Your Opinions On..., Gay Marriage

I'm curious, Joe, as to how you would presume that homosexuality could be a gene that arrives with birth. Perhaps a hormone? I would like for you to expand on that, so that I may more easily debate on that note.

Agreed about religion, as I don't feel like quoting sources from the Bible. However we cannot ignore that for many people religion is what makes them against homosexuality. For alot of people for homosexuality, religion does not cut it because they simply aren't religious. SO thus, let us take religion out of the topic.

Agreed.

I believe that homosexuality is a hormone defect. I don't think it has to do with genes because once we get into that, it becomes to molecular and technical. So I will say its more hormone. The reason I say this (or at least one) is as follows:

A homosexual friend of mine, who we'll call Ron, believes he was born gay. He knows this because of his first "homosexual experience" in his middle school. I assume that you too changed for gym when you entered middle school. And like all the other students, it was his first time stepping into a locker room to get changed with other men. You know how a locker room smells? The boys at least. Like piss, fecies, too much "Axe" and colognes, and a funk that can only be achieved by sweat glands that secrete salty liquids. The girls is much nicer. Smelling like of that of roses, perfumes, and pleasurable smells. Almost asking yourself "Do girls even sweat?" This is what it smells like from a straight man's point of view (for both). But when Ron stepped into the boys room, the Axe and cologne stimulated him and hid the sweat and piss (much like the girls do for us). He enjoyed the smell (even sexually). And we know that this smell is not one you "enjoy". Not even one you "like." Then Ron went over to the girl's locker room to call for the teacher. Upon stepping just over the doorway, he smelled the piss, fecies, sweat, and horrible smells one would think to come from a boys' locker room. He didn't even smell the perfumes or lotions that a straight man would smell. It was at this point he knew he was gay. Male pheremones attracted him and stimulated him sexually.

I found this very interesting because it really gives some substance to being "born gay" (and i think you can agree). It is a 100% true story. I would never lie. So this tells me that there might just be too little testosterone and too much estrogen cycling in the body (there is some estrogen in males i believe). So its more of a hormone phenomena than it is a mutant gene. And as for explaining why some men turn gay at later times in their life is beyond me. But I'm assuming that this hormone imbalance can be triggered at any point in one's life, just like depression (when dopamine, the hormone that creates happiness, stops producing).

(I'm not much of a scientist. So if you plan on using technical biological terms, please include some sort of explanation. Thank you.)

Well who are we to assume anything? Pedophilia, by society’s standards is deemed to be immoral, that being said, then who is to say that homosexuality is moral? In laymen’s terms you think pedophilia is bad because you think it’s disgusting, your present mindset comes from society agreeing that the concept of pedophilia is wrong regardless of the individuals feelings. Also people have the right to bring in anything they want into this topic to try to prove their points, by not allowing this you diminish the overall affect of the whole opposing side, kind of unfair if you ask me. But I do back up your choice about not searching for other sources.

Well who are we to assume anything? Pedophilia, by society’s standards is deemed to be immoral, that being said, then who is to say that homosexuality is moral? In laymen’s terms you think pedophilia is bad because you think it’s disgusting, your present mindset comes from society agreeing that the concept of pedophilia is wrong regardless of the individuals feelings. Also people have the right to bring in anything they want into this topic to try to prove their points, by not allowing this you diminish the overall affect of the whole opposing side, kind of unfair if you ask me.

You guys are kinding of getting off topic.

The new members have not even answered the original question of what to do about gay marriage (state or federal issue). And who the heck brought up beastiality?

I am starting to see Orborde's point about debating "everything under the sun" under one topic.

Hey Nemo- if you want me to understand your points and accept your arguement, please talk to me in a mature and calm way. I don't need to be harrased because I stated something invalid. Lets be mature.

I couldnt agree more.

For me, it's simple. I think that individuals should be able to marry whomever they please. The relationship is not mine, therefore, I have no right to regulate it. I do not believe in the flaunting of "gay" OR "straight" affection in public. Beyond that, it doesn't concern me.

I don't understand why people feel the need to "regulate" others, then claim that they have no right to be "regulated". The world is not black and white. Marriage is marriage is marriage. I do not support anyone denying someone that right. As to state vs. fed's --- I'm at a gridlock. What do you think?

Federal Essyne. Why should a gay have to travel clear across the country just to get married. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go to Alaska just to get across the street. Make it LEGAL in all states. It's only fair that way, for straights and gays.

I agree. After giving it further thought, I understand where the "state" supporters are coming from; however, a federal law is (in my newfound opinion) the only way to go. I would wish that marriage and taxes could be the same : ONE rule for EVERYONE, regardless of what "bracket" you fall under.

It kind of falls under both. The 14th Amendment states that states must protect the rights of all Americans. Therefore, it is up to the states to make the laws allowing gay marriage; meanwhile the federal government must enforce the amendment should there be states resisting, as there are.

Of course this entire argument is invalid if one does not believe marriage is a basic human right (gays are humans). It is much like one who thinks using scripture to back up his argument is valid, when religion is not fact or law.

I would give an argument as to why gays deserve this right, but this is not the correct topic, and we have already strayed off course once.


Also Facist, do you truly believe that the sacred love between two men or two women is the same thing as loving an animal? Do you truly believe a man or woman to be no better than animals? They are just as intelligent, compassionate, and resourceful as your average human being. They are not mindless creatures driven by instinct alone.

Edit: WOW I just said I wouldn't go off topic and there I went off topic on my last paragraph. I apologize, but I am going to leave it up anyway. Guess I'm an ass.

The problem with your argument, cloaked, is that many pro-homosexuality people argue that the animal kingdom has many cases of homosexuality and that it is a "natural occurence."

As such, my argument is extremely valid in this context. I, however, feel humans to be more advanced than animals, and as such, to be held to a higher standard.

After reviewing your relation between the two, I find it reasonably appropriate. You were not claiming it to be a slippery slope; you were just saying that loving alone is not proof of being right.

Am I correct in this understanding of what you are saying?

That's basically the gist of it. I would never compare homosexuality to bestiality. I was referring to this line:

Animals, as we know, are driven by instinct alone. Now, many pro-homosexual people argue that animals exhibit homosexual behavior, and claim that somehow this is grounds for claiming why homosexuality is right/natural.

I was making the point that since we are human, I would hope that we do NOT exhibit similar behavior as animals (as you said, not simply act off of instincts) and instead be held to a higher standard than that.

I think that people who argue that are not looking at it as a base behavior of animals, but rather they argue it is proof that, being mindless animals, homosexuality is something encoded in a being's DNA and hormone levels, and it is not a choice.

They (we) believe it may not be what is "supposed" to happen genetically, but it is something that happens genetically, and it is not a disease. In order to support this claim, the relation to animals committing the same acts is brought up.

The only problem I can think of with the States deciding if it should be legal or not is the issue of 'what if a gay couple marries in a State where it is legal, but moves to a state where it's illegal?' There may be some sort of legal solution already established here, but I'm unaware of it. Does this remind anyone else of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 or the Dred Scott case / "once free, always free" debate on slavery?

In any case, I agree with Essyne when he says: