Gay Marriage

I think that's the first thing you've said that we can all agree on...

 

Yes I have to agree as well. But as I am sure this question has already been posed...if gay and lesbian marriage does not kill or hurt anybody...what is wrong with it?

 

I read very recently that AIDS and other STDs were beginning to surge again among homosexuals. Of course, according to the newspaper, this was society's fault . . .

 

This is a very shallow, but alas typically Western, definition of what constitutes right and wrong.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is deviant behaviour; it is behaviour that has long been recognized as incorrect and inappropriate. Homosexuality is becoming more prevelant and is undermining the values that many people justifiably regard as good and normal. As a result, homosexuals are causing people such as myself much anguish and dismay, and are furthermore contributing to a moral decay that is undermining our society. This in my opinion makes it hurtful and spiteful. As I have stated earlier in regards to lesbian feminists, as an example, homosexuality is also rooted in hate: heterophobia. So yes, homosexuals are in fact hurting many people.

Actually, perhaps many people now derive their opposition to homosexuality from the Bible, but in actuality the truth about the wrongness of homosexuality is found in Nature.

 

I am bisexual...what does that mean?

 

It's interesting that you lament how "ignorance and bigotry" are "protected" in America, and you seek what...? Protection for your own bigotry and ignorance.

 

It means that you're lost and confused.

Bisexuality just reinforces the truth that deviant sexuality is a choice.

 

no, that is already protected. I want the same rights and protections afforded by marriage to be available to me, should I ever decide to "marry"

 

lol...sure

I'm bisexual too, as well as engaged to a man. I'm also monogomous and very happy with him. But again, I AM bisexual. So what does that mean?

That means I'm attracted to both men and women, but that I ultimately fell in love with a man, although in the past I have fallen in love with a woman that I could have seen myself marrying.

This doesn't mean I have "changed my mind" and am now heterosexual....I'm still attracted to women and men both, the same way heterosexual people are still attracted to the opposite sex even when they've settled down wth one person. They are attracted, and they look, but don't touch. I just happen to be that way when I see both attractive men AND women.

 

This is true, to an extent. It seems that HIV treatments have supplied a sort of false hope, or something.

***The two groups with the largest increase in new HIV infections right now are: black females (and more specifically, black females in the south. This is why "men on the down low" has become such a popular topic) and senior citizens.

Also, STD's are more rampant in college communities than anywhere else. One in five sexually active college students has genital warts, for example.

***According to what I was taught this spring, in a course called "AIDS: Myths & Realities." I have not done my own research, and the trends could have changed (somewhat) since then.

 

Oh of course...I hate heterosexuality so much, that's why I fell for a man.

It's not rooted in hate hon, it's rooted in the same things heterosexuality is rooted in.

 

Thank You, Brocktoon...

I should also add, I am not suggesting that all homosexuals now want monogamy. Unfortunately, there is at least some truth to every stereotype. I do think that the current trend, though, is toward monogamy.

 

Monogamy is something that straight couples have trouble with as well...

But it doesn't matter even if the majority of homosexual couples choseto not be manogamous, they should still have every right as a straight couple if they wish to form a long-term partnership with someone.

I have no doubt that we will get there some day, but it takes time. Any study of minorities in history will tell you that. Homosexuals are a minority, and they need other people to go to bat for them in order to get them equal rights. It doesn't come overnight, but it is on it's way. Right now there are plenty of people who are okay with gay marriage, but don't feel the pressure or motivation to get to the polls, unlike those who are against it.

 

What about homosexual behaviour among other animals (especially mammals)?

Is that rooted in heterophobia?

 

How ‘bout this one against gay marriage ...

No matter how mutually reinforcing a network of social relation can get, the capacity for rational agency, the capacity to experience pain, the capacity to make choices based on that pain, or any other capacity rich enough upon which to ground moral rights are all limited to individuals.

It may be true that moral rights are collective guarantees against harms. But for moral rights to be protected there must be a guarantee on the behalf of the harmed group.

Social groups can not guarantee anything, because there is no agency amoung them.

If you gay rights activists choose to avoid the problem of grounding group rights in agency by focusing on the alleged interests of the homosexuals, you must make the case that there are such things as common interests attributable to that particular group. In other words ... you have to convince us that every gay couple desires marriage. If one gay couple does not desire marriage than the common interest is no longer common but selective.

If there is no common interest and no agency amoung the gay community than no rights to marriage can be awarded.

There are possible common interests amoung social groups, you can be assured of that. When a group is being harmed because they are part of that group than they can have agency. Since not all gays think it a bad thing that they can not get married, this harm can not be applied.

Therefore no gay marriages!!

What say you, fine folks?

 

dumbass

 

Well, the only animals that I've heard of being "homosexual" are those under considerable stress and living in confined conditions like in zoos. It's not surprising that homosexuality manifests among humans in similar conditions: ie., in an urban setting. But the thing with humans is that humans are very much capable of differentiating between right and wrong.

Oh, most animals kill or become violent when their territory, off-spring, etc. is threatened. Some species have been proven to kill for the sake of killing. Is it okay for humans to do so as well? I mean, if animals can do it, why can't we?

 

I beg your pardon, were you speaking to me?

 

I thought that we did.

Most wars are fought over territory.

The majority of the states in the union have the death penalty (kill me or mine and we'll kill you).

Kill for the sake of killing?
I don't know a lot of american hunters who hunt for need...

As far as animals only exhibiting homosexual behaviour under extreme stress...
I'll have to get back to that one, there's more than one book out there documenting thousands of animals who exhibit homosexual behaviour in their natural environment.

The Secretary(sp) of State for Ohio J. Kenneth Blackwell came under fire recently for stating that homosexuality defies "barnyard logic". One of the reasons that it drew attention is the fact the a lot of farmers will tell you that barnyard animals are no strangers to homosexual conduct...

 

This entire premise is incorrect. Plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html#main

but I'd look most closely at dolphins, for they're the only other species that has sex for pleasure (other than bonobos), and yes, a major study was done which concluded that wild dolphins do engage in homosexual behavior:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/2001-spinner%20dolphins.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/metro/weird/article.html?in_page_id=4&in_article_id=1327