Why is the gay marriage debate so polarized??

Why should any heterosexual give a two fucks if homosexual marriage is legal. It will barely effect heterosexuals if it does at all. Also your moral and religious shit is just a stupid reason to back your claim up; if your 'God' is saying its bad to be homosexual how about you listen to your 'God'. Don't force your 'God's' will upon other people by restricting them of freedoms that you have. Damn.

And now I need to check if there are rules against celebrating this sort of thing.

EDIT:

Nope. PARTY ON!

In honesty, I think nationwide legalization of homosexual marriage in the United States will happen. Might not be as soon as many would like.

Holy shit he actually banned Dayton.

Hey, lets not keep going on the beat up Dayton bandwagon and get back to discussing with others. . .This way the thread does not get locked.
I see no point in posting about him when he is gone.

Are we to consider this SB's early Christmas gift?

Yeah, I can already see that lol.

And with that, you prove your ignorance. Both of homosexuality - unsurprising, as I doubt you've ever taken the time or effort to evaluate or research the facts from unbiased sources - and of scientific and critical thinking in general. The fact that some people change orientation over the course of their lifespans in no way leads to the conclusion that it's a choice, any more than the fact people grow larger and change hair colour leads to the conclusion the we're natural latent shapeshifters who can alter our forms by wanting it hard enough.

The fact that gay people crop up, as has been said, in places where they face astounding amounts of aggression, prejudice and danger - prejudice and danger that I doubt you've ever faced, and thus don't understand - clearly indicates the opposite. Read up on some of the barbaric things that are done, right now, in the modern day, to gay people in countries where it's still illegal to love someone of the same sex. Ask yourself whether, if it was truly a choice, anyone would ever "choose" to be gay in these places.

Here's a hint. There are gay people in said places. They're not choosing to be straight.

And further than that, you say that you are against homosexuality because of your religion. Well, that's very nice. Fuck you too, by the way. I'm going to declare that you are against my religion. Not anything about you, not anything you can change. Just your general existence. So I'm going to do everything in my power, up to and including outright, blatant lies, to restrict your rights, persecute you, level social stigma and hatred at you, engender a general sense of distrust and distaste towards you, and generally treat you like crap. There's nothing you can do about this, and I'm actually going to say that, you know, I'm doing a good thing here. I'm doing it because I love you. All you have to do is totally change who you are and how you behave to suit my preferences and my views of the world, and you'll be much happier. My religion says so, you see. You're twisted, and sickening, and wrong, but I'm a good person, and I love you, so I'm going to levy my campaign of hatred against you with your best interests at heart. And if you get frustrated at this and insult me, then... well, I'll just have to bear that. Like a martyr. Because while you're choosing to be so hateful, for no reason - since I'm honestly trying to help you - I'm offering you a chance at redemption anyway.

You will probably try to say that this isn't a realistic parallel. That your religion is better, because it's older and has lots of big buildings and money and spiritual weight, and that makes it somehow more valid to do this to people who have never - and would never - raise a finger against you. That I'm overexaggerating the sheer extent of the smug, arrogant, sickeningly self-important bile levelled at homosexuals, justified as being "for their own good", "to help them get better" - as if there's anything wrong with them - or "because they're abominations". You'll say that I'm being rude, pushy, loud, that I should talk calmly in response to your shameless statement that you're going to stop me and mine from being happy on the word of a two thousand year old tome that's been edited so many times that barely any of it is even still original - which has me almost physically shaking in rage, I might add. That you have some sort of right to declare, with pompous gait and stuck up nose, what is and is not allowed behaviour to people that you have no authority over whatsoever.

Bullshit. Justifications. Excuses. Weasel words.

I will never, ever stop. Not until I get freedom, and everyone like me gets freedom. I will not stand by and let you, and people like you, smugly refuse to allow us to be happy - and happy in a way that doesn't hurt you, doesn't affect you, doesn't include you at all, because you are totally unimportant in relationships that don't include you - and then have the barefaced, shameless audacity to claim that you hold nothing against us, and are doing it for our own good, and that you are in the right.

And one day - and I dearly, dearly, dearly hope I live to see it - one day, we will get that, and have our time in the sun, and the old, decrepit fools who babble on about "thou shalt not" and "abonimations" will be met with polite smiles and nods from their grandchildren, who grew up with openly gay friends and are entirely comfortable with the existence of homosexuals, and who see them as people rather than targets. And they'll smile, and they'll nod, because it makes grandma and grandpa happy.

And then their visit will come to a close, and they'll leave, and all of the tripe and bile and nonsense will be forgotten and ignored.

And I'll smile, and laugh, and love, and live. And that will be all the revenge I need against the people who think I shouldn't be allowed to do any of those things, that I should either not be allowed to laugh and love, or that I should cease to live as who I am, and be forced to become something I'm not.

Personally? I hope that day comes soon.

Crowning Moment of Awesome of the entire thread.

Despite being a muslim, I see no reason why other couples should not be able to marry while gay, as I'm reasonably sure the 'don't oppress others/be a tyrant' line in the quran applies here in a major way.

I think that it is silly to attempt to govern a legally secular country in a religious way anyways and I-

-I...

uh...

I....I need to compose myself for the correct response to this momentous event.

[yt]3GwjfUFyY6M&ob=av3e[/yt]

As a christian, all I can say is this. *double-thumbs up*

... *blushes*

Um. Yes. That was meant to just be a "no, people don't choose to be gay" post.

It sort of... boiled over. Slightly.

*faintly embarrassed look*

Actually, with Dayton's permanent vacation that makes two CMoAs in this thread. On the same page.

I'm so bookmarking this thread forever.

This thread makes me have the largest face grin I ever had.

Also, FYI, male homosexuality has been empirically shown to be biologically inheritable, and that it naturally trends towards 10% of the population. This is because the same genes that produce gay men also produce fertile women, making it evolutionarily advantageous.

Evolution, as always, doesn't give a shit about the suffering caused by intralocus sexual conflict, any more than it gives a shit about the suffering caused by interlocus sexual conflict.

Or for that matter, the ultimate irony, which is that evolution is responsible for religion existing. Memetic ideas might not be conventional lifeforms, but they have the same capacity for selection and adaptation as one with a double helix.

@Aleph

You don't have to believe a word I said I'll still stand by my faith.

Now in regards to homosexuals choosing to be gay since I have personally known an "ex-homosexual" who claims he is no longer homosexual and I have seen other stories like his then I will have to conclude that they can change if they desire it and if this can happen they aren't pre-destined to be homosexual. The homosexuals being oppressed and refusing to change are doing it for two main reasons. One they obviously enjoy something about the homosexual lifestyle, Two oppression is a horrible tool to convince someone to do something instead it creates a defensive response to the one being oppressed its just natural human behavior. A third possibility exists that they have managed to hard-code in their orientation through their life experiences making it difficult to think differently but not impossible.

A good way to answer this is why are there Christians living in North Korea when its obviously a great disadvantage to being Christian especially if the government is willing to torture you, and execute you in the most brutal fashions they can think of like running your head over with a steam roller? By answering this question you can answer your question. You could say maybe they were born that way. Scientists have been trying to find a so-called "god gene" for years infact they even have some proof that religious people's minds operate a little differently than atheists and some claim they have actually found it, so maybe religious people like Christians truly are born that way and simply can't change, do I believe this nope instead I firmly believe we have a choice in how we act and think.

Let us leave the religious side alone for now. . .
What would it take to persuade you that sexuality is not a choice?

The "ex-homosexual" thing is kind of a shaky argument. I mean, for every story about a guy cured of being gay, there's a story of an ex-gay guy who killed himself because there was just something about his life that made him secretly completely miserable.

You can't tell if a person is gay or not just from what they claim. People who have spoken out adamantly about the evils of homosexuality have themselves been caught performing the acts that they have so vehemently decried.

This argument about choice can go both ways.

Q. Why would a person who is threatened punishment for doing something do that thing anyway?

A1. Because it is simply an unchangeable part of their identity, as some parts of a person's identity are set in stone.

A2. Because they have convinced themselves that they have no choice.

Q. Why would a person who wants to do something deny that they want to do that thing, and in fact threaten others who want to do said thing with punishment?

A1. Because that person was tempted to do that thing, as anyone can like anything given the right context

A2. Because they have convinced themselves that they have no choice.

The keyword here is "denial." What is more plausible; the "straight man" who has had his peers, his family, and the media talking in his brain and telling him to be straight, suddenly convincing himself that he is gay? Or the gay man, who has had the same environment, convincing himself that he is straight?

Now, to keep from offending you, I will offer an alternative, concessional argument that you may use interchangeably with the above argument.

---

Well, could it be that your friend is bisexual, and just doesn't mind having half of his/her potential partners being off-limits?

People never seem to factor in bisexuals.

Let me put it this way. America is a country of many different religions. Even closely related conservative sects like Pentecostals and Southern Baptists have serious theological differences. Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians and Lutherans in the general category of "mainline" Protestantism don't agree on issues of predestination and the nature of sacraments. Catholics are the largest single religious population but no more than a third of the population, and are estranged from the Orthodox Church with which they are in almost total doctrinal agreement. Then there are non-Christian religions, like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and neo-pagan revivalism, all of which have substantial enough representation in the population. If America is to be governed by religious morality, then, whose?

The unspoken assumption is naturally "mine."

If you believe the tenants of your religion are unquestionably correct, then that assumption is perfectly reasonable. You have The Truth on your side, and according to your beliefs only the unreasonably intransigent and willfully sinful could deny it once they have been presented with it. However there are many different religions and perspectives which may confuse people and drive them away from recognizing The Truth. And every single person confused in error will be sentenced by your all-loving, all-just God to an eternity of torment in a lake of fire. Compassion demands that you do everything possible to save people from such a fate. Their pleas to respect their rights are meaningless, because they are practicing falsehood, error, and many even deliberately sin against God because they gain prideful enjoyment from it. Those who rebel against The Truth are in rebellion against God and justice and morality. Falsehood has no rights against The Truth, and its existence merely condemns to eternal torment those who might be saved. Suppressing the errors, falsehoods, and blatant sinfulness may very well require a lot of violence, but those who resist are damned entirely anyway. If even one additional soul can be saved it would justify any measure of repression against the so-called rights of unbelievers.

Well, thank you Torquemada. And well, the Inquisition kept Spain a ferociously Catholic nation for centuries. It accomplished its aim. But if your particular sect does not have the power to impose its will that way... Welcome to Germany, circa 1630. Because it turns out those false believers wallowing in error have their own convictions. And they believe you are spreading falsehood and repressing truth. They're mired in error and sin, blinded to The Truth by their own sinful pride... but they also have armies. And by the time everyone comes to their senses, a third of the population of the country has been exterminated, without much regard for what they believed.

It is not too much of a stretch to say that the Enlightenment and Rationalism developed as a response to the wars over religion. And the secularism it spawned must rest on a basis of assuming that no particular religion is absolute truth. Divorcing the operations of the state from religious morality evades the need to decide which sect possesses The Truth. Every citizen relates to the state as an individual with equal rights, rather than as part of a confessional community struggling to impose its beliefs on the rest. You may find salvation or go to Hell in your own way, so long as you do not disturb the tenuous social order. So, in that vein, let us not rely on our particular religious beliefs to justify our position on how the state ought to relate to its citizens. The state does not share your religion, nor can it, without igniting a struggle to impose a particular vision on all citizens. If you pull out Paul to justify oppression of homosexuals, there is no reason not to pull out Leviticus and "graven images" to justify banning icons or driving Hindus out of the country. There is no reason that Catholics or Muslims or Buddhists or atheists should be any more tolerated than gays, if you are intent on pushing your version of The Truth on the state.

But we've already seen where that leads. So, leaving aside any Biblical verse or claim that "God hates homosexuality" (He seems to be fine with lesbians, anyway) why then should we not allow two men or two women to enter into a civil contract which is called "marriage" but which is not a sacrament or ceremony conducted according to your religion?

And in related news I have a new line for my sig.

Amen, and amen.

Well done, Aleph, well done.

This. Even if the debate about homosexuality is polarized, hyperbolic and often hateful, it seems undeniable that homosexuality is becoming more accepted in the West, among Christians as well as others. Hopefully, in the mean time until it is accepted, as many tragedies as possible can be avoided.

I was going to post something about a medical study showing a statistically significant correlation between birth order, womb conditions (specifically the mother's antibodies for one particular protein involved in brain development), and male homosexuality in response to the "being gay is a choice" but I don't have the book that cited the study handy and Aleph posted. There really isn't anything that can be said to follow up that post of hers.

+1 to Aleph, I guess. I don't even know what else to say.

I'm a Roman Catholic and I say this is the best ever!