They decided if they want to be gay or not. It's a feeling, not a genetic inheritance, and, unless you can prove me otherwise, then you stand defeated.

A logical fallacy. You do not get to make a statement, challenge everyone to disprove it, and insist that it is untrue when they can't.

Guess what! I claim that 50% of the human race is homosexual. Can you disprove it? If you can't, then I'm right.

Bulbous Head: Correct, common sense will tell me that second-hand doesn't make my lungs feel fresh and clear, but science (a little more accurate) will also tell me that it's not causing death either. I guess I fail to see your point. Incidentallly; common sense also tells me that men marry women.

As far as the proximity inquiry: I would imagine that gays aren't going to get married and then go stay in their houses for the rest of their lives. Unless I missed something.

Ryan: There is recent and early evidence that suggests that homosexuality is genetic to a point, similar to alcoholism. Alcoholics are also not born with a bottle in their hand. At some point both of these groups do in fact make a choice that is more befitting to their desires. While alcoholics call it a disease and attempt to battle it because of it's destructive traits, homosexuals call it the way they were born and have no need to battle it because they don't view it as destructive. So, I agree that it is a choice, however it is a choice that is being shown to be partially genetically determined.

both sides must keep in mind that nature is only part of the equation. Nurture plays the other hand. While an alcoholic always fights his desires to hit the bottle, he can still avoid it to the point of living a normal life. Also, a person can become an alcoholic simply by being around alcohol enough that it becomes a way of life, therefore overriding genetic disposition to not be an alcoholic. It is logical to believe that homosexuality could be dealt thought of in the same aspect.

The difference is that an alcoholic simply doesn't have any legs to stand on when normal society calls his behaviors destructive. It is very clear that alcoholism destroy families, careers, health, freindships and contributes to the death of innocents via drunk-driving. This is why you'll never see a drunk-pride parade (unless that's what you call a monster truck show..or NASCAR). A gay man can argue that he is not destroying anything and society can only come up with weak arguements based largely on pilosophical theory of religion and family core units, plus a semi-true arguement about the spread of HIV. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the gay minority have any more right to force their habits on the rest of us anymore than other genetically predetermined personalities, because in the end, it is a choice, despite how difficult it is to make or how genetically prone you are to make the other choice.

but science (a little more accurate) will also tell me that it's not causing death either.

Can you quote any studies that demonstrate this? Or just a lack of studies that demonstrate the affirmative?

common sense also tells me that men marry women

Well, yes, when the law prevents anyone from doing marrying otherwise, that is what will happen. Invalid analogy.

I would imagine that gays aren't going to get married and then go stay in their houses for the rest of their lives.

So the mere fact that you are physically near a homosexual annoys you, or does the equivalent of making you cough near a smoker?

Lack of studies demonstrating the affirmative. But you know that. That is how science works. You just made the same argument above to RyanClarkson. It is obvious that you can't prove what doesn't exist, you can only prove that your theory is more sound than the antithesis. In other words, of course I can't prove it doesn't cause cancer via looking at a clean lung. But I can make an informed decision that if people that are around second-hand smoke have no higher rates of lung cancer than those that are not around second-hand smoke, it is not a carcinogen. Which is what recent studies show. The argument still stands.

Laws are made based mostly on common sense. It wouldn't be law if it wasn't common sense in the first place (as a general rule, not as law itsself). Analogy stands. Besides, I said common sense tells me this, not visual confirmation from my society. Common sense does have a bit to do with what you observe by your surroundings, but you must also take into consideration biological facts. Man must procreate to survive. Procreation happens between a man and a woman. A society of humans that do not copulate in this manner are victims of natural selection. Therefore, if I don't procreate, my civilization dies. Common sense tells me that I want my civilization to continue living, which requires procreation, which requires copulation between a man and a woman. Therefore, copulation between a man and a woman is necessary, copulation between a man and man, or woman and woman is destructive to my civilization. Theoretically, copulation happens exclusively with the one whom you marry. So: Common sense also tells me that men marry women. Is my analogy still invalid?


No, homosexuals don't annoy me (majority) any more than a pack of cigarrettes do. Now, once the cigarrette is lit, or the public displays of affection (whatever they may be) start, that is where the annoyance, discomfort, disgust, fear, whatever you may call it, enters the picture.

But I can make an informed decision that if people that are around second-hand smoke have no higher rates of lung cancer than those that are not around second-hand smoke, it is not a carcinogen. Which is what recent studies show.

You just said that you had a lack of studies demonstrating the affirmative, so you (1) contradicted yourself, (2) should show me these "recent studies."

Theoretically, copulation happens exclusively with the one whom you marry.

In what universe??

Is my analogy still invalid?

Very. Your argument says "gay marriage is wrong because it's uncommon and uncommon because it's illegal and illegal because it's wrong." Circular.

Now, once the cigarrette is lit, or the public displays of affection (whatever they may be) start, that is where the annoyance, discomfort, disgust, fear, whatever you may call it, enters the picture.

Only if you're a homophobe.

You wouldn't take what I claim as my sources as the last word anyway, feel free to research all you want.

That's why I said "theoretically".

No, I said gay marriage is illegal, because it's uncommon, because it's wrong, it's wrong for a slew of reasons already stated above...not circular...a complete arguement.
A circular arguement would be....The Bible is the word of God. It's the word of God because the Bible says so. We can trust it because it's the word of God. It's the word of God because the Bible says so...and so on.

To claim that just because I'm against something makes me fearful of it is a fallacy. I'm disgusted with child pornographers too. Does that make me fearful of the people that take these pictures? Does that make me a closet pedophile? No, I just recognize that they are wrong. What you erroneously define as a homophobe, is the majority of Americans.

There was a time when blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Just because most people were against inter-racial marriage means that it should not have been allowed?

You wouldn't take what I claim as my sources as the last word anyway

Clever way to avoid having to give any sources for what you claim is science.

That's why I said "theoretically".

According to whose theory? Yours?

What you erroneously define as a homophobe, is the majority of Americans.

Source for this datum?

Perhaps.

To most. Again, I'll allow you the choice of using common sense on this, but you don't have to. Most will.

Polls are still showing the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. Watch or read the news, it will come up.

Other anon user: Please read my first post. Comparing homosexuals to blacks is a shock tactic, not a legitimate discussion.

Ok...let us look back in history shall we? We will find that the same argument has happened repeatedly, and it is only a matter of time that marriage will change again. In revolutionary times, a wife became her husband's property, with no rights. In slave times, slaves (including free slaves) were not allowed to marry each other. I'm sure the government was saying "Marriage has always been between two white people, and will always be!" Sound familiar? And no, comparing gays with black people is not a rude comparison, because what it boils down to is fundamental prejudice. Gays have been prosecuted since the beginning of time because people seem to not like someone who is different.

Furthermore in history, as recently as 1967, sixteen states did not recognize marriages of mixed races. Many, many people felt "disgust, discomfort, annoyance, hatred etc." at mixed race couples.

Also some people believed and still do that mixing the races will end a "pure race" and ruin a white "civilization". Hmmm, just as much as gay marriages will deplete our 6 billion population because they do not procreate?

And really...how are gay people hurting us? How? The reason society doesn’t like cigarettes is because they kill over 4 million people a year, and give countless others lingering cancer. Are gay people killing 4 million people a year?

I really am not seeing the problem being rooted in homosexuality. I am seeing the problem rooted in the blind hatred that people have against differences in humanity, and I think that is wrong.

Not marrying somebody vs. legally getting whipped to death by your slavemaster for looking at somebody suggestively do not equal the same level of discrimination. Neither of these comparisons are extreme, but rather a common discrimination of their respective groups: So refrain from telling me that homosexuals have been killed as a result of discrimination too, I realize this. But a legitimate discussion about society works within the bounds of reality and avoids extreme examples.

I would not be ignorant enough to say that existence of gays is going to deplete the race, as it is painfully obvious that we are overpopulating. The point was more that their lack of ability to procreate goes agianst basic survival of the species and is therefore a logical and common sense reason to assume that it is unnatural. (a smart-ass may point out at this juncture that every homosexual is eligible for a Darwin Award since they are effectively taking themselves out of the gene pool)

It is my assumption (is use the word intentionally) that most society doesn't dispise cigarrettes because they kill, but rather because they stink everything up and cause unpleasantness in our lungs as second-hand smoke inhalers. Smokers are discriminated against more than any other "group" in America. Yet, alcohol kills more (innocents in car crashes being a large part), and there are still bars. Shit, even a cupcake is more deadly than a cigarrette if your speaking in numbers killed (heart disease from being the fat bastards we are), and I don't see a ban on eating sugar in public places. We as a society make some laws based on the comfort or discomfort of the majority, not their general walfare. If we did, cigarettes would be a lot more acceptable than alcohol and sugar because they destroy so much more.

So, cigarettes make the majority uncomfortable, we limit the freedom of smokers.
Homosexuality makes the majority uncomforable, we limit the freedom of homosexuals.

The point was more that their lack of ability to procreate goes agianst basic survival of the species and is therefore a logical and common sense reason to assume that it is unnatural.

Should incurably sterile couples be allowed to marry? What about elderly couples?

Shit, even a cupcake is more deadly than a cigarrette if your speaking in numbers killed (heart disease from being the fat bastards we are), and I don't see a ban on eating sugar in public places.

No, because ONE cupcake does less to destroy your heart than ONE cigarette does to destroy your lungs.

So, cigarettes make the majority uncomfortable, we limit the freedom of smokers.

Cigarettes make the majority PHYSICALLY uncomfortable. They make people cough and wheeze! If homosexuality invokes a physical, medical response from you, then you're a homophobe.

"9 people who want a gay parade surely has the right to trample the 9000 people who don't want it. Bah, whether it be religious, political, social, or racial.. To make exceptions for ONE person that inconviences MANY people..How isn't THAT IMMORAL?"

there was a time in this country when slavery was sanctioned by the majority as well, and it took a small minority to question it, when women's suffrage was just an idea in one person's mind, when the civil rights movement was just rosa parks not moving to the back of the bus. the majority is not always right and it takes a few adamant, educated people to say that they are wrong. i'm sure banning slavery "inconvenienced" all the former slave owners who lost all of the people that used to till their fields etc. and women's suffrage probably "inconvenienced" the homosocial male society that wanted to leave women without rights. and the civil rights movement was certainly "inconvenient" to all the people against equal rights in the south. being an inconvenience is no reason to stop fighting. if people submitted because they thought they were an "inconvenience," the world would be the worse for it. inconvenience means change. it makes people rethink their values and learn to be more accepting of things they previously did not understand. so suck it up. not everyone is as set in their ways as you are. thank goodness.

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. If I am not mistaken, (and I could very well be) civil union comes from the Vermont legislature as a way to allow for gay unions without having to deal with the fact that the feds had declared marriage to be between a man and a woman (when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act). I believe that a civil marriage service (ie. before the justice of the peace) is still considered marriage, not a union.

2. I personally don't fly with the separate but equal argument (civil unions vs. marriage)...for starters, I am a firm believer that the government has no right in religious matters AT ALL. Policy can not be based Christianity, Judiasm, Mother Naure or whatever you are choosing to practice. Separation of church and states is just as important, if not more so, today than it was when the founding fathers discussed it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Not allowing gay marriage is prohibiting the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

3. I have a problem with the idea that the traditions of the super-majority need to be respected--traditions that necessarily discriminate or violate fundamental human rights do not have to be respected regardless of how is purporting them.

4. I also do not believe that allowing gays to marry infringes upon the rights of heterosexuals...not one is stopping them from marrying...that's like saying giving women the vote was an infringement on the rights of men. Giving a minority rights does not go hand in hand with takiing rights away from the majority.

Bulbous Head: I'm still mystified by your ability to bring up points that are absolutely irrelevent to the arguement.
Didn't I just state that intelligent discussion on such issues must be in the realm of generalizations to be held as realistic by those that actually are looking to be informed. Comparing all homosexuals to the exceptions of heterosexuals is laughable.

That's why I clarified in numbers killed, not amounts consumed. And incidentally, that's more than likely not true. I would be a jack-ass and ask you to source your claim, but that's not my style, I can find out for myself. But I would imagine that if you ate 40 cupcakes a day, and smoked 40 cigs a day, both would be equally detrimental to your health.

Again, your way too anxious to define me as a homophobe. This is the 3rd time you've done so. I'll say it again, because clearly it didn't sink in last time...Because I disagree with something, or find it repulsive, or whatever it is that one may describe their dissonance with homosexuality as being, does not mean I fear it. I'll use another example (this one will be a little more assinine than the last because clearly, assinine comparisons are the type that are being used by "your" side, so maybe you can relate to it a little better.). I don't like vegetables. Does that mean I'm going to run away screaming if I stumble upon a garden? No. It just means I don't like vegetables, no fear involved. Here's another...I think that people who dance to Swing music look like complete nimrods and I disagree with their choice. If they come up and talk to me does my blood pulse increase, followed by perspiration and a subconsious decision to fight or run? No, of course not, I just think their half-retarded for their decisions. That doesn't mean I fear swing dancing. So do us all a favor, stop assuming that disagree=fear or disagree=hate.
If it did, I'd be espouting classic hate lines like...ALL FAGGOTS ARE GOING TO HELL BECAUSE THE GOOD BOOK SAYS SO. And clearly I have not done that. Not once have I argued the morality of it or said that homosexuals are bad people. My argument has consistently been similar to Brad's...The rights of the super-majority take precidence. My point in posting in the first place was for those in the discussion to realize that the rights of homosexuals are not even close to the attrocities of Jews, women and blacks. Therefore the comparison is irrelevant and insulting to the groups that have actually been victimized for things they had no choice in being.

Okay, what 8 words are you going to take out of context and ask pointless questions to this time?
Wait...let me guess...So does that mean you think that people who dance to swing shouldn't get married?
Or how about...The comparison is irrelevant to who? You?


Shadesofgrey...To play Devil's Advocate...
In reference to your second point...In your opinion, what should policy be based on?
I think it should be based on "basic" morality and fairness. My definition of basic lies in the realm of common sense and the majority. Which really means to me, that all laws are relative and will change according to the society involved. Of course this is with the exception of worldwide common sense values of not killing, stealing, raping.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that religion is based on these same principles...the laws of man according to common sense and fairness. However, I do find this to be problematic, as each religion will always add other "laws" that serve the makers of that religion (yes, I just implied that religion is made by man in an attempt to create ancient law), and therefore are inapplicable in my society which is different. So...policy...based on what?