@PaulSacramento
There IS a norm in sexuality and the norm for humans is heterosexuality and ANY deviation of that norm is deviant sexual behaviour ( that is what the word means, to deviate from the norm).
Do you know what sexuality is? You think that sexuality just simple refers to procreation? Really now?
Heterosexuality is no longer the NORM for humans. You are outdated by at least 30 years...
Sexuality is who are you are, it's part of your identity, it has mental components, biological components, emotional components, social components... scientifically researched...
You keep talking on and on about leaving the emotional aside... Are you a ROBOT? Unless the answer is YES, I refute your childish naive explanation.
There IS a norm in sexuality and the norm for humans is heterosexuality
In civilized countries where people have done research and understood that sexuality is not that simple, gay people have equal rights and even there it took a while. People don''t go around bashing gay people on the head.
See, I can look at sex from the scientific and dispassionate view point, which is where we should look at it.
Sex is NOT love and is NOT relationships and people seem to forget that.
Which is where we should look at it? Really? Who do you think you are? There are literally thousands of studies that demonstrate the complexity of sexuality and you tell me how I should look at it. Go read some books... Sex is not the only part of sexuality...
And secondly, we are not talking about sex, but about gay marriage. Do you think that gay people are not capable of making love or something? What's your angle?
Look, you can't have it both ways.
You can't say people are born homosexual and say it is the norm when it is NOT and no matter how much you say there is no norm in sexuality or who is to define the norm, the reality is there IS a norm and it IS defined in biology and anything outside that norm is a deviation.
Look Paul I don't want to offend you, but I need to tell you something: you know I have participated in quite a few discussion here on this forum and I've never seen you make such poor arguments.
You can't judge homosexual people just from a biological perspective and deny them rights based on that. Homosexual people are not just animals... If we reduce things to a biological perspective, moral values are useless/pointless. We get born, we live, we die... THE END.
Now, once you accept that you then realize that same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with sex but human rights and that is what I have been saying all along.
So people outside the NORM shouldn't have the same rights you say? Who created this NORM we are talking about?
Do you think that of we need heterosexuality for procreation and survival that is THE NORM?
Dear friend, human beings have been having sex for thousands of years without any intention to procreate.
We have evolved past that point a "million" years ago...
You are also implying that THE NORM can't change... I don't think so...
However, the state CAN NOT and SHOULD not force any religion to follow suit if it is against their doctrines.
You seem to have a problem understanding a simple concept of how society works nowadays.
Let me make it rather simple for you:
1) State > People > God
2) God > People > State
You are advocating for number 2. I am sorry Paul, but you need to understand that gay people have the right to be religious as well. And since you are using scientific arguments to deny them rights, I am going to use the same on you. Until science proves God and He can confirm that gay people can't get married in a church, well, I'm going to stick by supporting gay people. Seems quite fair, right?
A common misconception, but still a misconception:
There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet.
Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot.
Now, physically, how big is the suburb of houses we’ve created?
What is wrong you with you lately? Please pay attention to what I'm saying.
Let me say it again: There are 7 BILLION PEOPLE on this planet and growing exponentially. WE DON'T HAVE RESOURCES to sustain even more growth.
You talk about building houses. Houses need resources to be built and you also need land to grow crops and feed the population. Kind of logic wouldn't you say?
Unless God will give us resources and another planet... well... sex for procreation might be banned at some point. In China they already have 1 child/family.
Hope this time it's quite clear.
@philip
And just how far do you want to take these manufactured "rights?" Should a man be able to marry a duck, a dog, a sheep, a goat? Three men marry one woman? Just because something is legal for all doesn't mean it's a good thing for society. And ALL so-called rights necessarily discriminate against someone, somewhere, shows favoritism in some way. The idea that the majority should always allow a minority to do anything and everything they want to can lead to some very bad places. And just making it legal for EVERYONE often does little better. Our society is killing itself over trying to be fair to everyone - it doesn't work! And our laws are often designed to encourage or discourage behaviors, like it or not. Plus, in America, we live in a democracy governed by a constitution - a document which limits various things and rights. People want to declare everything a "right," as if they are entitled to it - but this attitude is not constitutional. Most people who bandy about lose talk about what should be rights for everyone clearly know very little about constitutional law. And merely living in a democracy means that you will NOT always get what you want - no one does. But as for what we currently subsidize, let's quit subsidizing everything under the sun - married, single, homosexual or hetero.
If a duck/dog/sheep/goat is proven to be able to consent I don't mind. But I think you are stretching things too far.
Three men marry one woman? That would be quite fortunate for the woman.
Our society is killing itself over trying to be fair to everyone - it doesn't work! And our laws are often designed to encourage or discourage behaviors, like it or not. Plus, in America, we live in a democracy governed by a constitution - a document which limits various things and rights. People want to declare everything a "right," as if they are entitled to it - but this attitude is not constitutional.
So because it doesn't work, gay people should be treated in a unfair manner?
Would you be happy if starting tomorrow Christianity would be banned and considered illegal? Think about it. If you were caught praying/going to church you would be arrested and sent to jail. Would you like that?
but this attitude is not constitutional
Actually the main purpose of the Constitution is to offer a fair treatment for EVERYONE and EVERYONE to have freedom of speech and choice.
So Christian people are able to be quite vocal about their doctrine, but gay people are not allowed to speak up for them. Ok... Really?
If we're talking about men, I'd say one is somewhat feminine and the more submissive one is more feminine. As for women, there's typically one fem and one appearing to imitate a feminine version of a man - why else is one often more mannish-looking in dress and appearance, and more dominating in the relationship. No way would I compare the roles typical in homosexual unions with a those in a healthy heterosexual marriage. How ironic that so many gay women have enormous issues with and are uncomfortable around men (often from dysfunction, sexual and otherwise), with their own fathers) but yet they become masculine-acting (at least to a point) women. How many masculine-looking gay women have I seen with an unhappy scowl on their face - especially when a man comes close. Very sad, very dysfunctional.
This is the kind of comment and mentality that should be educated more. You are using some cliches that only apply for a small number of people. You are trying to generalize a particular behavior to an entire class... That's a HUGE mistake.
@Paul + Daniel
And that is why very few gay rights advocates go to that "train of thought".
Homosexuality occurring in nature doesn't make it natural just because it happens ( much less make it right).
Even when it does occur it is still not the norm for that species, it is still a deviation.
And again, bisexuality occurs not homosexuality.
I don't recall any study that showed a male ( or female) be EXCLUSIVE to another "mate" of the same gender.
Studies have shown that some mammals do have sex with the same gender within the group BUT not exclusively.
Again, none of this makes it right for humans to do so.
But the issue of right and wrong in regards to the SEX ACT is a different one.
I didn't say any of the things you have inferred.
The only I said is that homosexuality occurs natural within animals and that sometimes research studies have a starting point in the animal kingdom so later we can research humans beings to get more precise answers.
And Paul, if would have bothered to actually look up information, you would know two things:
1) Homosexuality happens for RAMS. This is a confirmed study.
2) Homosexuality within animals has just started to be researched more because of the past bias in regard to this matter.
The fact that you separated bisexual from homosexual and you say that we don't have just homosexual sex in animals is quite right, but that doesn't change the fact that there is "homosexual sex". You are just arguing for technicalities.
@jac
But regardless, it doesn't help or hurt the argument. Whether or not it happens in the wild has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is appropriate to allow, much less promote, it in human society. And make no mistake: to allow gays to marry is to promote homosexuality. Gay activitists need to go back and look at the purposes of marriage laws. They give incentive for acting a certain way (namely, getting married), because society has always recognized that it is good for society if people are married.
Of course, activists actually have looked at those purposes, and they know that marriage promotes the behavior, and that is why they want marriage and not simply civil unions. They want their "lifestyle" promoted to "norm." Nothing less will be tolerated, and those of us who disagree with them are not tolerated. We are called every name in the book. If there is an intolerant bigot, its the gay activist.
You say some things here from a societal point of view.
Gay people "do not tolerate" Christian people because when they try to advocate against their rights, they use double standards: they can't use the Bible and science to advocate against them.
The moral values they are trying to promote are descending from their own religious view. They can't enforce that on them.
Scientifically speaking, they can't argue again because science hasn't proven God.
Now if you want to argue scientifically, you don't have much of a chance. Society changes. That's how it has always been. Minorities fight for change.
To be honest, I think it's quite hard to be a Christian nowadays, but nobody said it would be easy so good luck with that.
No matter how you look at this gay marriage issue, I don't think you can actually make a valid point for why they should not be allowed to get married.
