Those opposed to "gay marriage" will you explain your position to me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being heterosexual is the basis of evolution.

Cool. So?

I'm pro evolution.

That's great, me too. It seems to be working just fine despite there being gay people around for thousands of years.

And also gay animals. Every couple years various scientists do studies and conclude that among various animal populations -- penguins are the one I read most recently, I think -- there's something like 5 to 10% of the population that engages in what we would characterize as gay behavior. Same-sex pairings, that is. There are various theories why. At least one is that it is actually a positive adaptive trait -- not for the individual, who isn't spreading his or her genes, but for the community at large.

I saw a bull having anal sex with another bull.


Not.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/

Just one of many examples if you do some googling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being heterosexual is the basis of evolution.

Cool. So?

I'm pro evolution.

That's great, me too. It seems to be working just fine despite there being gay people around for thousands of years.

Nope, we need to evolve to a much higher level and homosexuals are slowing us down with their circle jerk.

Well you sure need to evolve.

You hate science and logic. Must be a liberal.

I am indeed a liberal. Which is why I love science and logic -- neither of which you have displayed. Perhaps you could lay out in a logical fashion just how homosexuals are "slowing us down." Also, the logic of why it's bad for them to marry. Because there have been very few logical arguments to that effect in this thread. Other than one or two posters, the main response has been "because it's against my religion" -- and I think most people would agree that religion relies on faith, not on logic, and definitely not on science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being heterosexual is the basis of evolution.

Cool. So?

I'm pro evolution.

That's great, me too. It seems to be working just fine despite there being gay people around for thousands of years.

Nope, we need to evolve to a much higher level and homosexuals are slowing us down with their circle jerk.

Well you sure need to evolve.

You hate science and logic. Must be a liberal.

I am indeed a liberal. Which is why I love science and logic -- neither of which you have displayed. Perhaps you could lay out in a logical fashion just how homosexuals are "slowing us down." Also, the logic of why it's bad for them to marry. Because there have been very few logical arguments to that effect in this thread. Other than one or two posters, the main response has been "because it's against my religion" -- and I think most people would agree that religion relies on faith, not on logic, and definitely not on science.

If everyone was gay what would happen to evolution. You are not fit to be an actual scientist you are a "feelings first" scientist, which is worse than a creationist.

[Anonymous]

Actually, gay people are thought to be an evolutionary advantage as they strengthen society by being caretakers to their kin's children. Also, and I know this one hurts- gay people are having biological children. They're still in the evolutionary game.

[Anonymous]

And also 'everyone' is not going to be gay. Will permitting marriage for gay people make you gay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, gay people are thought to be an evolutionary advantage as they strengthen society by being caretakers to their kin's children. Also, and I know this one hurts- gay people are having biological children. They're still in the evolutionary game.

Also global warming isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, gay people are thought to be an evolutionary advantage as they strengthen society by being caretakers to their kin's children. Also, and I know this one hurts- gay people are having biological children. They're still in the evolutionary game.

Also global warming isn't true.

Fact.

I mean you only have to look at how cold it has been this winter to see that it is a fallacy...

[Anonymous]

What the hell? Not everyone is going to be gay. It's just statistically impossible.

Some percentage of our population is. Fact. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think being gay is a choice for most, as I think the straight to gay line is just a continuum based on societal, culrural and genetic factors. To argue otherwise is an insult to gay people. In other cultures, with less of a religious objection to gayness, the percentage is much higher. So, in other words, a small number are 100% gay, but most are somewhere on the scale.

All that said, I think having less gays is better for the society (but not zero), stop I don't want more people making the choice. I'd like to keep it around 2-3%.

And I assume you also feel that being heterosexual is a choice as well, right? You chose to be hetero rather than to be gay?

Yes. I'd be fine with being gay. In ancient greece or rome I'd probably be gay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think being gay is a choice for most, as I think the straight to gay line is just a continuum based on societal, culrural and genetic factors. To argue otherwise is an insult to gay people. In other cultures, with less of a religious objection to gayness, the percentage is much higher. So, in other words, a small number are 100% gay, but most are somewhere on the scale.

All that said, I think having less gays is better for the society (but not zero), stop I don't want more people making the choice. I'd like to keep it around 2-3%.

ROARING with laughter at this.

Why is it so funny? Do you think people are either 100% gay or 100% straight?

No but I think your quotas are beyond hilarious. Sorry sir, 3% of the population are already declared as gay. I am afraid you will have to be straight until such time as one of them dies…

It is ludicrous beyond belief to think that you can (or that we should want to) set targets for who people fall in love with.

Eh, that's fine. Point is, I don't want to make it so accepted as to make many more choose that lifestyle. I do think it absolutely a choice for many. I think one mom and one dad best for kids, and areas that are too gay seem problematic for other reasons. I could easily see the percentages, especially admit women, go higher than 10%.

[Anonymous]

Who the hell would choose to be hated? No matter how many states allow them to marry, there are bigots out there who will continue to tell them how bad and wrong they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slippery slope. How about polygamy? Incest? Bestiality?

Predictably, DCUMers will come back at me with an ad hominem but do you have an actual reason why this wouldn't devolve as such?

Erm do you have any actual reason why it would?

Otherwise you may as well conjecture that it would devolve into tickle-fests or people eating spaghetti off toothbrushes because those things are about as connected to being gay as the things you mention...

Because the legal wranglings aren't really about being gay, they're about the equal opportunity to marry whom you want to marry. The argument is being pushed now in the form of gay marriage, but as a PP so eloquently posted, that's just one movement of the line. There's no reason to think the line won't now continue to move, and if it does, is that a good or bad thing.

But there continues to be a line requiring two consenting adults. Surely that is the important principle here? With bestiality, incest etc the 'two consenting adults' principle is breached in a way that it simply isn't with gay marriage.

I grant your point when it comes to bestiality or someone ridiculously wanting to marry their house. But when you move into polyamory or incest between adults, then it still is about consenting adults. The fact that two or more people consent doesn't by default mean it's a good thing - for them, their family, and/or society writ large.

And the children becomes victims in those cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think being gay is a choice for most, as I think the straight to gay line is just a continuum based on societal, culrural and genetic factors. To argue otherwise is an insult to gay people. In other cultures, with less of a religious objection to gayness, the percentage is much higher. So, in other words, a small number are 100% gay, but most are somewhere on the scale.

All that said, I think having less gays is better for the society (but not zero), stop I don't want more people making the choice. I'd like to keep it around 2-3%.

ROARING with laughter at this.

Why is it so funny? Do you think people are either 100% gay or 100% straight?

No but I think your quotas are beyond hilarious. Sorry sir, 3% of the population are already declared as gay. I am afraid you will have to be straight until such time as one of them dies…

It is ludicrous beyond belief to think that you can (or that we should want to) set targets for who people fall in love with.

Eh, that's fine. Point is, I don't want to make it so accepted as to make many more choose that lifestyle. I do think it absolutely a choice for many. I think one mom and one dad best for kids, and areas that are too gay seem problematic for other reasons. I could easily see the percentages, especially admit women, go higher than 10%.

Stop, stop <wipes eyes>. You are too funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is over the word marriage. Gay marriage by any other name would receive a lot less resistance.

That's right. Marriage has religious connotations . Gays are more interested in changing the bible and convincing the majority that sodomy is not a sin than in getting married. Everybody knows why AIDS and STDs flourish in the gay community. Sometimes sin is actually dangerous and unhealthy.

Gay marriage is not about Christians. Do you think everything is always all about you?

If every Christian disappeared tomorrow, I would still want the legal protections of marriage for my family.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Willful ignorance is the only explanation I can think of.

You have willful ignorance. A marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Period. What are you not understanding?if this is about protection for your "family" than a civil union with the same rights as a marriage is what will solve all of this craziness. Secondly, children with gay parents have psychological problems stemming from the isolation from the biological missing parent. How you can ignore this and exploit children for your own selfish desire is unconscionable. I am vehemently opposed to the laws allowing abuse of children- ie gays procuring kids. In the case of adoption, I'd accept that as a last resort. In that case a gay home is better than a life in the streets.

Exactly. What this is really about is trying to force what some consider the 'right' way of thinking down another person's throat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is over the word marriage. Gay marriage by any other name would receive a lot less resistance.

That's right. Marriage has religious connotations . Gays are more interested in changing the bible and convincing the majority that sodomy is not a sin than in getting married. Everybody knows why AIDS and STDs flourish in the gay community. Sometimes sin is actually dangerous and unhealthy.

Hold on here. How can anyone "change the bible"? I didn't realize it could be changed. Interesting concept.

AIDS and STD's actually flourish in the heterosexual community too and not because of blood transfusions. Heterosexuals engage in some risky activities too.

In my life marriage has no religious connotations. We were married by a marriage commissioner, our marriage is recognized as legal. That's all we were interested in. If the church doesn't accept it.. any church? Oh well. My brother's marriage wasn't accepted either.. his wife was Catholic and had been divorced. So by some standards then, they weren't really married. They just had a nice ceremony and legal documents etc. But they weren't married. That's apparently reserved for special people of the right beliefs.