Proposition 8

Marriage isn't natural. Tying yourself down to one person and expecting change over time not to affect the relationship is unnatural. Therefore, marriage in total should be abolished. /thread.

There ya go.....with the natural and unnatural debate. Solved.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

What I'm getting at is what a very small percentage of the population wants isn't something that necessarily should be made legal. Again, if it's not a constitutional right (our amendments) then it can be voted on by we, the people. Don't like it? Then move to China or someplace where they make the rules and you have no say.

Pirate700

That sounds all well and good but but what if gays were the majority and voted that straight people couldn't marry? Just because it was the majority that were gay it doesn't matter what happens to the straights?

Then if it passes, that's what passes. I might not be happy about it, but I support our right to vote and decide.

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

And that's why I said "majority" and not "all."

Bio_Spark

And FYI....since I'd assume you were correlating this with religion....I've met plenty non religious people that dislike gay people and aren't for their rights.

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

Palantas

No it's not a gene in someone. The fact that people that were once gay and are now straight, or visa-versa disproves that. Please don't use the Micheal Jackson argument pertaining to blacks. :P

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

Palantas

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

Palantas

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

Palantas

There are genes for every thing that we are, so there probably is a gay gene, but there are also genes for skin colour as well. That means that you can't change your sexual orientation just like you can't change your skin colour .

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

redstorm72

There are genes for every thing that we are, so there probably is a gay gene, but there are also genes for skin colour as well. That means that you can't change your sexual orientation just like you can't change your skin colour .

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

LJS9502_basic

That's unusual, last I heard they thought it was genetic. I even read a case study that gay men would be more attracted to the pheramones given off by men, and same would go for gay woman, they're bodies reacted the way a straight mans would when met with an attractive woman.

I think various factors can lead to..I think that events in a persons life can lead one to lean towards the same sex..but I also think they could go back if they met the right person. This happened to a friend of mine, she was horribly abused by her father as a child (he broke her fingers when she was a baby) and was confident that she was gay but this past summer she met a guy and voila, they're together.

However I also know plenty of gay people who have had no traumatic life experiences, were not pre-disposed to homosexuality that are 100 percent gay.

And that's the promblem with anecdotal. evidence. This is what I have observed to be true, and there's no way in hell i'm going to perform a study for an internet argument, so I'm going to go with that assumption.

Yes, and I know plenty of non-religious people (like myself) who are don't care for abortion. There's a partial correlation to religion because the relgious overwhelmingly vote against both, but there's more to it than that. An exception to the rule doesn't invalidate it.

Bio_Spark

in a religious sense... let the churches do whatever they want. if they want to deny gay couples the right to be married IN THE CHURCH then that is their decision because they are a private institution. it is however bs that the state itself can deny couples the same rights as married couples.. buy hey it passed.. so i guess the only option now is to continue to try to educate the masses that gay people are not the anti-chist and the "good moral world" will not be destroyed if they are allowed to marry...

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, sorry. Make up your own word for two homsexuals that have a civil union.IrishPunk

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

LikeHaterade

No it's not a gene in someone. The fact that people that were once gay and are now straight, or visa-versa disproves that. Please don't use the Micheal Jackson argument pertaining to blacks. :P

Last I heard they didn't believe it was genetic. That does not, however, rule out predetermination to sexuality.

LJS9502_basic

Predetermination to sexuality in what ways? Can you elborate on this off the top of your head? (Not expecting anyone to do research for me. :) )

There are genes for every thing that we are, so there probably is a gay gene, but there are also genes for skin colour as well. That means that you can't change your sexual orientation just like you can't change your skin colour.

redstorm72

There are not genes for everything that we are. There's no gene that says I like Breitling watches. A month from now I can change my mind and start liking Omegas. (Watches were the first thing that came to mind.) You generated a conclusion here based on a false premise. I was wondering what the current research is on homosexuality and genetics.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, sorry. Make up your own word for two homsexuals that have a civil union.IrishPunk

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Last I heard they didn't believe it was genetic. That does not, however, rule out predetermination to sexuality.

Palantas

Predetermination to sexuality in what ways? Can you elborate on this off the top of your head? (Not expecting anyone to do research for me. :) )

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

Greatgone12

No it's not a gene in someone. The fact that people that were once gay and are now straight, or visa-versa disproves that. Please don't use the Micheal Jackson argument pertaining to blacks. :P

Exactly, factors such as abuse from a particular gender and hormones can result in a person leaning to one gender.

If someone was heavilly abused at a young age, they may feel unable to go towards that gender as a place of peace and comfort. That happened to a friend of mine.

Some people can not imagine, or even bring themselves to be with a member of the opposit sex...and that's just who they are.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Last I heard they didn't believe it was genetic. That does not, however, rule out predetermination to sexuality.

LJS9502_basic

Predetermination to sexuality in what ways? Can you elborate on this off the top of your head? (Not expecting anyone to do research for me. :) )

No, it isn't. It's just for the sake of argument. But generalizations are generally true about the majority of the whole. That's why why call them generalizations.

Bio_Spark

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

In comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage, there's also the issue that race is superficial, unchangeable, and genetic. Being gay may be like this, and it might not. What's the word on the gay gene? (I'm seriously asking here; I have no idea.)

Greatgone12

No it's not a gene in someone. The fact that people that were once gay and are now straight, or visa-versa disproves that. Please don't use the Micheal Jackson argument pertaining to blacks. :P

Actually, there are people that are currently gay that will tell you that they were previously attracted to men/women. A lot of gay people look to it as a preferance over the opposite-sex. I'm not saying that is all gays of coarse.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Last I heard they didn't believe it was genetic. That does not, however, rule out predetermination to sexuality.

LJS9502_basic

Predetermination to sexuality in what ways? Can you elborate on this off the top of your head? (Not expecting anyone to do research for me. :) )

I confused my answer when you said they didn't believe it was genetics...Yes, scientists are leaning towards chemical components, thus the hormonal reactions to pheramones.

Actually, there are people that are currently gay that will tell you that they were previously attracted to men/women. A lot of gay people look to it as a preferance over the opposite-sex. I'm not saying that is all gays of coarse.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Actually, there are people that are currently gay that will tell you that they were previously attracted to men/women. A lot of gay people look to it as a preferance over the opposite-sex. I'm not saying that is all gays of coarse.

LJS9502_basic

Languages evolve, defintions change

DJ_Novakain

Yet, the overwhelming majority of people still agree that marriage is for a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Marriage although a recognized institution of the government, is still by and large a religious union. I don't know of any major religions that openly support homosexual marriage, do you? Just checking. When the Vatican or any other religious sect openly declares that homosexual marriage is ok, that's a different story.

And there you have it, folks. Society's obsession with label and status is probably the fundamental reason people will continue to vote against gay marriage. God forbid legalizing gay marriage would make heterosexuals that much more similar/equal to homosexuals.-Twilight-

It isn't about being equal. If that were the issue, civil unions wouldn't be allowed. There is no benefit that homosexuals get between being married or having a union.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Actually, there are people that are currently gay that will tell you that they were previously attracted to men/women. A lot of gay people look to it as a preferance over the opposite-sex. I'm not saying that is all gays of coarse.

LJS9502_basic

Hm, perhaps. I can understand that when I used the word preferance. However, there are some that have lost their former attraction to the opposite-sex due to experiences with people of the same sex, which tells me that it isn't genetic.

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"]And there you have it, folks. Society's obsession with label and status is probably the fundamental reason people will continue to vote against gay marriage. God forbid legalizing gay marriage would make heterosexuals that much more similar/equal to homosexuals.IrishPunk

It isn't about being equal. If that were the issue, civil unions wouldn't be allowed. There is no benefit that homosexuals get between being married or having a union.

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"]

Languages evolve, defintions change

IrishPunk

Yet, the overwhelming majority of people still agree that marriage is for a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Marriage although a recognized institution of the government, is still by and large a religious union. I don't know of any major religions that openly support homosexual marriage, do you? Just checking. When the Vatican or any other religious sect openly declares that homosexual marriage is ok, that's a different story.

So what about civil marriages, which are by definition not religious unions? Can gay couples have those?

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"]And there you have it, folks. Society's obsession with label and status is probably the fundamental reason people will continue to vote against gay marriage. God forbid legalizing gay marriage would make heterosexuals that much more similar/equal to homosexuals.IrishPunk

It isn't about being equal. If that were the issue, civil unions wouldn't be allowed. There is no benefit that homosexuals get between being married or having a union.

[QUOTE="IrishPunk"]

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"]And there you have it, folks. Society's obsession with label and status is probably the fundamental reason people will continue to vote against gay marriage. God forbid legalizing gay marriage would make heterosexuals that much more similar/equal to homosexuals.-Twilight-

It isn't about being equal. If that were the issue, civil unions wouldn't be allowed. There is no benefit that homosexuals get between being married or having a union.

No I don't. If there is no benefit, why do they need to have it?

Hm, perhaps. I can understand that when I used the word preferance. However, there are some that have lost their former attraction to the opposite-sex due to experiences with people of the same sex, which tells me that it isn't genetic.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"][QUOTE="IrishPunk"]

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"]And there you have it, folks. Society's obsession with label and status is probably the fundamental reason people will continue to vote against gay marriage. God forbid legalizing gay marriage would make heterosexuals that much more similar/equal to homosexuals.IrishPunk

It isn't about being equal. If that were the issue, civil unions wouldn't be allowed. There is no benefit that homosexuals get between being married or having a union.

No I don't. If there is no benefit, why do they need to have it?

If there were no benefit between the two, they wouldn't care...and neither would you.-Twilight-

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Hm, perhaps. I can understand that when I used the word preferance. However, there are some that have lost their former attraction to the opposite-sex due to experiences with people of the same sex, which tells me that it isn't genetic.

LJS9502_basic

Which leads to a legit question that you may ask someone, "How gay/straight are you?" Your statement and how questions like that can be answered just leads me to assume that it's in the brain and it is not genetic.

so what about civil marriages, which are by definition not religious unions? Can gay couples have those?

Greatgone12

It's all semantics man. The widely held conscious is that marriage is between a man and a woman. To get frustrated with someone who agrees with that sentiment is laughable, because it is a major part of the values in this country. Will this change? Maybe. But as the propositions proved, it will still be awhile.

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"] If there were no benefit between the two, they wouldn't care...and neither would you.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"]

Languages evolve, defintions change

IrishPunk

Yet, the overwhelming majority of people still agree that marriage is for a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Marriage although a recognized institution of the government, is still by and large a religious union. I don't know of any major religions that openly support homosexual marriage, do you? Just checking. When the Vatican or any other religious sect openly declares that homosexual marriage is ok, that's a different story.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Hm, perhaps. I can understand that when I used the word preferance. However, there are some that have lost their former attraction to the opposite-sex due to experiences with people of the same sex, which tells me that it isn't genetic.

LikeHaterade

Which leads to a legit question that you may ask someone, "How gay/straight are you?" Your statement and how questions like that can be answered just leads me to assume that it's in the brain and it is not genetic.

If there were no benefit between the two, they wouldn't care...and neither would you.-Twilight-

Do I have to resort to an anecdote? Fine.

My sister got married this summer. She was married not only because it is what men and women do when they want to start a family/life together but because our religion (Roman Catholicism) calls for it. Now multiply this number by the amount of Christians, Jews, and other religions that have the same belief. You get a large majority of the United States.

Perhaps someone more verse in the exact wording of the Proposition can answer this question for me,

Had Prop 8 not passed, would it have given any legal foothold to force any Religious institute to marry same or opposite sex couples?

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"][QUOTE="IrishPunk"][QUOTE="-Twilight-"][QUOTE="IrishPunk"]

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"]And there you have it, folks. Society's obsession with label and status is probably the fundamental reason people will continue to vote against gay marriage. God forbid legalizing gay marriage would make heterosexuals that much more similar/equal to homosexuals.IrishPunk

It isn't about being equal. If that were the issue, civil unions wouldn't be allowed. There is no benefit that homosexuals get between being married or having a union.

No I don't. If there is no benefit, why do they need to have it?

Do I have to resort to an anecdote? Fine.

My sister got married this summer. She was married not only because it is what men and women do when they want to start a family/life together but because our religion (Roman Catholicism) calls for it. Now multiply this number by the amount of Christians, Jews, and other religions that have the same belief. You get a large majority of the United States.

Which goes back to what I said about society and labels. I refuse to believe the issue is as political as the media and everyone else tries to make it sound.This entire thread is ridiculous. Post concerning what's natural, is it a chemical in the brain, etc. It's all BS and irrelevant to a human beings rights. -Twilight-

For example...natural child vs adopted child. They are different labels but the rights are the exact same.

I don't see how that contradicts my point that it doesn't go deeper than people wanting to be labeled differently and catergorized seperately.-Twilight-

It goes against your point because people aren't going to accept something that is not allowed in their relgion. Even the proposition in a liberal state like California it was voted against.

Whether it is right or wrong for people's need to be labeled differently is a irrelevant point.

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"]I don't see how that contradicts my point that it doesn't go deeper than people wanting to be labeled differently and catergorized seperately.IrishPunk

It goes against your point because people aren't going to accept something that is not allowed in their relgion. Even the proposition in a liberal state like California it was voted against.

Whether it is right or wrong for people's need to be labeled differently is a moot point.

[QUOTE="IrishPunk"]

[QUOTE="-Twilight-"]I don't see how that contradicts my point that it doesn't go deeper than people wanting to be labeled differently and catergorized seperately.-Twilight-

It goes against your point because people aren't going to accept something that is not allowed in their relgion. Even the proposition in a liberal state like California it was voted against.

Whether it is right or wrong for people's need to be labeled differently is a moot point.

It doesn't. But religion has a huge impact on how people live and view certain issue, this is one of them. Even people who aren't religious still think of marriage mainly as a union between a man and a woman. Until that changes, you can count on marriage being a union between a heterosexual couple.

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"]

why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.

I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.

Pirate700

I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.

Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.

How is opposite sex marriage "natural" in a way that same sex marriage isn't? The whole idea of marriage was a human idea to begin with; you don't see animals getting married, (other than to humans) do you? For what it's worth, I think "natural" is a kinda arbitrary distinction ANYWAY; everything artificial is technically natural since it's a result of what came from the natural world. The "legalize drugs" comparison is a weak analogy, since the argument with drugs is of indirect morality, the notion that drug addiction causes people to commit crimes they wouldn't otherwise; for what it's worth, I think it should depend on which particular drug you're talking about, and so long as alcohol and tobacco are legal, soft drugs like cannabis should be as well, if only for consistency, (granted, banning alcohol and tobacco would be consistent as well, but that would be less permissive and harder to enforce) but the issue of drug legalization is a separate issue. In this case, what harm does marrying the same sex do? You say it's just your beliefs, but when you say they "sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits" you're kinda pushing discrimination on them...