Same-Sex Marriage

[Microcosm]

As I know that most people on this website will be all for same-sex marriage, I'd like to state that I'm particularly interested in the arguments which go against same-sex marriage. I'd like to see what those who think in a way that seems different from the majority of adolescent teens.

So, feel free to share arguments from both sides, but I am particularly interested in those which argue against gay marriage as these arguments are usually not given much thought.

Let us draw out an argument for same-sex marriage.

1. It is debatable whether homosexuals have made the decision to be homosexual or they are born with such desires. It is really no more than speculation and opinion.

2. Tradition would suggest that homosexuality is absolutely unacceptable. In the past, such ideas would be largely frowned upon. This is an argument commonly used against homosexuality, but I do believe it can be very simply refuted. We do not live in the past. We are in the age of change, I'd say. It is important that we realize that homosexuals are equals and not inferior to straight people. There are some conservative traditionalists who would act as if these homosexuals are actually inferior. This is a very anti-American view. Not only that, it is an anti-progressive view as well.

3. It is commonly argued that natural law itself goes against same-sex marriage. It is argued that humans are made as man and woman so that man and woman go together, and anything other than this is contrary to nature. However,(this next thought inspired by Marcus Aurelius' book Meditations) aren't all things that happen to anyone according to nature? Everything we do must happen under natural law. We "do" or participate in homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality must happen under natural law.

Share your thoughts and arguments below.

[ClaraWho]

Obviously we all support gay marriage haha :P Yay!

Just to add to the points.

Homosexuality has been around even before Roman times.

Homosexuality occurs in other mammals.

Why a man would wish to have sex with another man, or a woman another woman is actually quite obvious. The close companionship and joint pleasure to be gained makes it relatively obvious to do. Sure some of us just aren't turned on by it, but the physical sensations are still going to be there.

So the question isn't why do men want to have sex with other men, it's why don't they want to have sex with women?

In terms of genetics, research posits the 'setting' of sexual preference occurs after conception but before birth. Long before any decision making capabilities can be made by the foetus. If one identical twin is gay the other has 50% change of also being gay. If it was purely genetic then the clone (twin) would also be gay.

An educated opinion is that religion is the bedrock of homophobia as it needs followers to procreate for its survival. Get that ridiculous expression 'but if we allow homosexuality everyone will turn gay and mankind will die out'.

~ Clara

[Microcosm]

Obviously we all support gay marriage haha :P Yay!

Just to add to the points.

Homosexuality has been around even before Roman times.

Homosexuality occurs in other mammals.

Why a man would wish to have sex with another man, or a woman another woman is actually quite obvious. The close companionship and joint pleasure to be gained makes it relatively obvious to do. Sure some of us just aren't turned on by it, but the physical sensations are still going to be there.

So the question isn't why do men want to have sex with other men, it's why don't they want to have sex with women?

In terms of genetics, research posits the 'setting' of sexual preference occurs after conception but before birth. Long before any decision making capabilities can be made by the foetus. If one identical twin is gay the other has 50% change of also being gay. If it was purely genetic then the clone (twin) would also be gay.

An educated opinion is that religion is the bedrock of homophobia as it needs followers to procreate for its survival. Get that ridiculous expression 'but if we allow homosexuality everyone will turn gay and mankind will die out'.

~ Clara

I agreed with you up until the last two paragraphs. I think it is very rare that people are born gay. While I do think it does occasionally happen, I don't think it is all that likely. I'd like to see a credible source for this.

I don't think religion is the bedrock for homophobia. This is merely an illusion. I first thought this as well until I heard the philosophical arguments against homosexuality. Yes, you will have your fundamentalist religious bigots who will outright proclaim death to all gays, but I think many of the more educated anti-gays actually have real, legitimate, arguments against it. The problem is that whenever someone brings up these arguments against it, there are always people who will straight-up insult them and lose all sense of logic and reason when talking to them. This is especially peculiar since it would typically be coming from someone who is fighting for "freedom and equality," which would of course entail the entitlement to one's own opinion. Of course I'm not talking about you being like that Clara. Not at all. I'm just saying there are lots of people who are like that whom I find to be mainly adolescent teens or young adults who just don't know any better.

[Vlerchan]

1. It is debatable whether homosexuals have made the decision to be homosexual or they are born with such desires. It is really no more than speculation and opinion.

Most experts agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and, therefore, cannot be changed. Some people who are homosexual or bisexual may hide their sexual orientation and live as heterosexuals to avoid prejudice against people who are homosexual and bisexual. They may live as heterosexuals in order to avoid their own moral dilemmas when their sexual orientation is incompatible with their personal beliefs.

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/sexual-orientation

Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

It's also the case that:

Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes. Although it has been well established that older brothers increase the odds of homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been resolved.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12836730

3. It is commonly argued that natural law itself goes against same-sex marriage.
Natural Law doesn't exist.

---

[quote=Rainbow Dash]Yes, you will have your fundamentalist religious bigots who will outright proclaim death to all gays, but I think many of the more educated anti-gays actually have real, legitimate, arguments against it.[/quote
I'm quite sceptical of this claim.

[ClaraWho]

I agreed with you up until the last two paragraphs. I think it is very rare that people are born gay. While I do think it does occasionally happen, I don't think it is all that likely. I'd like to see a credible source for this.

I don't think religion is the bedrock for homophobia. This is merely an illusion. I first thought this as well until I heard the philosophical arguments against homosexuality. Yes, you will have your fundamentalist religious bigots who will outright proclaim death to all gays, but I think many of the more educated anti-gays actually have real, legitimate, arguments against it. The problem is that whenever someone brings up these arguments against it, there are always people who will straight-up insult them and lose all sense of logic and reason when talking to them. This is especially peculiar since it would typically be coming from someone who is fighting for "freedom and equality," which would of course entail the entitlement to one's own opinion. Of course I'm not talking about you being like that Clara. Not at all. I'm just saying there are lots of people who are like that whom I find to be mainly adolescent teens or young adults who just don't know any better.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VWI5aHCkqrU

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1fjdi-s463YC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=yale+homosexuality+gene+50%25+twin&source=bl&ots=rEVGB4eC4i&sig=qj5K5AkLfguqwoqbL1mlGwKb_R0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjhiVavFOaXVyAOm6YDwDg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=yale%20homosexuality%20gene%2050%25%20twin&f=false

Whether you agree or disagree with the research findings is irrelevant without a scientific basis. One cannot simply dismiss evidence without peer reviewed research of one's own!

In the two sources I have linked it outlines studies that have found what I claimed previously, that in identical twins the other brother has just under 50% chance of being gay. This only proves that homosexuality is not genetic in the same way as eye colour. The second link is to a book (took 5 mins to research this!) which posits the intellectually obvious theory that like forms of Diabetes, the gene may simply be inert in the other twin. It also puts forth a variety of circumstances environmentally that could activate the gene, just as Epilepsy can be inert till activated. The hormonal changes of puberty seem the most likely hot spot for this, but research is in too early a stage.

A genetic 'cluster' or 'neighbourhood' if you like, has been found identically in large samples of gay males. More research is being done to further identify shared genetic similarity between gay males, not found in straight males.


The fact you state you believe it 'occasionally happens' means you already believe it is genetic. How else could one be born gay if not in the genes? :what:

And if genetically possible 'rarely' then it is genetic (in your contradicting opinion :P).


Adding to the evidence a more intuitive point here.
If being homosexual was a choice, why would one choose to be gay in a country that will brutally murder you for doing so? Why would you choose to live a life of persecution, of bigotry and prejudice? It seems entirely implausible that if it were merely a choice, marriages would stay together, Ireland wouldn't have just voted for gay marriage, etc.

The general populous will always caveat 'freedom and equality' with 'so long as it doesn't impinge negatively on the rights of anyone else's freedom and equality'.
This is basic logic, as wanting to go around killing people who are ginger is certainly not "freedom and equality"! (Speaking as a redhead :rolleyes: ).
Not really 'peculiar' at all! I think you'll find you just put yourself in your own camp there...


As a thought experiment if we look at the number of Islamic countries that have outlawed homosexuality, the Christian African nations, the Mediterranean Christian islands, the USA Christian hardline groups, the orthodox Christian's in the predomanently Christian Russia. It's not an illusion that there are more religious homophobes taking their bigoted views from Religion than most secular persons. That isn't to state every religious person is a bigot, hence I mentioned the extremists and hardline followers specifically.


The problem is I have yet to be presented with any real, legitimate, logical philosophical arguments against homosexuality. Certainly you have not brought any forward, however I assure you I will not resort to insults in my reply :yummy: .

Finally, even if all the evidence didn't exist; if religion is left aside and asunder. Why should anyone except those involved in the relationship directly, have any say over whom anyone can love, in a consenting adult relationship were nobody is getting hurt?

~ Clara

[Microcosm]

Natural Law doesn't exist.

---

[quote=Rainbow Dash]Yes, you will have your fundamentalist religious bigots who will outright proclaim death to all gays, but I think many of the more educated anti-gays actually have real, legitimate, arguments against it.[/quote
I'm quite sceptical of this claim.

Your genetic research appears pretty convincing. I didn't agree or disagree on whether it is a choice or it is genetic, by the way. Anyways, though, what I meant by natural "law" was more like the natural way in which things are supposed to work. It is, naturally speaking, supposed to be a man and a woman together. However, I refute such an argument against homosexuality by saying everything that happens is natural because we all derive from nature.

I'll also make it clear that I am all for gay marriage rights and am in no way against homosexuals. I am merely entertaining both sides of the argument. The point of the "debate" is not to win, but to find the truth about what we're discussing.


Finally, even if all the evidence didn't exist; if religion is left aside and asunder. Why should anyone except those involved in the relationship directly, have any say over whom anyone can love, in a consenting adult relationship were nobody is getting hurt?


I think the only logically acceptable argument against homosexual marriage is the argument that it goes against nature. The fact that this argument is easily refuted, though, pretty much kills any weight that it held. Your way of viewing it is pretty much identical to the way I view it. The point of this post, though, was to see what arguments(if any) people could come up with against homosexual marriage, which is a daunting if not impossible task.

I'd also like to reiterate that I am all for the gay marriage movement. I believe you have misunderstood my position a little.

--------

I'd also like to share this because it is quite funny in my opinion. While searching to see if their were actually any arguments against homosexuality online, I found this funny ultra-conservative video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUTamXcimfIHE7tMBzTRiFKw&v=gnVWJPeBIzo

The beginning is especially funny when they make fun of what are considered liberal views on abortion and such.

These are pretty much the best anyone against gay marriage can do, though, and it isn't much at all.

[ClaraWho]

I think the only logically acceptable argument against homosexual marriage is the argument that it goes against nature. The fact that this argument is easily refuted, though, pretty much kills any weight that it held. Your way of viewing it is pretty much identical to the way I view it. The point of this post, though, was to see what arguments(if any) people could come up with against homosexual marriage, which is a daunting if not impossible task.

I'd also like to reiterate that I am all for the gay marriage movement. I believe you have misunderstood my position a little.

--------

These are pretty much the best anyone against gay marriage can do, though, and it isn't much at all.

I did gather that you were playing Devil's Advocate as I saw from your original post you support gay marriage :P .

But as my brother says...

You prod the lioness, Expect the claws.

I think my post satisfactorily shredded and scared off any potential attempt at a logical rebuttal! We shall see.... I'll be waiting :P

Plus I hope you too found some enjoyment in this thread (:


I must express however that since the existence of gender specific entities, it is reasonable to theorise (drawing comparison from naturally occurring homosexual activity amongst species now) that homosexuality always existed. So was always natural. Therefore that isn't even a substantiated argument to make, no?

Plus gender swapping animals and fish :D .

~ Clara ;)

[Microcosm]

I must express however that since the existence of gender specific entities, it is reasonable to theorise (drawing comparison from naturally occurring homosexual activity amongst species now) that homosexuality always existed. So was always natural. Therefore that isn't even a substantiated argument to make, no?

Plus gender swapping animals and fish :D .

~ Clara ;)

Precisely. That's why the whole "homosexuality is against nature" argument is false.

[Typhlosion]

I just see it as denying tax benefits to non-heterosexual couples and the change of perspective of the church. Neither should be denied in the same way we shouldn't such in the name of race. Treat churches as a service and include sexuality in the Civil Rights.

[Vlerchan]

Your genetic research appears pretty convincing.
It's not just genetic though. As the research mentioned it's more down to environmental factors.

Anyways, though, what I meant by natural "law" was more like the natural way in which things are supposed to work.
The issue I have is that there is no reason to believe that because something is, it ought to be so.

It is, naturally speaking, supposed to be a man and a woman together. However, I refute such an argument against homosexuality by saying everything that happens is natural because we all derive from nature.
If I was a conservative I would argue that opposite-sex relations are a product of human nature - i.e., the natural state of a human person - and same-sex relations are an abhorrent deviation from this. As such, same-sex relations void natural law.

[Hudor]

Firstly I would like to state I totally support same-sex marriage.

The arguments I've received against same-sex marriage and in fact against homosexuality in general are:
1. Reproduction takes place when a sperm(s) infiltrates the egg. Therefore a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction and hence the continuation of our species. Now same-sex couples are therefore at an evolutionary disadvantage. In a hypothetical situation where all humans were to be homosexual we would not reproduce and our species would die out. So homosexuality(as I've been told) is abnormal.

2. A homosexual partner can exist with a straight partner in marriage. They would have incompatibilities but heterosexual couples do too. It isn't necessary one gets married to the person they are most compatible with. For different things a person may have different levels of intimacies with different people. It might be that a person has very close friends and discuss their problems with the friends over the married partner because he/she trusts their level of maturity more than the partner's. So A person might be more close to the friends than their partner.

[CosmicNoodle]

Ohh, this thread.....again....

There really aint any arguments against same sex marriage, I can't think of one I have ever heard that wasn't bigoted or retarded.

[ClaraWho]

It's not just genetic though. As the research mentioned it's more down to environmental factors.


The issue I have is that there is no reason to believe that because something is, it ought to be so.



Actually the research (my more comprehensive research heh :P ) that it is most likely genetic in origin, with activation by environment (and that isn't the sort of nurturing environment for example referred to by homophobes).

The issue is that there is no reason to believe that because something is, it ought not to be so.

^ Rather a redundant point.

Firstly I would like to state I totally support same-sex marriage.

The arguments I've received against same-sex marriage and in fact against homosexuality in general are:
1. Reproduction takes place when a sperm(s) infiltrates the egg. Therefore a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction and hence the continuation of our species. Now same-sex couples are therefore at an evolutionary disadvantage. In a hypothetical situation where all humans were to be homosexual we would not reproduce and our species would die out. So homosexuality(as I've been told) is abnormal.

2. A homosexual partner can exist with a straight partner in marriage. They would have incompatibilities but heterosexual couples do too. It isn't necessary one gets married to the person they are most compatible with. For different things a person may have different levels of intimacies with different people. It might be that a person has very close friends and discuss their problems with the friends over the married partner because he/she trusts their level of maturity more than the partner's. So A person might be more close to the friends than their partner.

We can all laught at the ridiculous nature of those attempts, but I appreciate you trying to bring something to the table.

1. It amused me greatly to think of a bishop telling a young gay couple 'I'm sorry but you are evolutionarily disadvantaged by your union'.

Particularly if he was a creationist xD.

Estimated 2-8% of the entire world populous are homosexual. I think we'll live without forced breeding!

Doesn't this also hint that they think by legalising it, they themselves will become gay? He whom doth protest too loud... There is a reason it is called 'homophobe'.

2. And in an empty universe a man can walk left or he can walk right. Doesn't really have any meaning to it this one does it? There's no reason why he should do one and not the other.

Then we add on what will make him happy and cause no intrinsic harm, and it's a no brainer!

~ Clara

[Vlerchan]

[I]t's is most likely genetic in origin, with activation by environment[.]
Your ScientificAmerican source doesn't seem to disagree with me.

I also don't think you "Irreconcilable Differences' extract disagrees with me either. It at most builds on what I claimed, i.e., that environmental factors were influential on whether an individual was homosexual or not. In fact that's the claim it's making: people might have a homosexual gene but it's the environment that determines who the actual homosexuals are [and combined with the research I posted: it might be more down to the environment when all this is considered]. So, there's nothing irreconcilable about the studies I mentioned and studies you mentioned.

The environment here refers to "cultural values, lived experience, biological stressors [sic], and psychological factors", which all might have an impact. It's notable that extensive use of 'might' and its derivatives is used in the extract because at publishing it was an unsubstantiated hypothesis, though I would agree there's a good chance it's valid.

The issue is that there is no reason to believe that because something is, it ought not to be so.

^ Rather a redundant point.
That's the most common refutation of Natural Law, whether it seems redundant or not.

[ClaraWho]

Your ScientificAmerican source doesn't seem to disagree with me.

I also don't think you "Irreconcilable Differences' extract disagrees with me either. It at most builds on what I claimed, i.e., that environmental factors were influential on whether an individual was homosexual or not. In fact that's the claim it's making: people might have a homosexual gene but it's the environment that determines who the actual homosexuals are [and combined with the research I posted: it might be more down to the environment when all this is considered]. So, there's nothing irreconcilable about the studies I mentioned and studies you mentioned.

The environment here refers to "cultural values, lived experience, biological stressors [sic], and psychological factors", which all might have an impact. It's notable that extensive use of 'might' and its derivatives is used in the extract because at publishing it was an unsubstantiated hypothesis, though I would agree there's a good chance it's valid.


That's the most common refutation of Natural Law, whether it seems redundant or not.

The relevance of most of this post is? You basically just agreed with most of what I said.

The mild confusion in your post is what is termed 'environment'.

It distils to 'biological stressors and psychological factors'. I can explain neurologically how these both take the other factors into account (neurones that fire together, wire together).

As I stated though, a general cluster of DNA has been found in gay males, but research continues to find specific genes. That adds credence to a genetic predisposition.

----

That as it may, any reasoning behind a question that ultimately cancels itself out if repeated as a counter-argument, is redundant. Sure, it's a question that could be answered, but life is short and taking a step back towards a source would be far more productive.

~ Clara

[Vlerchan]

The relevance of most of this post is? You basically just agreed with most of what I said.
Did you note in what I responded where I claimed I don't think this is disagreeing with me?

The reason it seems like I'm agreeing with you, is because you're responding (disagreed?) to a position that never disagreed with you in the first place.

It distils to 'biological stressors and psychological factors'. I can explain neurologically how these both take the other factors into account (neurones that fire together, wire together).
I would appreciate an explanation.

I had presumed that the author wouldn't have listed them as separate if they weren't referring to separate things.

That as it may, any reasoning behind a question that ultimately cancels itself out if repeated as a counter-argument, is redundant.
I'm not even sure what's meant here.

I made the claim that because something is natural that doesn't make it moral - regardless of how we narrow natural and in the second part of that post I did narrow natural in order to avoid Rainbow Dash's criticism. It wasn't redundant in that context.

[Atom]

There are no interesting topics on ROTW at the moment so I might as well answer here...

No citations, sorry, I know that people can't be convinced with simple logic, - they need proof and evidence, but I can't be bothered. So I'll just give the opinion I have formed after reading a lot about psychology and biology.

Homosexuality is a product of both nature and nurture. Both of these factors have an impact on the process of socialization of an individual during their childhood. I don't believe one can be born 100% gay, but the nature definitely plays a big role here. But so does the nurture. I think that the science agrees with me, but yea, no citations. Also I'm a Freudian so this might have some impact on how I think of the subject.

Gay Marriage:
I think that gay marriage should be allowed. I am personally against marriage in general (even heterosexual marriage) because I think it's a silly religious tradition, but I understand that it's a BIG part of our culture (and history for that matter) and why people would want to get married. So let them. I think that taking the government out of marriage is a good idea.
Maybe.
That is all.

[Babs]

I've said it so many times in this forum, there is absolutely no reason to ban same-sex marriage. No good ones, anyway.
I don't see why people even care whether or not being gay is a choice, or at least enough to bring it up in a debate. It seems irrelevant to me. Even if it WAS a choice, which I don't think it is, that wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't suddenly make being gay bad. I guess I just fail to see the point.
I digress, I fully support same-sex marriage.

[Hudor]

1. Estimated 2-8% of the entire world population is homosexual. I think we'll live without forced breeding!

I disagree. The demographics are confined to only a fraction of the world's population and do not account for the population of a vast majority of Asia, Africa where China and India happen to be the world's two most populated countries. Even apart from that
However I agree that homosexuals are still relatively a minority.
So I don't think force-breeding would be required now but it's definitely a possibility in the future of the ratio of homo/bi/asexuals to heterosexuals becomes much greater than 1.

Also the evolutionary disadvantage is debatable pertaining to some ongoing studies, one of which presents the potential prospect of skin cells of two individuals being cultivated as stem cells in the future and so being used for reproduction in future which in turn could eliminate the disadvantage.



2. And in an empty universe a man can walk left or he can walk right. Doesn't really have any meaning to it this one does it? There's no reason why he should do one and not the other.

Then we add on what will make him happy and cause no intrinsic harm, and it's a no brainer!

~ Clara
Except that the universe is not empty. There still exists a vast majority of population whose decisions are influenced by their social sphere comprising of family and friends. If a homosexual person's sphere comprises of homophobes, the person may repress their tendency in order to live within that sphere. Again that's a matter of choice and the person may choose the partner over the parents/family but there's a distinct possibility of the latter taking place. In which case the person may exist in a marriage with an opposite sex partner to conform to the normalcy. True, there would be incompatibility with the partner but the person might derive happiness from being within the sphere while if the person chooses to have a same-sex marriage and loses their family in the process, the person would be unhappy to some degree still.
Homosexuality is not a choice according to me. The choice is in accepting or repressing it.
However argument 2 is more about the implications of same-sex marriage for a certain fraction of the population and not a general hypothesis.

All in all according to my personal experience and knowledge, I don't think there are any reasonably valid arguments against homosexuality. These happened to be the most logical ones I ever received.

[ClaraWho]

There are no interesting topics on ROTW at the moment so I might as well answer here...

No citations, sorry, I know that people can't be convinced with simple logic, - they need proof and evidence, but I can't be bothered. So I'll just give the opinion I have formed after reading a lot about psychology and biology.

Homosexuality is a product of both nature and nurture. Both of these factors have an impact on the process of socialization of an individual during their childhood. I don't believe one can be born 100% gay, but the nature definitely plays a big role here. But so does the nurture. I think that the science agrees with me, but yea, no citations. Also I'm a Freudian so this might have some impact on how I think of the subject.

Gay Marriage:
I think that gay marriage should be allowed. I am personally against marriage in general (even heterosexual marriage) because I think it's a silly religious tradition, but I understand that it's a BIG part of our culture (and history for that matter) and why people would want to get married. So let them. I think that taking the government out of marriage is a good idea.
Maybe.
That is all.

There should be a rule to ban empty +1 comments, perhaps a like button would be more appropriate for this forum?

The reason one is required to have reality based substance to their argument, is without any it's just an irrelevant opinion that contributes nothing to the debate but white noise.


I disagree. The demographics are confined to only a fraction of the world's population and do not account for the population of a vast majority of Asia, Africa where China and India happen to be the world's two most populated countries. Even apart from that
However I agree that homosexuals are still relatively a minority.
So I don't think force-breeding would be required now but it's definitely a possibility in the future of the ratio of homo/bi/asexuals to heterosexuals becomes much greater than 1.

Also the evolutionary disadvantage is debatable pertaining to some ongoing studies, one of which presents the potential prospect of skin cells of two individuals being cultivated as stem cells in the future and so being used for reproduction in future which in turn could eliminate the disadvantage.



Except that the universe is not empty. There still exists a vast majority of population whose decisions are influenced by their social sphere comprising of family and friends. If a homosexual person's sphere comprises of homophobes, the person may repress their tendency in order to live within that sphere. Again that's a matter of choice and the person may choose the partner over the parents/family but there's a distinct possibility of the latter taking place. In which case the person may exist in a marriage with an opposite sex partner to conform to the normalcy. True, there would be incompatibility with the partner but the person might derive happiness from being within the sphere while if the person chooses to have a same-sex marriage and loses their family in the process, the person would be unhappy to some degree still.
Homosexuality is not a choice according to me. The choice is in accepting or repressing it.
However argument 2 is more about the implications of same-sex marriage for a certain fraction of the population and not a general hypothesis.

All in all according to my personal experience and knowledge, I don't think there are any reasonably valid arguments against homosexuality. These happened to be the most logical ones I ever received.

The demographics are done by statisticians who do this for a living, they know more than you or I. On the whole 'more than 1' saga of a paragraph;

Lesbians already use sperm banks to have babies. It will never be an issue.

Thank you for mentioning the research, further to this men have also given birth to babies.

We are in agreeance, though most of your 2nd point was already covered in previous posts more succinctly.

Psychology has demonstrated that repression of who we are leads to mental health problems. Choosing to repress and lying/conning a loved one isn't exactly an intellectually sound option!

~ Clara

[Atom]

An irrelevant opinion.
>implying that "i've read a research, but were not the one conducting it" is not an irrelevant type of opinion.

Ok, honey, so your point is, as I understand, that homosexuality is purely genetic? And the environment can "active" it?

This, however, implies, that if you and I, theoretically, were to spend a couple of nights in a basement with an ECT machine and some drugs, I would not be able to turn you gay/straight. Which is wrong...

[Hudor]

The demographics are done by statisticians who do this for a living, they know more than you or I.
I understand that but I thought it was obvious I didn't mean to imply that. Anyway I'll clarify. When I said I disagreed, I meant that I didn't believe that homosexuals comprise of 2-8% of the world's population because as I stated above the demographics pertain to only some parts of the world and the surveys do not include much of Asia and Africa. So we cannot really determine the actual percentage of homosexuals as of now at least.

On the whole 'more than 1' saga of a paragraph;

Lesbians already use sperm banks to have babies. It will never be an issue.

Thank you for mentioning the research, further to this men have also given birth to babies.

I had totally forgotten about the sperm banks. Thanks for pointing that out. That further corroborates my statement that the evolutionary disadvantage is debatable.

As for the research related to the skin cells, I don't know of any men benefiting from that study as of yet(unless they can turn into mice :P ). Because the research in question has only been done on mice as of yet and as I mentioned it could be a prospect for homosexual partners in the future but not now.


We are in agreeance, though most of your 2nd point was already covered in previous posts more succinctly.

I noticed that and I wouldn't have replied further but I thought there might have been a misunderstanding because the argument you presented about a person's individual choices isolated from the environmental influence, was irrelevant to my post because I had specified the influence of the family.
I admit though we are in agreeance over it now.


Psychology has demonstrated that repression of who we are leads to mental health problems. Choosing to repress and lying/conning a loved one isn't exactly an intellectually sound option!
~ Clara

In the situation I mentioned it is less of an option than a hardship one has endure in that case specifically. The loved ones in question are the ones imposing the compulsion and have been determined as homophobic in that case. Since homophobia in itself is irrational and illogical any actions taken under its influence are bound to be so too. So it is obvious the people imposing the repression are not making an intellectually sound decision but the fact remains that they are doing it

[ClaraWho]

>implying that "i've read a research, but were not the one conducting it" is not an irrelevant type of opinion.

Ok, honey, so your point is, as I understand, that homosexuality is purely genetic? And the environment can "active" it?

This, however, implies, that if you and I, theoretically, were to spend a couple of nights in a basement with an ECT machine and some drugs, I would not be able to turn you gay/straight. Which is wrong...

That's not what you were implying at all. You just stuck in an extreme opinion and told everyone you were unprepared to give any evidence to back it up. The thought being what, we should all just accept it on faith because you say so? Wrong. That's not the way the world works thankfully.

Don't attempt to patronise and belittle me :mad: , I'm not here to reply to children.

That has got to be one of the most far-fetched ignorant things I have read thus far. There is no proof anywhere in existance that supports your claimed ability to change sexual preference by any means, let alone drugs and ECT. Please live in reality.


I understand that but I thought it was obvious I didn't mean to imply that. Anyway I'll clarify. When I said I disagreed, I meant that I didn't believe that homosexuals comprise of 2-8% of the world's population because as I stated above the demographics pertain to only some parts of the world and the surveys do not include much of Asia and Africa. So we cannot really determine the actual percentage of homosexuals as of now at least.



I had totally forgotten about the sperm banks. Thanks for pointing that out. That further corroborates my statement that the evolutionary disadvantage is debatable.

As for the research related to the skin cells, I don't know of any men benefiting from that study as of yet(unless they can turn into mice :P ). Because the research in question has only been done on mice as of yet and as I mentioned it could be a prospect for homosexual partners in the future but not now.


I noticed that and I wouldn't have replied further but I thought there might have been a misunderstanding because the argument you presented about a person's individual choices isolated from the environmental influence, was irrelevant to my post because I had specified the influence of the family.
I admit though we are in agreeance over it now.



In the situation I mentioned it is less of an option than a hardship one has endure in that case specifically. The loved ones in question are the ones imposing the compulsion and have been determined as homophobic in that case. Since homophobia in itself is irrational and illogical any actions taken under its influence are bound to be so too. So it is obvious the people imposing the repression are not making an intellectually sound decision but the fact remains that they are doing it

Clearly you don't understand it. Those statistics aren't done via surveys, and that is certainly not the only way stats gathering works. 2-8% is the world populous estimate they found, using extremely complex methodology. Hence the large variance in the estimation.

They have actually managed to clone female eggs, so we aren't far off!

In agreeance with the rest of your post.

~ Clara

[Atom]

you entertain me so I'll take the b8.
That's not what you were implying at all.
>has no idea what greentexting is.
Indeed. You, however, obviously, misunderstood me. This is not what I were implying. I were implying that this is what you were implying. In other words, you claim my opinion was useless, but your opinion is no better, by even your implied standards. Everything you did is give a link to other people's research, while having no idea how this actually works.
You just stuck in an extreme opinion and told everyone you were unprepared to give any evidence to back it up.
>has no idea what "can't be bothered" actually means.
+ "I can also weigh in despite having similar things to say..."
The thought being what, we should all just accept it on faith because you say so?
I would never imply such nonsense. I find this to be a good Freudian slip on your part though.
That has got to be one of the most far-fetched ignorant things I have read thus far.
Ouch. My feelings are hurt... Talking about the formal behavior... I don't think I will even be able to recover from such trauma.
There is no proof anywhere in existance that supports...
I like your scientific approach to things. You obviously didn't even give it a try and look for it.
Please prove that I am wrong. Also I would advice you to reed about trauma response and recovery.

[ClaraWho]

you entertain me so I'll take the b8.

>has no idea what greentexting is.
Indeed. You, however, obviously, misunderstood me. This is not what I were implying. I were implying that this is what you were implying. In other words, you claim my opinion was useless, but your opinion is no better, by even your implied standards. Everything you did is give a link to other people's research, while having no idea how this actually works.

>has no idea what "can't be bothered" actually means.
+ "I can also weigh in despite having similar things to say..."

I would never imply such nonsense. I find this to be a good Freudian slip on your part though.

Ouch. My feelings are hurt... Talking about the formal behavior... I don't think I will even be able to recover from such trauma.

I like your scientific approach to things. You obviously didn't even give it a try and look for it.
Please prove that I am wrong. Also I would advice you to reed about trauma response and recovery.

You are as ignorant as you are rude. There is no place for that sort of juvenile reply. :mad: Nor is it acceptable to bully your way through life with insults and belittling to get people to agree with you.

Your conduct is entirely inappropriate for any mature discussions and nothing you have claimed can be substantiated within the confines of reality. You are contributing nothing of worth to this thread, and personally I am done communicating with you.

Please refrain from mentioning me/quoting me in any further posts on this forum, I wish to have nothing further to do with you. My time is too valuable. If you persist I shall ask the mods to take action for harassment. I've dealt with your kind 1000's of times before.

~ Clara.