Against gays? Support gay marriage!

Most people anymore agree that sexuality is genetic. How one exhibits his/her sexual desire for the opposite sex, same sex, etc. is hardwired into the DNA. Now, I don’t want this to turn into a ginormous eugenics/dysgenics debate, but here’s to all you who just abhor homosexuality oh so much that you want to meddle and legislate and disallow this that and the other:

Make gay marriage completely legal, sanctioned and acceptable.

There have been many incidences within various individuals’ histories wherein their marriages have been complete shams. A man will hit 40 and suddenly realize that, after having married a woman and having had a family and lived “that life,” in his true self he is not attracted to his wife, nor any woman for that matter. He is a homosexual. He had been all his life, but society and family and church so forth had told him it was wrong, he was going to Hell, he was mentally ill, he was unacceptable, whatever…. So, he adapted. He was forced into living a “normal” life, in complete opposition to his true nature. Now, what has he done? He has had children. He has passed that evil (or, at least, defective or aberrant) gay gene down to his kids. He has passed gayity to a new generation, for no other reason than said society, family and church had forced him to live a lie and marry a female and have kids, like a good, normal heterosexual.

Now, if gay marriage were legal and open and sanctioned and acceptable, wouldn’t this happen less often, if at all? Joe marries Bob, or Jane marries Sue with no shame or outcry from anyone. By the nature of their gender, this is not a relationship conducive to spawning. Now, there will be the occasional David Crosby inseminating of a lesbian here and there, sure, but for the most part, there will be fewer and fewer homosexuals breeding and making new ones. So, within, what? one or two generations, no more gays. They could be effectively bred out. Then, you will be happy. There will be no more gays to recruit your children, to dress or talk or walk all “funny” and just make you feel generally uncomfortable.

Let them marry. Let them choose whom they want to marry. Let them be happy in their decision. Little will they know, that all the while, it was your fiendish plan to have them be rid of themselves in due time. You may have to live with some ickiness for some time, so may your children, but your children’s children and so on, will be able to live a comfortable, heterosexual-friendly, “Will and Grace” and “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” and “Queer as Folk” – free life. Happy days for the future generations!

So, I say, all you gay haters and zealots who think that gays should go to Hell and that AIDS was created by God to punish gays for doing bad things, etc … Support gay marriage! Go out and vote! Give them the rights they deserve! Do yourself a favor! Do it for the CHILDREN!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Haha, well you know your audience!

To be honest though I've got to voice my doubt that homosexuality is genetic. This is not to say that head-in-the-sand members of the religious right are correct, and it's just a choice some people make to piss them off, but there are a lot of biological and mental factors which are not directly under a person's control which also are not genetic. I don't know of any studies that have shown homosexual behavior running in families, and if it were genetic I figure that by this point at least it would have worked itself out of the population. We've been around since the beginning of recorded history, and it's not like we breed like rabbits, yet still there's no shortage of homosexuals in the world. I'd be interested to see a study done of twins (or other multi-births) of whom at least one is gay. The only situation like that I know is my own, my twin brother also likes guys, but again it might not necessarily be genetic, two people raised together, who have been together their entire lives, tend to developed the same tastes in a lot of things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have had many gay friends over the years; I accept them and respected them on the basis of their character as they accepted me on equal terms. Now, the gay disorder can be attributed to genetics, or can be attribute to some sort of mental deficiency. Regardless of the nature or not of the gay syndrome. I could never agree to gay marriages as reciprocal to institutional family and marriages known to human kind throughout history. Gays should have the freedom/right of living together with the same rights as natural couples. However, legal marriage it’s just too much to digest. Gays don’t need to step into marriage values and import that right for themselves.
Gays are not more gays if they are allowed to marriage. Or are they?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well great, you're a boon to society, we're all so proud.

Disorder? Mental deficiency? That's funny, I generaly think of religion in the same terms. Ok, well I think we see your true colors now, you mean that you have several gay friends in the same way you might say that you voulenteer to help run the special olympics, right? Why in the world would you refere to homosexuality as a "mental deficiency" or "disoroder"?

I don't know if this matters at all to you, but people in a better place than you to understand these things disagree with your point of view: http://www.apa.org/pi/statemen.html

Syndrome? Jesus christ you've got some mouth on you. But then all of you fucking retards infected with the Het are like that. I should try to be more tollerant of your illness, and accept the fact that you run marketing, which is why I have to watch breasts bouncing up and down trying to sell me things on TV every 5 minuets, It's lewd obscene and disgusting, but I know that you can't help it, you're just sick.

Well that institution has been fairly fluid and dynamic throught history and quite different from culture to culture, so what version of the institution exactly are you hung up on? I thought that our culture valued it as a loving union between two comitted people, as well as an environment which can be stable and caring for children, I don't see how homosexuality goes against any of those things. But then, maybe I'll just have to accept that this changing institution is now leaning more toward being important only in the sense that the two people involved must have the correct plumbing. I'll just have to wait for the next iteration.

You've just contradicted yourself. They should have their rights, but they should not have their rights?

Why in gods name not? We were raised in the same culture as you, we hold the same cultural values, marriage is what we want to do, it doesn't effect anyone else, so where did you get a say in any of it? This is supremely arrogant.

Can you state this again, only this time try to make it coherent, please.

Don't try to fool yourself into thinking you're a tolerant and fair person. You’re nothing but another vicious elitist heterosexist. At least people on the religious right have the courage to come right out and say that they are bigoted, you on the other hand are nothing but a snake.

 

Everything doesn’t have to be genetic. Lots of differences can be had during development of a child in the womb. Being that homosexuals are observed more frequently in highly populated areas, it could be that homosexuality is some sort of response made by a pregnant mother due to being overcrowded. Some sort of biochemistry thing goes on in her body, and a fetus responds to that by becoming structured to like its own gender, and hence help curb the mother's feeling of overcrowding. This sort of "Disorder" might help keep all you religious types from burying the planet in a squirming mass of too many fricking people. I find an explanation like this far more likely than some sort of "gay gene" because that gene would sure have had a hard time being passed on.

 

How do you know that the "gay gene" isn't passed down from heterosexual women? This may explain why there seems to be an ever increasing amount of gay people, otherwise their numbers would have dwindled by now, wouldn't they? Perhaps something that the "gay gene" does in men, has an alternate, positive effect on women that make them more diserable to men, thus increasing the chances of gay men being born.

 

Errr bear with me here people.

If homosexuality is a genetic 'syndrome', 'disability' or whatever judgemental term you wish to use, then how can it be argued that they should be denied the right to marry?
As I understand it the US has some fairly potent laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race and disability.
Shouldn't those 'unfortunates' born with the gay gene be accorded the same rights as those born with the cystic fibrosis gene, for instance.

How about it?
Dee Cee

 

DeeCee, the arguments against having homosexuals marry are not based upon any moral grounds but on the perceived definition of marriage.

 

i am not sure as to the exact cause of homosexuality, in humans or otherwise. i think though, that it may indeed be gene related. perhaps the "gay gene" [if it exists] acts somewhat like the CF gene in terms of expression.

 

Ahh so then there's a separate Gay gene and Lesbian gene? hah.

 

Haha, right, keep telling yourself that Oki. The law exists for a reason, that particular definitian was only bought into existance when we legislated on it because the religious right was afraid of homosexuals getting married due to their "moral objections" to homosexuality.

 

Well chunkylover, it is o' course illegal to get married in a church if gay couple because... well that's obvious. You can't be of a religion if you practice against it. Otherwise what else it the point of being married? Marriage is to connected so that it is legal to have children in the eyes of god. If you don't believe in god why would you want to be joined under his eyes? Why not just live together and be happy?

 

For the tax breaks and the big party afterwards.
Oh and since when did I need gods permission to have kids?
God just wants the monopoly on omnipotence as far as I can see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who gave him the right to wander the Universe creating and smiting and such? He needs to get a life and stop interfering in other peoples IMHO.
Dee Cee

 

I'm almost certain that Webster's dictionary current definition has remained almost the same since the times of Noah Webster.

 

Premarital sex, birth control, right to control what happens to my body, drinking, eating meat on Friday, no birthday or Christmas gifts......this is why I don't ascribe to any organized faith. They take away all the fun stuff.

I don't plan on ever having kids, but yet I still would prefer to be married to my boyfriend rather than just live in sin with him for the rest of my life. Primarily it's the emotional aspect of choosing someone to be with for the rest of your life and being chosen by someone in return. There are practical aspects as well, like legal property rights and the right to make healthcare decisions. Under your rationale, we, a heterosexaul male-female couple, would be redued to a civil union rather than a wedding. I can appreciate the desire for same sex couples to be married rather than just live together because I want the same thing.

Whenever someone brings up the whole God issue with respect to same sex marriage, any issue truth be told, I just cringe. Who the hell are you to presume to know the mind of God? And don't quote the Bible to me: it wasn't faxed by God from Heaven, it was written, translated, and rewritten over and over again so many times that it is impractical and silly to presume anything contained in it in 2003 even vaguely resembles the original text. (There's a reason the most popular version is the U.S. is called the King James Bible -- the guy had it rewritten to promote his personal agenda, not unlike Henry VIII starting a whole new religion just so he could get divorced).

I don't want to married to be approved by God. I want to be married because I really, really like the idea. I'm not worried about how God feels about my relationship. Since I consider my boyfriend a blessing, I figure He probably feels pretty good about it.

 

He's gotta be a Christian or muslim or hindu or some other type of babbling superstitious individual. They all seem to have a hotline to heaven.
Best you can do is smile at them, nod your head and don't start shaking it until your walking away.
Oh and don't forget the golden rule..

If they talk to god their praying.
If god talks to them their schizophrenic.
Dee Cee

 

I'm not sure what you talking about... There are plenty of liberal organized faiths.

I'm not sure if that version is the most popular.

Let's see. First, Henry VIII did not start an entire new religion just so that he could get divorced but because of the power that the Pope had. In fact, I believe that most anglians consider themselves part of the catholic faith even though they reject the authority of the Pope and do not have apostatic succession. Nevertheless, I don't believe the KJVs bible is willfully corrupted even though it was translated outside of the Church and has some mistranslations.

 

The day I find a church that celebrates rather than ignores the Book of Ecclesiates, I'll revisit the issue.

http://gc2003.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal-life/Ask11'01.html

"Most American households have at least one Bible (93 percent). Among the Bibles people identify as theirs, the most frequently reported is the King James Version (54 percent). A distant second is the New International Version (15 percent). Other versions trailed in the single digits."

I've seen quite a few "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible" bumper stickers as well, but I didn't consider that a reliable statistical sampling.

Yep. He also got to seize all church property within Great Britain and add it to his personal wealth.

Any text that is translated or rewritten in a subsequent period of history will by default suffer from the subjective perceptions of those doing the work. Nevertheless....

"It is an irony of history that the popularity of the King James Bible was due to political and economic reasons as much as to the quality of the translation. "

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html

 

Hmm, yeah sort of. Lately there has been a movement towards more people using the NIV and like books since the Englash in the KJV is not all that readable. Most of us, however, have a KJV hanging around along with a few other bibles. The Church never put its approval on the KJV so Catholics don't debate using the KJV.

Hmm, well the writer makes a number of mistakes, such as naming the first English bible at 1535 when there were old english ones dating far before this along with partial translations. I'm not sure how accurate the article is overall.

 

On a side note, that's the same reason that Anime never makes any fucking sense.

Hehe you can never have too many.

I'm hard pressed to find a reason for this to have any relevance what so ever.