everyone have civil partnerships with laws around it similar to marriage but adapted to modern day?

Who cares about a stupid constitution, does it say that a same sex cannot marry? It is human rights that matter and everyone should have that right. If a priest refuses to marry a same sex couple he should be targeted for discriminating as that is what he is doing, his religion says nothing about it

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.

Or a man and women, or a child and adult, or a child and child.

You know, it has also not been the union of a black and a white person, or a person of one caste and another caste...

Marriage is not an immutable concept, as has been shown how it has changed through time and how it is, even today, very different in different cultures.

By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

By not calling gay and lesbian (and possibly other groupings) marriage, you kinda force people who think that everyone should be treated equally to accept not being equal in the eyes of the law and society.

I'm all for gays and lesbians committing to a union, but don't call it marriage.

"I'm all for blacks and whites committing to a union, but don't call it marriage."

If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination. Which is what I think the gay/lesbian militant group want to do.

I'm pretty sure it is not. There are some catholic priests who of course would marry "non-biblical" groups (you know, except for the ones which are currently illegal such as adult-child marriages...) while others would not. While I think that it is quite sad that people would refuse service to those they don't like, religion does enjoy certain protections. I don't know of any group campaigning for equal rights in marriage that wants to force people to conduct weddings - they just want equal recognition under the law.

But all in all. The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.

The government is elected to represent the people. If the people want change or debate, the government should reflect that.

Technically marriage is not a constitutional right. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it state that marriage is fundamental natural god given right.

Technically the constitution is just a piece of paper, as is the bill or rights and other amendments (note the word "amendment") that can be changed at any point. Nor does it represent the be all and end all of law in America. If it did, your court system would be absolute chaos.

It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.

The government also gives you permission to do everything else you do... they have the ability to remove any "right" from you at any time. They most probably will not for the majority of them unless "terrorists", but the possibility is there. A right is only a right so long as it is enforced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veggieburgess wrote:
Although personally I don't see why marriage should be available for anyone as it is religious and a giant portion of the world isn't religious and it has too many traditions in it.
Why not scrap marriage and let everyone have civil partnerships with laws around it similar to marriage but adapted to modern day?

Words have importance and significance. That is why people fight over them. Marriage is a word that applies to a concept that is significant for lots of people and should be open to as many people as possible, not reserved for a select group.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.

The government also gives you permission to do everything else you do... they have the ability to remove any "right" from you at any time. They most probably will not for the majority of them unless "terrorists", but the possibility is there. A right is only a right so long as it is enforced.

Exactly! the government has a bigger stick, that doesn't make their ideas right, it just makes them difficult to resist. The church also has a big stick.

I don't think what is currently legal is a good place to look for "god-given" (for lack of a better term) rights. If it were then laws would never improve. Rights are more the domain of philosophy. I believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does include the right to marry and start a family. Though even if you base your philosophy on the Bible, marriage seems to be pretty important. God frequently insists on it.

Relapse wrote:
I have heard entirely rational sounding reasons why scientists that are Christian hold their beliefs.

They weren't rational. There is no rational argument for belief in Christianity, and people who believe in it will even proudly brag about how you need irrational desire to believe despite the evidence (it's just called "faith").

You are saying every scientist that is Christian puts aside a lifetime of trained critical thinking to follow a belief you don't hold.

Exactly. I'd say the same if these scientists were doing good science, and then separately talking about how 1+1=5. They might be good scientists, but they're not applying those critical thinking skills and standards of evidence to their religion. If they were they wouldn't be Christians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

So what? Why should we care about how the poor repulsive bigots are having their feelings hurt? This is like saying that we need to call interracial marriage something else because otherwise the poor KKK members wouldn't be happy.

If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination.

No, they can't be targeted at all unless you're talking about calling for a private boycott or public shaming or whatever, which you can already do right now. Nobody relevant is demanding that private organizations perform their special ceremonies for anyone that they don't want to accept, we're talking about legal marriage. The only time this could possibly come up is if you're talking about a situation where the priest is the only government official (remember, they sign marriage documents as a representative of the government, not a representative of their church) able to perform the legal marriage, and then all they would be obligated to do would be to sign the paperwork just like if you took your marriage documents to the local courthouse.

(And needless to say this isn't a very likely scenario.)

The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.

That's not a realistic thing to ask for. Either the government takes a side and continues to refuse to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex, or the government takes a side and starts recognizing them. Saying "we're not getting involved" is still getting involved because it means declaring that the current situation is ok.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.

No, it hasn't. There's evidence that the Romans allowed same-sex couples to marry, as at that point in time marriage was simply a legal joining together of two peoples' property.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that other cultures also allowed it from time to time.

By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

No, by calling a gay or lesbian union marriage, you allow gays and lesbians to get married.

Why that would have any effect whatsoever on anybody not directly involved in that relationship is beyond me. If my neighbours call themselves married, or call themselves bonded, or call themselves Eunice, it makes absolutely no difference to me and my relationship with my wife, whether I 'agree with their lifestyle' or not.

Whatever that means. Why on earth does someone have to 'agree with the lifestyle' in order for it to be acceptable? I don't agree with the idea of getting up at 5am in the middle of winter to go for a jog... but I don't think that means that joggers shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. By definition.

Nope.

By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.

I'm all for gays and lesbians committing to a union, but don't call it marriage.

You don't don't get to bogart terms just because people you think don't deserve them want them to apply to everyone. Sorry dude.

If a catholic priest is asked to marry a gay couple, and he refuses, he can be targeted for discrimination. Which is what I think the gay/lesbian militant group want to do.

Nope... again. This is more of the persecution fantasy that the religious right loves to peddle to the people. No one is saying that, not even close.

But all in all. The US govt should not be involved in the marriage debate.

Yes they should. States denying rights to citizens is a perfect example of a time when the Federal Government should be involved in something.

Technically marriage is not a constitutional right. No where in the constitution or bill of rights does it state that marriage is fundamental natural god given right.

It might do you a favor to pick up a copy of the United States Constitution and give it a read, specifically the Ninth Amendment (it's the one right after the Eighth but before the Tenth). The text reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That implicitly refers to natural rights (you know, that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing the Founders went on about) that are not enumerated by the Constitution that the government is forbidden to infringe upon, something that is further reinforced by the Fourteenth Amendment (as interpreted by the Supreme Court).

It's why you need a marriage license. If the government, has to give you permission to marry, you are not entitled to it.

Marriage is not an entitlement. The State shouldn't give people a marriage license; it is an antiquated and unnecessary. The State should instead give people a "marriage certificate" similar to a birth certificate so that way all of the preexisting civil laws that deal with marriage (custody, inheritance, etc.) can still apply to married couples of all stripes.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
.

By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.

[

Citation please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marriage is not an entitlement. The State shouldn't give people a marriage license; it is an antiquated and unnecessary. The State should instead give people a "marriage certificate" similar to a birth certificate so that way all of the preexisting civil laws that deal with marriage (custody, inheritance, etc.) can still apply to married couples of all stripes.

100% agree.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
.

By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.

[

Citation please.

The Citation does not exist for either side of the coin. There is evidence, but nothing that can directly prove one way or another.

For me and the LGBTQ people I associated with, it was about as much of a choice as me being white or having blue eyes. This is a personal anecdote, however, so don't feel compelled (Anyone, not just Cincy) to tell me that it is a personal anecdote.

I know there isn't

Which is why I made the comment. While I personally agree that it is probably genetic (I have trouble believing anyone one choose a life of persecution) I do take umbrage when people claim it's an unquestionable fact, because it isn't.

And especially so when they compare it to skin color or gender, two things that are quite difficult to mask.

 cincydooley wrote:
Which is why I made the comment. While I personally agree that it is probably genetic (I have trouble believing anyone one choose a life of persecution) I do take umbrage when people claim it's an unquestionable fact, because it isn't.

When did you choose to like gurlz?

I did choose to hate gurlz.

I also chose to hate everyone else. What does this make me?

 MrDwhitey wrote:


I also chose to hate everyone else. What does this make me?

A cat

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I did choose to hate gurlz.

I also chose to hate everyone else. What does this make me?

Please select one:

English/Cat/Really Angry Mother-In-Law/David White

 SilverMK2 wrote:
When did you choose to like gurlz?

I remember it like it was yesterday. It was this specific episode of Voltron.




Hot.

It was the first time a girl touched me....there.

It was a toss-up until then, but finders keepers.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

By calling gay and lesbian unions marriage. You kinda force people who don't agree with the lifestyle to accept it or get punished.

Nope. That is just more persecution fantasies from the religious right. Being gay is no more a lifestyle than being white or black or male or female; it is an intrinsic part of who you are, not something that is chosen.

Citation please.

Certainly:

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." -Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007

"The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." -Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab, 2010 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403051)

The entire medical world now understands that human homosexuality, transsexuality, and heterosexuality to be a complex interplay between nature and nurture with the biological model as the cause. It isn't just waking up one day and saying, "You know what? I like dudes now."

The bottom line is this:
If social conservatives who object to homosexuality can no longer say that they "choose" to be that way, that means homosexuals deserve equal protection under the law and therefore should be free to live without facing their disgusting bigotry. Groups like the Family Research Council (the people that plenty of anti-gay "research" in America) openly admit as much, saying that finding homosexuality to be intrinsic "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true." Keep in mind that they have absolutely no evidence to contrary, they just want to treat gays like second-class citizens and strip their rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because they think the god they worship will give them bonus Heaven points for doing it.

"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay."

@Silver

Pretty sure it was when I saw Ariel for the first time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@scooty - please keep in mind I don't disagree with you at all. I simply think in a discussion where everyone wants to claim religion is a bunch of superstitious hokem, it's a bit disingenuous, IMO, to categorically say homosexuality is genetic when we absolutely cannot prove that it is.

 cincydooley wrote:
"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay."

@Silver

Pretty sure it was when I saw Ariel for the first time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@scooty - please keep in mind I don't disagree with you at all. I simply think in a discussion where everyone wants to claim religion is a bunch of superstitious hokem, it's a bit disingenuous, IMO, to categorically say homosexuality is genetic when we absolutely cannot prove that it is.

Twin studies are methodically flawed because they rely on two false presumptions: twins are genetically the same and they are raised in equal environments

Twins do not have 100% exact copies of DNA, something geneticist have know for some time and your DNA is not stable, it mutates over the course of your life.

Did you pull that from a meta analysis cincy? Or did you find all 8? If it's either, could you link them/post/pm me the names do I can read them? They sound interesting

There seem to be a few cartoonosexuals in this thread who just happen to be into women as well

 SilverMK2 wrote:
There seem to be a few cartoonosexuals in this thread who just happen to be into women as well

There is such a thing?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

Thanks

The most usual one is that "Its not natural. We don't see it in on the planet, or in nature."

Its the only one I can remember at the moment. But that is one of them.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...with non-religious reasoning. I never quite understood it, and I have only seen religious reasons used.

Thanks

The most usual one is that "Its not natural. We don't see it in on the planet, or in nature."

Its the only one I can remember at the moment. But that is one of them.

Nevermind that something like 112 or 118 (Forget which) other mammal species on the planet have homosexuality.

Maybe it's Mammals. Mammals must be weird.......



You and me baby, ain't nothing but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.

 Asherian Command wrote:

The most usual one is that "Its not natural. We don't see it in on the planet, or in nature."

This is how you can tell someone has never been outside, and how I can call 'citation needed!' whenever someone mentions that black people exist, 'cause I only see them on TV, and companies can do amazing things with CGI these days.

Never ever go into the animal comparison territory. It's terrible to go there. Problems:

a) There is no homosexuality among animals. There is homosexual behavior. This is a major difference. Teens who "try" the other gender during puberty don't necessarily become gay as a consequence.

b) If you use the animal comparison to proof that homosexuality is "natural", you basically say that every homosexual person in the world is homosexual for the sex alone - because that's why animals do it. Do you want to say that? If not, then don't use the comparison.

c) Humans are VASTLY different from animals in so many regards that it ain't even funny. Especially when it comes to relationships. If you want to compare your motivation for a relationship to the one of a dog or a whale...well, be it. I don't recommend explaining this to your SO though.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:


Twins do not have 100% exact copies of DNA, something geneticist have know for some time and your DNA is not stable, it mutates over the course of your life.

Actually, leading theories actually have to do with hormones while in the womb, especially since chromosomes and genes don't not create gender, hormones from the mother does. There have been studies which find that the more male offspring born by the mother, the higher chance the mother's body will suppress testosterone and lead to a change in the baby. Almost all the science right now is 'observational' and they are generating theories which can then be tested and proven/disproven via the scientific method. We are way off for that kind of stuff.

It is interesting because some of these studies have implications that there can only be homosexual males because the observed phenomenon only seems to apply to males, and does not apply to males born into large families of women or women born into large families of males, only Males born into families with multiple older brothers. Of course, if such a discovery was made where 'Male Homosexuality = Born, Female Homosexuality = Choice' the world would probably implode or something. (it would be in-line with male privilege and men would be quick to welcome gay men back into the club to accept male homosexuality but discredit female homosexuality)

There is also a 'Why' this happens which we wouldn't necessarily know and science would only tell us that it happens, and not 'WHY'. Churches usually reluctantly evolve to meet science and I suspect the major sects of the current religions will progress down the road.

Disclaimer: I am not saying I believe any of this but it is interesting to think 'what if...' in regards to if it is valid or not. It is some of the observational, peer-reviewed studies currently going on about the subject. Their findings are not trying to push an agenda, but people do take the results and quickly turn it to an agenda.

 Sigvatr wrote:

b) If you use the animal comparison to proof that homosexuality is "natural", you basically say that every homosexual person in the world is homosexual for the sex alone - because that's why animals do it. Do you want to say that? If not, then don't use the comparison.

If you want to use the animal comparison to proof that heterosexuality is "natural", you basically say that every heterosexual person in the world is heterosexual for sex alone - because that's why animals do it.


Is what you are saying by saying that Homosexuality isn't natural, but Heterosexuality is.

Not you you, but you in general.