Prop 8 wasn't passed in only 3 states...

dfemc

sarNie Adult
LOVE is LOVE, whether it's between PARENTS and CHILD, MAN and WOMAN or SAME-SEX. There is nothing wrong about LOVE itself, it's beautiful. However, just like there is a term to define a love between PARENT and CHILD and all the benefits that come with it, rights to supervise, guide, and authorize in certain activities and so does the term MARRIAGE.

Perhaps comes up with another term for Same-Sex couple. A NEW TERMINOLOGY that includes benefits. Basically a package, just like the FAMILY LOVE package or the MARRIAGE package.
side note: btw, i have to say, i think this is so AWESOME that this topic has been posted and that we're all open to discussing this even if our opinions differ in so many ways. i appreciate and really enjoy the dialogue going here in this specific thread.

in general, when we speak of marriage, i suppose ROMANTIC love is implied. so i wouldn't compare same-sex relationships to terms used to define love between a PARENT and a CHILD. we're now bringing oranges into the picture of apples and apples.

i do agree with you that with each terminology, there carries specific definitions that uphold values and benefits. for that reason, do we not believe that same-sex couples are entitled to the same value of ROMANTIC LOVE; and as couples, should have the same benefits to property rights, health care transfers to their kids, and much more as HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES do have by means of marriage.

if one believes that the same rights and values should apply, then why is a "separate" and "different" TERM needed to define or describe the relationship between same-sex couples?

if it's an apple, why not call it an apple? it may be a green apple or slightly more sour, but nonetheless, it's an apple, right?

so as u may say, it's not so much the essence of the word, "MARRIAGE", persay that troubles us, but the values that some of us put onto relationships that we're not conventionally used to, either based on our faith or how we're socially brought up. and as with PROP 8, unfortunately, those PERSONAL conventions get in the ways of ppl's actual lives, who have to live with the reality of not being able to have power of attorney to make decisions for thier ailing same-sex partner (without going thru major hoops), simply because their relationship cannot be defined as a "MARRIAGE".

at some point, i guess, it'd be nice to question how our values affect the lives of other ppl, because that's what it comes down to more than a game of scrabble to find the right word to distinguish it. and things don't get "distinguished" unless it was viewed as "DIFFERENT".

btw, love ya too muddie, but we'll have to move to massachusett and live their forever to have a valid marriage, otherwise, u won't be able to authorize my heart transplant even if i needed one, unless i spent $10000's on lawyers fees to coin u as my power of attorney. n right now, being jobless, we might have to sneak a vegas elope with one of us dressed as a man, since it's a cheaper option of fitting into the "marriage" definition. so, in the meantime, i'll work on the sexy manly voice. :p
 

marduk

Sarnie Clown!
I see the term CIVIL UNION has already been used and comes in it's own package already. Thanks for bringing this up. I would like to see the word marriage reserve for heterosexual couples because of my belief, up-bringing and state-of-mind (at least at this moment in time). Again, this whole same-sex couple thing is still new to me. I mean back in a days, yes I hear it hear and there but now, it's constantly in the media, and all around and I just haven't got up to speed yet. So, I feel that it's just a matter of time, and others might feel the same way.

LOVE is LOVE, whether it's between PARENTS and CHILD, MAN and WOMAN or SAME-SEX. There is nothing wrong about LOVE itself, it's beautiful. However, just like there is a term to define a love between PARENT and CHILD and all the benefits that come with it, rights to supervise, guide, and authorize in certain activities and so does the term MARRIAGE.

Perhaps comes up with another term for Same-Sex couple. A NEW TERMINOLOGY that includes benefits. Basically a package, just like the FAMILY LOVE package or the MARRIAGE package.
This might have been stated before since I just glossed over this thread, but I want to point this out. Beliefs are important and everyone is entitled to it. However, I think people forget that the idea of marriage is a legal issue. This country is based on the idea of equality for all. It might not have been that way in the beginning, but because of the 14th Amendment, everyone has equal treatment in front of the law.

Now let's look at history and examine the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson. The final outcome of that case is that racial segregation was ok under the doctrine of "separate but equal." In other words, it's ok to separate black and white people because they would all get the same resources so everyone would still be equal. It sounded legal on the surface, but the outcome was very different. Because of this "segregation," it did not matter if black and white people received the same resources (which didn't happen, but let's assume it did). Because they were separated, there is this connotation that blacks were inferior. After all, if they're equal, why are they both just not using the same facilities and resources?

Fast forward a century later and you have the gay rights issue. Let's say we have Civil Unions that provide for the EXACT same benefits as marriages (which is not happening, but let's assume it also did). Now if Civil Unions are the same as marriages, why are they not just called marriages? It is this separation that will make it NOT EQUAL. How can it be equal when one term carries a different connotation than the other? And that right there is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's why the California Supreme Court struck down the previous law that banned gay marriages. This new proposition 8 will probably be challenged in a court of law and it will eventually be struck as unconstitutional too. Of course, it won't be unconstitutional based on the California constitution because of prop 8. However, eventually this will make it to the US Supreme Court and with this current group of Justices, it still might not pass. But I am 99.9% certain that it will be legalized eventually because this goes against our United States Constitution.

I know some disagree with this because they believe marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. In fact, my own state obviously believes this because they struck down Prop 8. But we have to remember that this objection to marriage between gays comes from personal beliefs. We must also remember that the law cannot be based on personal ideologies. We are all supposed to be equal before the law and to not allow a group of people to marry just because of their race, personal beliefs, or sexual preference is wrong LEGALLY. It has nothing to do with your beliefs.

Remember that I'm just talking about the legal standpoint here. Of course, many churches and religions have their own beliefs. But shouldn't that be the realm of the church to decide? If a church doesn't want gay marriages, then it shouldn't perform gay marriages. But to impose that belief on everyone else is legally incorrect. And as I'm writing this, I'm sure many are probably thinking that gay people imposing their conduct on the rest of Americans is wrong too. I don't even want to get into why that is a logical fallacy and why 1st graders everywhere will not all of a sudden become gay just because gay marriages are allowed.
 

marduk

Sarnie Clown!
with that being said, are you born gay or is it a choice?
Haha, I honestly can't answer that one and I was trained as a scientist. It would probably depend on who you ask. That's why I didn't want to get into that school thing. However, before the law, it still wouldn't matter whether you're born with it or you make a choice.
 

darvil

sarNie Adult
Haha, I honestly can't answer that one and I was trained as a scientist. It would probably depend on who you ask. That's why I didn't want to get into that school thing. However, before the law, it still wouldn't matter whether you're born with it or you make a choice.
This brings me to the question that everyone is thinking. What if I want to get married to more then one woman or hell hook up with my pet goat? or sheep?

I like that legal argument but how would it fit into the picture if I was interested in something that isn't in our culture's accepted/acceptable mores or beliefs?


As for the question about about whether being gay is a choice or genetics. Its one that is really hard to answer. Its actually a question that I've been interested in for years since I've had friends who were gay and me being me, I was always someone who asks questions about it.

Anyway I don't think the answer to this question is a YES or a NO. That said I WILL say that my belief that I've so far compiled tells me that being gay is MOSTLY genetics; meaning born gay. I will not say it is 100 percent true though because there are cases where it is not clear cut. For example some sexually abused kids MAY have their preferences warped. There are other grey scenarios that I can mention. So like I said, generally speaking I think it is nature.

As for the thing about civil union, I am all for having one that would give the exact legal advantages that a marriage does but it doesn't have to be called "marriage". Call it civil union 2.0 or something. Yeah it doesn't make sense logically but I kind of like this as a middle-of-the-road solution. That way those who believes the word "marriage" should be between a man and a woman can have the word and gay people can have the legal rights that they should get.
 

iluvnumandoil

sarNie OldFart
when you say genetics ..do you mean inherit from your parents or relative? im not gay but i do have have gay in laws and friends
my personal opinion i think you you are born gay some folks just know they are since they were 4 or 5 years old

they cant explain that at 5 years of age they wonder why they have a penis when they feel they are a girl, and they have to live with that, they feel trapped in a body they dont belong in.
 

judyp

sarNie Adult
very interesting discussion guys! i've questioned this myself because my brother is gay and he felt as if he didn't have a choice because he felt "different" since he was a child. so that tells me that in his situation, he was born gay. but is that the same case for every other gay person? that, im not sure of.
another issue i wanted to bring up in is what about those who are hermaphrodite? did they choose to be born that way? no. they're genetic make-up screwed them over causing them to be "intersex". im just wondering, is that the same case for the gay? i know many years ago when an infant was born with 2 different sex organs, some parents were given the opportunity to decide which organ they wanted to keep. so if they chose male and their son happens to actually have more female hormones than male hormones, their son starts developing these female characteristics such as breasts. what do we say about that? i know that being feminine doesn't mean that you're gay, but im just saying. i know nowadays, the parents don't choose. thorough tests are done to determine the genetic make-up, whether the infant is more female or male.
some people are born with the X and Y chromosome that would make them male or the two X chromosome that would make them female, but sometimes the body doesn't react to the hormones that are present and so a person may start developing characteristics that are opposite of what he/she should be. this is why we hear stories about "a male being trapped in a female's body" or a "female being trapped in a male's body".
i honestly don't know if we'll ever have an answer to whether you're born gay or you're gay by choice. it's just one of those controversial topics.
 

marduk

Sarnie Clown!
This brings me to the question that everyone is thinking. What if I want to get married to more then one woman or hell hook up with my pet goat? or sheep?

I like that legal argument but how would it fit into the picture if I was interested in something that isn't in our culture's accepted/acceptable mores or beliefs?


As for the question about about whether being gay is a choice or genetics. Its one that is really hard to answer. Its actually a question that I've been interested in for years since I've had friends who were gay and me being me, I was always someone who asks questions about it.

Anyway I don't think the answer to this question is a YES or a NO. That said I WILL say that my belief that I've so far compiled tells me that being gay is MOSTLY genetics; meaning born gay. I will not say it is 100 percent true though because there are cases where it is not clear cut. For example some sexually abused kids MAY have their preferences warped. There are other grey scenarios that I can mention. So like I said, generally speaking I think it is nature.

As for the thing about civil union, I am all for having one that would give the exact legal advantages that a marriage does but it doesn't have to be called "marriage". Call it civil union 2.0 or something. Yeah it doesn't make sense logically but I kind of like this as a middle-of-the-road solution. That way those who believes the word "marriage" should be between a man and a woman can have the word and gay people can have the legal rights that they should get.
Darv, the answer to your opening question is an easy one man. This is why I don't get that argument when people try to defend the "institution of marriage." We're talking about equality before the law here. People having more than one spouse doesn't fit into this argument because the monogamy in marriages is applied to EVERYONE. Let's say Congress changed the law and say "ok, gay people can have more than one spouse but straight people can't." Then you have a problem right there.

As for the question on people marrying goats, that's just stupid. Seriously, I think people need to read the Constitution. Equality before the law is guaranteed by our Constitution. In the beginning, this equality was specified in the original Constitution and applied to all who were citizens. However, the broad definition of a citizen was not explicitly written until the 14th Amendment came around. Here's the section that's important:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

See the text above? The key word there is PERSONS. Anyone who's a US citizen should have the same rights all across the US. So a law banning gay marriages is unconstitutional because it's "abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States." How can you give one group of people the rights to marry but not allowed another group? How is that equal? As for the goat thing, I don't think I really have to remind you or anyone else throwing that argument around that a goat is not a "person." Therefore, banning a marriage between a human being and a goat is not unconstitutional because the goat isn't human.

Btw, I'm just talking about this in law terms. Personally, I wouldn't give a damn if someone wants to marry a goat.

Also, stop watching Fox News and picking up goat arguments Darv. See what you made me do? You're forcing me to come out of SW hibernation to defend this.

Geez. Asking how the goat argument fits into the gay marriage issue...weak. At least, ask a hard question like "if gay marriage is legalized, how will we stop roommates everywhere from obtaining marriage licenses and defrauding the government for tax benefits?" Even that is a harder question than the goat argument.

Geez.
 

noungning

Heartless
i don't agree with this because i feel that this should be up to the parents. these kids are young so i believe in doing what we can to keep their innocence. i know of a family w/ a little boy who is 7 and a girl who is 6. their mom stopped letting them bathe together, but they don't understand why. this just proves how innocent they are and i don't think we should be teaching them things that would confuse them further.
parent(s)/guardian(s) is/are sometimes not the best figure to teach, and with some lacking that ability can make it seem worse. IMHO, i feel as if gays, lesbians or transgendered people are made to look as if they're the evil monsters that you don't want to be associated with. i know a few people whom mentioned that they had no idea how gays are, or ever been around one...which is totally strange to me because i've been raised around a bunch of gays and transgendered people. but i don't want to inflict my beliefs or thoughts on them to believe in what i believe or feel...

it is right, these kids are so young and innocent, this is the best time to tell them that there are various types of people, there isn't only a black or white. there are many shades in between, and from being in school this is for them to explore and discover, but as a teacher, aren't they also there to help guide and teach these kids? in part, teachers are just like parents/guardians...they are there as a role model to these kids, but they aren't there to make a decision for them of what is right or what should be right, because that is your personal belief. they should be empowered and given a choice when that time comes of realizing who they really are.

as for the 6 and 7 yr old... i'm a psych minor, and i've learned of sigmund freud... u might've heard of him? he has 7 stages for development, and when a person reaches 6-7 years old... it's when they are exploring sex, i know it's crazy... but it's true, this stage is called latency. the stage before this, when they were 4-5 they were experiencing the love hate relationship with their parents... for a boy he'd be tied to the hip with his mom and as for girls she's tied to the hip with her dad... or known as oedipus for boys and electra for girls... they develop a sensation as if they're jealous of their mom for loving their dad and wants to kill em... however, if this is different... where the female longs for the mother more because there's simply no father figure in the picture... this can also stem to cause of changing their orientation at such a younger age.

because the boy and the girl are both at that level and a bit passed it... they shouldn't be bathing together. which is the correct thing to do... but should the parents be explaining it in the psychological type of way? no, of course not, since they won't be comprehending it to the same level as we do. however, they have the right and ability to explain that because they are getting older, they should take separate baths and because a boy and a girl should not have to bathe together...it's very uneasy to do, but it must be done... they shouldn't be separated and not given a reason... it just leads to more curiosity and resistance.

Fast forward a century later and you have the gay rights issue. Let's say we have Civil Unions that provide for the EXACT same benefits as marriages (which is not happening, but let's assume it also did). Now if Civil Unions are the same as marriages, why are they not just called marriages? It is this separation that will make it NOT EQUAL. How can it be equal when one term carries a different connotation than the other? And that right there is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's why the California Supreme Court struck down the previous law that banned gay marriages. This new proposition 8 will probably be challenged in a court of law and it will eventually be struck as unconstitutional too. Of course, it won't be unconstitutional based on the California constitution because of prop 8. However, eventually this will make it to the US Supreme Court and with this current group of Justices, it still might not pass. But I am 99.9% certain that it will be legalized eventually because this goes against our United States Constitution.

I know some disagree with this because they believe marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. In fact, my own state obviously believes this because they struck down Prop 8. But we have to remember that this objection to marriage between gays comes from personal beliefs. We must also remember that the law cannot be based on personal ideologies. We are all supposed to be equal before the law and to not allow a group of people to marry just because of their race, personal beliefs, or sexual preference is wrong LEGALLY. It has nothing to do with your beliefs.

Remember that I'm just talking about the legal standpoint here. Of course, many churches and religions have their own beliefs. But shouldn't that be the realm of the church to decide? If a church doesn't want gay marriages, then it shouldn't perform gay marriages. But to impose that belief on everyone else is legally incorrect. ...why 1st graders everywhere will not all of a sudden become gay just because gay marriages are allowed.
lmfao, underlined. that's what i think too. if it's going to do anything, it's going to answer those young kids... "oh, so it's normal... being gay is normal, they have feelings just like us, they can even get married"... i don't think it'd provoke them into thinking ok i'm going to grow up and marry the person of my same sex... but it will show that gays, lesbians and etc are just normal like us and not the evil monster or strange creature they are made to be.

i agree with u mike-o. equality means being treated equal, but this is unconstitutional, segregating and discriminating.

with that being said, are you born gay or is it a choice?
for me, i don't necessarily call it a choice... because i think it's both nature and nurture.

genetically people are born to be gay... for example, when a boy is given a choice of pink or blue... he always picked pink, since he was 2. i know it's a lame example, but i think u get what i mean... that really can't be a choice is it?

then there are people whom learned of how it is to be with certain circumstances and developed into a person that isn't considered a societal norm... i think if it were choice... why wouldn't they choose to be normal? well ok, there are rebellious people, but those are just craving for attention and aren't part of my debate here.

This brings me to the question that everyone is thinking. What if I want to get married to more then one woman or hell hook up with my pet goat? or sheep?

I like that legal argument but how would it fit into the picture if I was interested in something that isn't in our culture's accepted/acceptable mores or beliefs?

...

As for the thing about civil union, I am all for having one that would give the exact legal advantages that a marriage does but it doesn't have to be called "marriage". Call it civil union 2.0 or something. Yeah it doesn't make sense logically but I kind of like this as a middle-of-the-road solution. That way those who believes the word "marriage" should be between a man and a woman can have the word and gay people can have the legal rights that they should get.
lol omg... how did i know u would being animals into the picture.

yup i'm all for civil unions if it comes with the benefits given to a married person, but it doesn't... why is it ok to cover your opposite sex domestic partner whom isn't married to you, but not okay to cover the same sex domestic partner?

another issue i wanted to bring up in is what about those who are hermaphrodite? did they choose to be born that way? no. they're genetic make-up screwed them over causing them to be "intersex". im just wondering, is that the same case for the gay? i know many years ago when an infant was born with 2 different sex organs, some parents were given the opportunity to decide which organ they wanted to keep. so if they chose male and their son happens to actually have more female hormones than male hormones, their son starts developing these female characteristics such as breasts. what do we say about that? i know that being feminine doesn't mean that you're gay, but im just saying. i know nowadays, the parents don't choose. thorough tests are done to determine the genetic make-up, whether the infant is more female or male.
some people are born with the X and Y chromosome that would make them male or the two X chromosome that would make them female, but sometimes the body doesn't react to the hormones that are present and so a person may start developing characteristics that are opposite of what he/she should be. this is why we hear stories about "a male being trapped in a female's body" or a "female being trapped in a male's body".
i honestly don't know if we'll ever have an answer to whether you're born gay or you're gay by choice. it's just one of those controversial topics.
this reminds me of a show i saw on msnbc... it's about a guy, he transplanted into a girl since he was 19 but he said he knew he was always a girl, and he came to another point in his life where he discovers he doesn't feel "right"... so he decided to transform back to a guy... but after he's had his penis removed, he's a guy with female body parts. it's something that someone like myself will never understand to their extent, but seeing it i'm aware of how frustrating it can be... i mean i get frustrated trying to figure out a simple math equation, i can't imagine struggling to understand my own sex.

Btw, I'm just talking about this in law terms. Personally, I wouldn't give a damn if someone wants to marry a goat.

...

Geez. Asking how the goat argument fits into the gay marriage issue...weak. At least, ask a hard question like "if gay marriage is legalized, how will we stop roommates everywhere from obtaining marriage licenses and defrauding the government for tax benefits?" Even that is a harder question than the goat argument.

Geez.
haha well gosh, he was double checking if u'd be jealous mike-o... because u tend to pick ur monkeys over him... he's gonna get a goat over u lmfao.

oh gosh dude... are u thinking about chuck and larry? lol.... but this already happens with heterosexuals. why should we panic when it's the gays doing it? back to equality.
 

judyp

sarNie Adult
parent(s)/guardian(s) is/are sometimes not the best figure to teach, and with some lacking that ability can make it seem worse. IMHO, i feel as if gays, lesbians or transgendered people are made to look as if they're the evil monsters that you don't want to be associated with. i know a few people whom mentioned that they had no idea how gays are, or ever been around one...which is totally strange to me because i've been raised around a bunch of gays and transgendered people. but i don't want to inflict my beliefs or thoughts on them to believe in what i believe or feel...

it is right, these kids are so young and innocent, this is the best time to tell them that there are various types of people, there isn't only a black or white. there are many shades in between, and from being in school this is for them to explore and discover, but as a teacher, aren't they also there to help guide and teach these kids? in part, teachers are just like parents/guardians...they are there as a role model to these kids, but they aren't there to make a decision for them of what is right or what should be right, because that is your personal belief. they should be empowered and given a choice when that time comes of realizing who they really are.

as for the 6 and 7 yr old... i'm a psych minor, and i've learned of sigmund freud... u might've heard of him? he has 7 stages for development, and when a person reaches 6-7 years old... it's when they are exploring sex, i know it's crazy... but it's true, this stage is called latency. the stage before this, when they were 4-5 they were experiencing the love hate relationship with their parents... for a boy he'd be tied to the hip with his mom and as for girls she's tied to the hip with her dad... or known as oedipus for boys and electra for girls... they develop a sensation as if they're jealous of their mom for loving their dad and wants to kill em... however, if this is different... where the female longs for the mother more because there's simply no father figure in the picture... this can also stem to cause of changing their orientation at such a younger age.

because the boy and the girl are both at that level and a bit passed it... they shouldn't be bathing together. which is the correct thing to do... but should the parents be explaining it in the psychological type of way? no, of course not, since they won't be comprehending it to the same level as we do. however, they have the right and ability to explain that because they are getting older, they should take separate baths and because a boy and a girl should not have to bathe together...it's very uneasy to do, but it must be done... they shouldn't be separated and not given a reason... it just leads to more curiosity and resistance.
i'll have to agree w/ you that sometimes, SOME parents aren't the best person to teach certain topics. but i personally feel that parents are the best to teach about gay/lesbians. of course, i also believe that kids should be at a certain age for certain topics. im not saying that gays/lesbians are any different from us; i think it's great that kids can be taught that there are different types of people out there, but i feel that these little 5-6 year olds don't have the ability to comprehend a discussion about the different sexualities. i just had a classmate talk to me today about her grandson who's 6 years old who gets made fun of at school because he's different. they call him nasty names because they think he's gay. how in the heck does 5-6 year olds treat another person that way because he's different? they don't get it. they're too young.
as far as the boy & girl who's mother stopped letting them bathe together. she tried explaining to them that boys & girls don't bathe together because they're "big boys" and "big girls" now and of course, she gets all these why questions. again, they're too young.
 

noungning

Heartless
well i see where this is going... ok for the example of the 6 yr old at school being taunted about being gay... as a kid, i've witnessed many cruel remarks on others and myself. not necessarily "gay" taunting... but it's about the same effect. kids are kids just like you've said, some are bullies and some are nice... and some are the goody goody ones that cries for any reason they want. they don't really know that they are damaging another person's emotion in the long run, until they are told. they just know that they are being mean, being funny, and able to make someone upset/angry. and this is what i think might've happened, the kids making fun of the classmate might've been "brainwashed" or taught that being gay is the negative, so when they want to "retaliate" on someone they don't like... they simply say they're gay...

again, if they knew from right or wrong, i'm sure the juvenile courts won't exist because everyone will be treated equally when they commit a crime... for example the 8 year old that shot his dad and his dad's roommate to death, but he will not be trialed as an adult because they deem him too young to know what he was really doing to kill his father and the roommate.

as for the mom that told her kids they were a big boy or big girl now, she should also go on to say... like mommy and daddy, we don't take bathes together... when kids grow older, they have to separate and start to be able to do things on their own. it simply can't end there... because kids are curious... just like the birds and the bees attempt. and yeah, parents are sometimes confronted with problems of how do i talk about sexuality with my kids? it's not easy and that's why many people comes up with books to explain things with cute animations to make this process easier... and also when it comes to who should be doing it? i think either or... parents/guardians or teachers... but sexual orientation is something that will be met by these kids more from school... not as a 5 or 6 yr old but as they grow up. but teaching kids to be open minded at a younger age is probably better, just like molding clay before it's dried up... it might crack.
 

darvil

sarNie Adult
Well Marduk.. I ask you because its a common argument .. so I want to see a good explanation.. I say that was pretty good.. and I'm disappointed that you don't think my pet goat is not human enough.


when you say genetics ..do you mean inherit from your parents or relativ...

is when they feel they are a girl, and they have to live with that, they feel trapped in a body they dont belong in.

When I mean genetics I just mean the individual was born that way. I would agree with you that most of them are that way but like I said, there are some other scenarios where it is a bit more grey.


very interesting discussion guys! i've questioned this myself because my brother is gay and he felt as if he didn't have a choice because he felt "..... er have an answer to whether you're born gay or you're gay by choice. it's just one of those controversial topics.
There are many such stories like that. Its just one of those things that we as a society will have to come to terms with in the future. For now most societies aren't just ready to admit to issues like it.
 

nophankh

sarNie Adult
I don't have a problem with gay marriages. I don't understand the big deal.
I find the whole idea of banning gay marriages unconstitutional.
America is a country that separates Church and State.
People are perceiving marriages as a religious union, it shouldn't be perceive that way. Marriage is a legal binding between two people.
If two People(I emphasize PEOPLE, not a man and a goat or a cow) want to get marry, I don't understand the problem.

Homosexuality is nothing something new. Since the dawn of civilization, homosexuality existed. Actually, I think since the dawn of existence itself, homosexuality existed. We can look at the examples in animals. Yes guys, homosexuality exists in other animals. It's very normal. We got gay giraffes in the African Savannah. Two research gay vultures who have been playing father and father two baby vultures chicks for decades. It's normal.

If God (if you believe in God) didn't want gays, why would he create them. We got transgender, we got hermaphrodites, what about these people. They exist. God(s) created them for a reason.

Sex, the definition of gender is superficial. Take for example. Let say a hermaphrodite individual is categorized as a "woman" because "she" has more female organs but 'her' hormones create a more masculine appearance. Trust me, it does happen. Lets say she falls in love with a man. However because her looks are more masculine, her relationship with this man will be deemed a homosexual relationship, instead of a traditional relationship.

In America, no group is allow to be excluded legally. When we say "yes" to Prop 8, we excludes "people of the third category or no category at all". Technically it's pretty illegal.

When I think of marriage, I exclude gender. I think of two individuals.
People talk about traditions and sacristy of marriage...umm...that doesn't exist anymore. Lets look at the divorce rate.

Marriage is about legal rights. Marriage entitles individuals to benefits and all that good stuff that I can't name. Marriage is a legal contract between 2 individuals. If they have to be two gay individuals, it's really unethical to deny them those rights.
 
Top