California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[NavyBlue]

I voted against Prop 8 because it's nobody's business if two people want to get married. Instead marriages actually contribute to the state by bringing in more money from the fees, business from hosting ceremonies and the like. I think it has to do with the among of Yes on 8 signs and advertising out there which so overnumbered the anti 8 ones that people got confused about the exact wording on the bill. I have confidence that it's only matter of time before people of California will see the errors of their way and vote to restore same sex marriage. It's too liberal a state not to do the right thing.

 

[max0rz]

the Mormon church apparently sunk a sh*tload of cash into the Yes campaign and made some questionable charges about gay marriage being shoved down kids throats in schools.

mind you, I guess if there's one good thing to come out of this, it's that no-one can use the slippery slope argument about polygamy now, since the Mormons were opposed to it, lol.

 

[Rattrap]

Well at least something good came from last night's election.

This is simply bigotry, if of any seriousness.

I have confidence that it's only matter of time before people of California will see the errors of their way and vote to restore same sex marriage. It's too liberal a state not to do the right thing.

You would think, wouldn't you? I was in shock and awe when Oregon passed our version, Measure 36. I simply couldn't believe that my neighbors, fellow Oregonians, could be so simply...wrong. Well, the majority of those voting, anyway. It was probably the only time I was ever disappointed being too young to vote. I haven't heard a peep about repealing it yet, though.

I have honestly never heard of any good argument against same-sex marriage. Not a single one that rose above bigotry, rooted in religion or otherwise. This is unique for me. This may be the wrong place to ask, as this seems to be a more socially liberal leaning board anyway, but...does anyone have one?

 

[D-rock]

I have always found it hard to reconcile a ban on gay marriage with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It seems one group is getting preferential treatment with the law.

 

[belgianass]

who are we to stand in their happy moments ...
They are not against our marriage as well ...

If they wanna get married and have kids (by adoption or whatever) let them, they are people as well, they all deserve a bit of hapiness. And stop thinking that gay people's kids are gay as well ...You only have one life over here, enjoy it and stop being selfish ... Let other people enjoy theirselves as well.
It's legal over here, only a few objected, now more and more gays get married and now nobody cares ...

 

[meesterperfect]

I want to marry my cat.
she's so beautiful and we are in love.
we should be able to be married, why would anyone want to deny that right from us?
Or maybe my sister, or cousin, or daughter.
or maybe a combination of them........
Who has the right to tell me we can't?

 

[NavyBlue]

I want to marry my cat.
she's so beautiful and we are in love.
we should be able to be married, why would anyone want to deny that right from us?
Or maybe my sister, or cousin, or daughter.
or maybe a combination of them........
Who has the right to tell me we can't?

If you want to make an analogy to gay marriage then you've failed miserably.

 

[calpoon]

how can your cat say "I do"?

the taboo against 'familiar relations' stems from the known fact that it leads to an increase in genetic abnormalities. However, we aren't really screening people for their genome when factoring in marriages, so you do have a point there (even though you were being facetious). I suspect that it is mainly because of financial matters. if a family continual intermarried, then they would become a dynasty and all their assets would never be redistributed to other members of society.

I also think that the ban on polygamy is for the same reason. a man could marry 14 women just to claim them all as dependents on his taxes.

 

[ChefChiTown]

who are we to stand in their happy moments ...
They are not against our marriage as well ...

If they wanna get married and have kids (by adoption or whatever) let them, they are people as well, they all deserve a bit of hapiness. And stop thinking that gay people's kids are gay as well ...You only have one life over here, enjoy it and stop being selfish ... Let other people enjoy theirselves as well.
It's legal over here, only a few objected, now more and more gays get married and now nobody cares ...

I agree. If two men or two women want to get married, they should be able to. Just because I don't agree with their lifestyle choice, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

But, I think the problem with the whole "Gay Marriage" issue, from a governmental point of view, is tax breaks. Married people get certain tax breaks and financial "leniency" to a small degree. From family to family, it might not seem like a whole lot of money, but when you add up the millions and millions of millions of families around the country, it adds up to be a shit load of money that the government feels they would be "losing".

Also, a lot of people have an issue with gay people raising children. I don't know what the trend is, but I'm willing to bet that a child who is raised in a "gay family" probably has a better chance of becoming gay themselves at some point in their life. Personally, I don't know how I feel about it, so I won't comment on what I feel. But, I think that the government (and a lot of citizens) feel that raising a child in a "gay environment" is, in a way, "forcing" a child to be gay, which could be viewed as the wrong thing to do. :dunno:

I want to marry my cat.
she's so beautiful and we are in love.
we should be able to be married, why would anyone want to deny that right from us?
Or maybe my sister, or cousin, or daughter.
or maybe a combination of them........
Who has the right to tell me we can't?

If you want to make an analogy to gay marriage then you've failed miserably.

You know, that might not be the best comparison to gay marriage, but...he's got a point.

Where do we draw the line with who/what we can marry and who/what we can't? It's very hypocritical for our government (in certain instances) to "allow" gay marriages, because every couple should have equal rights no matter what, and then turn around and tell me that I can't marry my cousin. Obviously, I don't want to marry my cousin...I'm just making a point.

how can your cat say "I do"?

"MEOW"...??? :dunno:

No, but seriously...when I read that, I started thinking about something. UH OH, Chef is thinking!!! :eek: I know. Anyway, you know how it is considered rape if you don't consent to having sex with someone else? If you can't or don't acknowledge and offer acceptance of the sex, it is considered illegal. Does the same go for marriage? What I mean is...

If a person is blind, deaf, mute and paralyzed from the neck down, and they have no way of "consenting" to the marriage by saying "I do" or "yes"...can you legally marry them? What if their only way of communication was through the blinking of their eyes? If they blinked "yes", would that be legally acceptable as consent? :dunno:

I don't know the legality of things like that, but I wonder...

 

[NavyBlue]

I agree. If two men or two women want to get married, they should be able to. Just because I don't agree with their lifestyle choice, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

Also, a lot of people have an issue with gay people raising children. I don't know what the trend is, but I'm willing to bet that a child who is raised in a "gay family" probably has a better chance of becoming gay themselves at some point in their life. Personally, I don't know how I feel about it, so I won't comment on what I feel. But, I think that the government (and a lot of citizens) feel that raising a child in a "gay environment" is, in a way, "forcing" a child to be gay, which could be viewed as the wrong thing to do. :dunno:

You know, that might not be the best comparison to gay marriage, but...he's got a point.

Where do we draw the line with who/what we can marry and who/what we can't? It's very hypocritical for our government (in certain instances) to "allow" gay marriages, because every couple should have equal rights no matter what, and then turn around and tell me that I can't marry my cousin. Obviously, I don't want to marry my cousin...I'm just making a point.


"MEOW"...??? :dunno:

No, but seriously...when I read that, I started thinking about something. UH OH, Chef is thinking!!! :eek: I know. Anyway, you know how it is considered rape if you don't consent to having sex with someone else? If you can't or don't acknowledge and offer acceptance of the sex, it is considered illegal. Does the same go for marriage? What I mean is...

If a person is blind, deaf, mute and paralyzed from the neck down, and they have no way of "consenting" to the marriage by saying "I do" or "yes"...can you legally marry them? What if their only way of communication was through the blinking of their eyes? If they blinked "yes", would that be legally acceptable as consent? :dunno:

I don't know the legality of things like that, but I wonder...

First of all, people have differing opinions on how one becomes homosexual. If you believe it's a personal choice and it can be persuaded, then you'd believe a child being raised in a gay household can become gay given the influence around him, but if you believe it's something that's born with and cannot be altered by any exterior force then it's not likely to ever have gay parents changing the sexual orientation of a child. I happen to believe it's something you are born with (and I had few gay friends in college so I know how hard it is to be a closet gay).

The analogy with the cats and incest is flawed. There is no law for marrying your pet because they don't have equal rights under the the constitution as you and me, otherwise the pets will have to pay taxes and all that stuff as well, know where I am going with this? As for marrying daughters, isn't incest a felony? I don't recall sleeping with another gay person a punishable crime in this country so how can you equate the two?

 

[ChefChiTown]

First of all, people have differing opinions on how one becomes homosexual. If you believe it's a personal choice and it can be persuaded, then you'd believe a child being raised in a gay household can become gay given the influence around him, but if you believe it's something that's born with and cannot be altered by any exterior force then it's not likely to ever have gay parents changing the sexual orientation of a child. I happen to believe it's something you are born with (and I had few gay friends in college so I know how hard it is to be a closet gay).

There's no proof that homosexuality is genetic and I don't believe that it is. Personally, I believe that it's a lifestyle choice that people grow into.

My ex-girlfriend is a lesbian. I didn't know it until after we broke up, but she's gay. She said that she has known since she was in 7th grade, which was years before she even met me. We met, we took a liking to eachother, started dating and dated for over 3 years.

Now, if her genetics made her gay, then why would she have feelings for me; a man? :dunno: If it was truly a biological thing, she wouldn't be able to control it and never would've been attracted to me, a man, at all.

I grew up in a city that has the 2nd highest number of gay people per capita in the entire United States and now I live in Chicago, which is one of the most diverse cities in the world, so I know a lot of gay people. Most of (not all) the gay people I know have dated persons of the opposite sex and have had sexual relationships with persons of the opposite sex. Why? Once again, if homosexuality was truly genetic, they wouldn't be able to control their feelings of attraction or their sexual attraction and they wouldn't be interested (to any degree) in relationships with the opposite sex. Yet, a lot of gay people have experiences with the opposite sex before they claim that they're gay.

:dunno:
:2 cents:

The analogy with the cats and incest is flawed. There is no law for marrying your pet because they don't have equal rights under the the constitution as you and me, otherwise the pets will have to pay taxes and all that stuff as well, know where I am going with this? As for marrying daughters, isn't incest a felony? I don't recall sleeping with another gay person a punishable crime in this country so how can you equate the two?

Same-sex marriages were illegal at one point in time in this country. Actually, it's still illegal today in certain states. Eventually, after years and years of protesting and legal battles, gay couples obtained the right to get married (in certain states). The courts decided that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to be married. Why?...

Because it's unconstitutional for the government to tell you who you can and who you can't marry. <--- THAT is the comparison that I'm making to "marrying your cousin".

Once again, I'm not saying that I want to marry my cousin, I just find it to be a little hypocritical, that's all.

 

[belgianass]

First of all ... sex with animals is gross. Now if you and your cat like it, go ahead. Keep it inside better, i think many people would look weird and angry if they saw that. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh I know it's just a joke and i also see where you wanna go with this, but ... it is a bit over the top.
Getting married with your sister of brother, Brandine and Cletus (The Simpsons ) are the best excample. It is a given fact that incest leads to end of bloodline, even animalkeepers know this. Birds, dogs, cats ... they all wanna fuck, but if you don't force them to breed together they will not do that.
About the kids of gays, i can only say perhaps their "feminine" ways get a bit more open, but i know a gay couple with two sons and those kids are 15 and 17 by now, and i can say that they are totally straight ... It can be that you know a couple that proves me wrong, but ...
that's all in a persons mind and perhaps many think like this, it is a fact as well that what people don't know they don't approve. Foreign food is the same ... how many people don't eat the same food, the same food as they grew up with.
Some like different taste and others don't ...
as for me .. i don't care what i eat, but i'm not judging one who does ...
I'm as straight as can be, and as long as they don't bother me i'm okay ...

 

[Torre82]

I want to marry my cat.
she's so beautiful and we are in love.
we should be able to be married, why would anyone want to deny that right from us?
Or maybe my sister, or cousin, or daughter.
or maybe a combination of them........
Who has the right to tell me we can't?

I agree. Even if this is a parody. Freedom by all means.

NOT freedom with the consent of everybody else.

 

[Rattrap]

I have always found it hard to reconcile a ban on gay marriage with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It seems one group is getting preferential treatment with the law.

Agreed.

I agree. If two men or two women want to get married, they should be able to. Just because I don't agree with their lifestyle choice, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

Agreed.

But, I think the problem with the whole "Gay Marriage" issue, from a governmental point of view, is tax breaks. Married people get certain tax breaks and financial "leniency" to a small degree. From family to family, it might not seem like a whole lot of money, but when you add up the millions and millions of millions of families around the country, it adds up to be a shit load of money that the government feels they would be "losing".

I've actually heard this one before, and while it may provide a reason, it isn't a good one - it's still baseless discrimination (why not take away the tax breaks for Hetero couples and give them instead to gay couples? There's more of them, so the government would make more!).

Also, a lot of people have an issue with gay people raising children. I don't know what the trend is, but I'm willing to bet that a child who is raised in a "gay family" probably has a better chance of becoming gay themselves at some point in their life. Personally, I don't know how I feel about it, so I won't comment on what I feel. But, I think that the government (and a lot of citizens) feel that raising a child in a "gay environment" is, in a way, "forcing" a child to be gay, which could be viewed as the wrong thing to do. :dunno:

I couldn't disagree more. I don't think it at all forces a child to be gay, it simply makes them okay with it. Which is...perfectly fine. But, then again, the whole thing stems from this notion that being gay is a bad thing (as you mentioned in the last sentence there) - which it's simply not. Why is it not? Because it's fundamentally no different than a Hetero marriage with one exception: a gay couple cannot produce children. Which with today's overpopulation, is also a good thing.

You know, that might not be the best comparison to gay marriage, but...he's got a point.

Where do we draw the line with who/what we can marry and who/what we can't? It's very hypocritical for our government (in certain instances) to "allow" gay marriages, because every couple should have equal rights no matter what, and then turn around and tell me that I can't marry my cousin. Obviously, I don't want to marry my cousin...I'm just making a point.

It's a ridiculous point. We draw the line at people, obviously. People who, preferably, aren't terribly close blood relatives, as resulting offspring have a higher chance of defects - but hell, to be perfectly frank, if there's no offspring, why not let two relatives marry, other than the "Ick" Factor? The slippery slope argument won't fly here, either - these sorts of relationships are so far in the minority, and always will be even if they were legal.

There's no proof that homosexuality is genetic and I don't believe that it is. Personally, I believe that it's a lifestyle choice that people grow into.

My ex-girlfriend is a lesbian. I didn't know it until after we broke up, but she's gay. She said that she has known since she was in 7th grade, which was years before she even met me. We met, we took a liking to eachother, started dating and dated for over 3 years.

Now, if her genetics made her gay, then why would she have feelings for me; a man? :dunno: If it was truly a biological thing, she wouldn't be able to control it and never would've been attracted to me, a man, at all.

I grew up in a city that has the 2nd highest number of gay people per capita in the entire United States and now I live in Chicago, which is one of the most diverse cities in the world, so I know a lot of gay people. Most of (not all) the gay people I know have dated persons of the opposite sex and have had sexual relationships with persons of the opposite sex. Why? Once again, if homosexuality was truly genetic, they wouldn't be able to control their feelings of attraction or their sexual attraction and they wouldn't be interested (to any degree) in relationships with the opposite sex. Yet, a lot of gay people have experiences with the opposite sex before they claim that they're gay.

I won't debate the premise specifically (choice vs nature), but the overall logic here is flawed - people could be naturally predisposed to enjoying the company of both sexes. Or perhaps one might feel pressured into "trying out" the opposite sex; or, even just honestly be curious to trying a relationship with a member of the opposite sex (even if they tend to lean the other way). Really, there are many reasons why your examples could turn out that way without discounting genetic disposition.

Also, for some reason, this whole debate's missed a third tier - nurture. Our society imprints all sorts of things onto us when we're young, helping to format our brains for the rest of our lives. So even if people are not necessarily genetically predisposed, they may be without choice anyway.

Because it's unconstitutional for the government to tell you who you can and who you can't marry. <--- THAT is the comparison that I'm making to "marrying your cousin".

Exactly. And hell, people used to marry their cousins all the time.

Chef, I applaud you for putting these out there. :thumbsup:

 

[ChefChiTown]

I couldn't disagree more. I don't think it at all forces a child to be gay, it simply makes them okay with it. Which is...perfectly fine. But, then again, the whole thing stems from this notion that being gay is a bad thing (as you mentioned in the last sentence there) - which it's simply not. Why is it not? Because it's fundamentally no different than a Hetero marriage with one exception: a gay couple cannot produce children. Which with today's overpopulation, is also a good thing.

That's why I put quotations around "forces". It's not like homosexual parents will sit there wagging their finger at their child going "BE GAY, DAMN YOU!!!"

Like I said in my previous post, I don't really know how I feel about homosexual couples raising children. I honestly don't know. :dunno: On one hand, they should have the same rights as every other couple and I wouldn't want to deny them of that. On the other hand, children are extremely influential and get their base of values, thoughts, morals and opinions from their surrounding environment. If a child is raised by homosexual parents and grows up witnessing and experiencing their homosexual lifestyle, that child will be more prone to be gay themselves. Once again, I don't know what the statistics are for this, but I would imagine that it happens more often than not.

Look at it this way...if a child grows up in Southern Alabama under the care of White Supremist parents, it's not guaranteed that the child will grow up to be racist, but chances are they will. When you're growing up, you soak in the surrounding environment and incorporate it into your own personality.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being gay (although I don't agree with it), but I'm saying that I have mixed feelings on whether or not children should be given to gay couples. Like I said, I don't know. :dunno:

It's a ridiculous point. We draw the line at people, obviously. People who, preferably, aren't terribly close blood relatives, as resulting offspring have a higher chance of defects - but hell, to be perfectly frank, if there's no offspring, why not let two relatives marry, other than the "Ick" Factor? The slippery slope argument won't fly here, either - these sorts of relationships are so far in the minority, and always will be even if they were legal.

How is that a ridiculous point? If the government (in some states) will let two grown men who are happily in love with eachother get married, why doesn't the government let two cousins who are happily in love with eachother get married? Just because it's not "socially acceptable", doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the right to do it. Letting your wife take a shit on your chest while she smacks your cock with a dildo isn't socially acceptable, but there's no law against it.

As far as the genetic defections go...

The human race is thousands and thousands and thousands of years old. Do you honestly think that family members haven't been fucking one another and having babies together for most of that time? Hell, we're all genetically defected already. Most people just deny the truth of the matter.

I won't debate the premise specifically (choice vs nature), but the overall logic here is flawed - people could be naturally predisposed to enjoying the company of both sexes. Or perhaps one might feel pressured into "trying out" the opposite sex; or, even just honestly be curious to trying a relationship with a member of the opposite sex (even if they tend to lean the other way). Really, there are many reasons why your examples could turn out that way without discounting genetic disposition.

Also, for some reason, this whole debate's missed a third tier - nurture. Our society imprints all sorts of things onto us when we're young, helping to format our brains for the rest of our lives. So even if people are not necessarily genetically predisposed, they may be without choice anyway.

My logic isn't flawed at all. Let me word my point of view in another way...

There are people who claim that homosexuality is a genetic pre-determination. With that mentality, those people are saying that homosexuals have no choice in their sexuality. They are going to be gay, like it or not. Why? Because, once again, they claim it to be a genetic pre-determination.

Let me tell you why I don't believe that to be true. Hair color is a genetic pre-determination. Male pattern baldness is a genetic pre-determination. Huntington's Disease is a genetic pre-determination.

Peer pressure, emotions and societal input can't influence the color of my hair.
Peer pressure, emotions and societal input can't influence my hair loss.
Peer pressure, emotions and societal input can't influence a cure to my Huntington's Disease.

Peer pressure, emotions and societal input have absolutely no effect on any of those things, because they are true genetic pre-determinations. Yet, peer pressure can somehow effect homosexuality, even though it's supposedly a genetic pre-determination? :dunno: PFFT, no...I don't think so.

If homosexuality was a genetic pre-determination, then every other angle of attraction in the human race would be genetically pre-determined as well. But, that's not true. People aren't "born" liking brunettes more than blondes. People aren't "born" liking football more than ballet. People aren't "born" liking Latin women more than Asian women. They grow up and are influenced by their surroundings and slowly piece together their own likes and dislikes. That includes sexual attraction.

Exactly. And hell, people used to marry their cousins all the time.

Chef, I applaud you for putting these out there. :thumbsup:

Well, if there's one thing I want to do before I die, it's to make sure that people start marrying their cousins. Ahh, it would be a dream come true. :lovecoupl

 

[NavyBlue]

ChefChiTown, you raised some interesting points regarding whether homosexual is generic or not, but if you have been around gays then you know there are many types of gays out there. There is the bi-sexual, who can have sex with both sexes, the bi-curious, who may be straight but wants to experiment, and the true homosexuals, who acts feminine, have girly voice and mannerism, and who'd rather go sexless than sleeping with a girl (I am talking gays not lesbians of course). There are so many gays who are persecuted by the society for being gays, some even killed by bigots and hate groups. I seriously doubt a guy would risk his own life by coming out in the open and liking other guys if it's not generic and he has no control over his feelings.

 

[ChefChiTown]

ChefChiTown, you raised some interesting points regarding whether homosexual is generic or not, but if you have been around gays then you know there are many types of gays out there. There is the bi-sexual, who can have sex with both sexes, the bi-curious, who may be straight but wants to experiment, and the true homosexuals, who acts feminine, have girly voice and mannerism, and who'd rather go sexless than sleeping with a girl (I am talking gays not lesbians of course).

All of those different "types" of homosexuals just further my belief that homosexuality is not a genetic pre-determination. The key one being "bi-curious".

"Hi, I'm a gay man who is sexually attracted to other gay men. BUT, I am also curious and interested in having sex with a straight woman."

That makes NO SENSE. Genetic pre-determinations don't have a pause button that you can push, where you can put your biological makeup on hold for a second while you experiment with other things. It doesn't work that way.

Also, in reference to the cliche gay dudes who have feminine mannerisms...

Mannerisms aren't part of your genetic makeup. They are taught and learned as you grow. Just like facial expressions, body language and accents. You aren't "born" with any of those things, but you grow up mimicking your environment, which causes you to make certain faces, have certain body language and talk with a certain accent. It has nothing to do with genetics.

There are so many gays who are persecuted by the society for being gays, some even killed by bigots and hate groups. I seriously doubt a guy would risk his own life by coming out in the open and liking other guys if it's not generic and he has no control over his feelings.

I 100% agree that there are bigots in this world. There always have been and there always will be. Honestly though, how many people get killed because they're gay, especially now-a-days? I hardly ever see any of that on the news or read it in a newspaper. Yes, it does happen, but it's not some sort of hate-driven epidemic.

 

[Rattrap]

That's why I put quotations around "forces". It's not like homosexual parents will sit there wagging their finger at their child going "BE GAY, DAMN YOU!!!"

Like I said in my previous post, I don't really know how I feel about homosexual couples raising children. I honestly don't know. :dunno: On one hand, they should have the same rights as every other couple and I wouldn't want to deny them of that. On the other hand, children are extremely influential and get their base of values, thoughts, morals and opinions from their surrounding environment. If a child is raised by homosexual parents and grows up witnessing and experiencing their homosexual lifestyle, that child will be more prone to be gay themselves. Once again, I don't know what the statistics are for this, but I would imagine that it happens more often than not.

Look at it this way...if a child grows up in Southern Alabama under the care of White Supremist parents, it's not guaranteed that the child will grow up to be racist, but chances are they will. When you're growing up, you soak in the surrounding environment and incorporate it into your own personality.

I'll buy this one - that it may make one more inclined. I just don't see that as a bad thing (more gay couples mean less children!).

How is that a ridiculous point? If the government (in some states) will let two grown men who are happily in love with eachother get married, why doesn't the government let two cousins who are happily in love with eachother get married? Just because it's not "socially acceptable", doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the right to do it. Letting your wife take a shit on your chest while she smacks your cock with a dildo isn't socially acceptable, but there's no law against it.

Sorry for not being clearer - I was referring to the cat example, not the cousin example.

My logic isn't flawed at all. Let me word my point of view in another way...

There are people who claim that homosexuality is a genetic pre-determination. With that mentality, those people are saying that homosexuals have no choice in their sexuality. They are going to be gay, like it or not. Why? Because, once again, they claim it to be a genetic pre-determination.

Let me tell you why I don't believe that to be true. Hair color is a genetic pre-determination. Male pattern baldness is a genetic pre-determination. Huntington's Disease is a genetic pre-determination.

I'm not sure you can quite compare attributes to actions. Actions always have a choice - I'm not entirely sure of the genetic disposition argument myself, to be honest, but I'd wager that it's a mix of all of them. A good argument for the genetic argument: homosexuality exists in other animals.

Peer pressure, emotions and societal input can't influence the color of my hair.
Peer pressure, emotions and societal input can't influence my hair loss.
Peer pressure, emotions and societal input can't influence a cure to my Huntington's Disease.

Heh. You should take a look at the writings and research of a biologist by the name of Dr. Bruce Lipton who has some interesting things to say about this (nothing to do with this discussion).

If homosexuality was a genetic pre-determination, then every other angle of attraction in the human race would be genetically pre-determined as well. But, that's not true. People aren't "born" liking brunettes more than blondes. People aren't "born" liking football more than ballet. People aren't "born" liking Latin women more than Asian women. They grow up and are influenced by their surroundings and slowly piece together their own likes and dislikes. That includes sexual attraction.

They might be, though - it's a common trend that people are attracted to those that look like them (i.e., of similar race). This could very well be a societal thing as well - but either way, societal or genetic, it doesn't leave an individual with a real choice about their preferences. Whether they were stuck with them in the womb or stuck with them in those key early years of life.

I imagine if it were a true "choice", most gay folk would spare themselves all the ill-will and "choose" to be straight.

I guess at the root of this whole debate is the simple question: Is being gay bad? The Bible sort of says so (there's what, a single passage?), but the Bible can burn in the most heretical and unholy of ways for all I care.

If not, the debate of choice vs nature vs nurture is moot, as we wouldn't have any problem with it anyway - as would whatever inclination children might pick up from gay parents to be, at the very least, more accepting (because even if they turned out to be gay...so what?).

'Sides - if gay parents raise gay children, straight parents would raise straight children, right?

 

[Dawn]

'Sides - if gay parents raise gay children, straight parents would raise straight children, right?

Good point.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I'm not sure you can quite compare attributes to actions. Actions always have a choice - I'm not entirely sure of the genetic disposition argument myself, to be honest, but I'd wager that it's a mix of all of them. A good argument for the genetic argument: homosexuality exists in other animals.

There is a connection between attributes and actions though. If someone is born with the genetic condition of retardation (to any degree), that "attribute" will 100% effect their actions. No, I'm not comparing homosexuals to retards.

I had to study the "homosexuality" in animals when I went to college. WHY? I don't know. :dunno: Anyway, from what I can remember, there is no connection between "homosexuality" in animals and homosexuality in humans. Meaning, there is no connectable "cause" that exists in both humans and other animals. Nothing has been proven in the sense of genetics.

They might be, though - it's a common trend that people are attracted to those that look like them (i.e., of similar race). This could very well be a societal thing as well - but either way, societal or genetic, it doesn't leave an individual with a real choice about their preferences. Whether they were stuck with them in the womb or stuck with them in those key early years of life.

I agree with you. You are 100% influenced by your direct surroundings and, as a child, when you're the most influential, you have no choice as to what your surroundings are and what personality traits you will develop due to that. But, the point I'm making is that societal influence and peer pressure aren't the same thing as a genetic pre-determination.

I imagine if it were a true "choice", most gay folk would spare themselves all the ill-will and "choose" to be straight.

I know what you're saying, but I think that has to do more with confidence and self-esteem.

For example, I'm 27 years old and I still watch wrestling. A lot of people make fun of me and treat me like I'm an inbred hillbilly piece of trailer trash for still watching wrestling. Some people would be effected by that and stop watching wrestling because they didn't want to get picked on anymore. Me? I don't give a shit, so I watch it. I like what I like and I'm going to keep liking it, no matter what anybody says or no matter how anybody treats me. Unfortunately, some people are too scared to be themselves and let the opinions of others "change" them.

I guess at the root of this whole debate is the simple question: Is being gay bad? The Bible sort of says so (there's what, a single passage?), but the Bible can burn in the most heretical and unholy of ways for all I care.

If not, the debate of choice vs nature vs nurture is moot, as we wouldn't have any problem with it anyway - as would whatever inclination children might pick up from gay parents to be, at the very least, more accepting (because even if they turned out to be gay...so what?).

I don't agree with being gay, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I know there's people that do, but who are we to judge? :dunno:

'Sides - if gay parents raise gay children, straight parents would raise straight children, right?

That's a good point. Just keep in mind that your parents aren't your only form of influence. Hell, some people don't even like their parents and don't want to be anything like them.