many gay males have said they believe they are born gay. I do believe this to some extent, with the idea homosexuality is possibly a recessive gene along the same line as the red-hair gene. I believe if people realize that it really isn’t their choice…they will be more hesistant to throw the bible at them haha that’s all dude…
[quote]nickendres wrote:
touche’…alright, well what do you think made you gay? Different thinking pattern, additive in the food, just throwing out suggestion, I am genuinley interested on your belief.[/quote]
Nobody really knows what determines sexual orientation. There is some pretty good evidence for a genetic component, but who knows? Maybe there is a social component as well. All I know is that I never chose to be gay, any more than people choose to be straight. I think people are who they are, and in most cases you can’t change your basic sexual orientation.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
So what happens to the “oh it’s unnatural” argument if being gay ends up being a genetically hardwired thing?[/quote]
Good point, I don’t think the “unnatural” argument holds up in that case.
[quote]nickendres wrote:
many gay males have said they believe they are born gay. I do believe this to some extent, with the idea homosexuality is possibly a recessive gene along the same line as the red-hair gene. I believe if people realize that it really isn’t their choice…they will be more hesistant to throw the bible at them haha that’s all dude…[/quote]
There is some evidence that it might be passed along the maternal line, so maybe you are right about it being a recessive gene.
I’m not sure that sexuality being hardwired really makes a difference to fundamentalists, though. After all, even if you don’t choose your sexual orientation you can still choose whether or not to act on it. It may mean a life of repression and loneliness, but that is a small price to pay compared to living forever in hell.
Course, I don’t believe that homosexuality is morally wrong so that argument doesn’t carry any weight for me. And even if it did, I don’t think people have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others 
[quote]forlife wrote:
nickendres wrote:
touche’…alright, well what do you think made you gay? Different thinking pattern, additive in the food, just throwing out suggestion, I am genuinley interested on your belief.
Nobody really knows what determines sexual orientation. There is some pretty good evidence for a genetic component, but who knows? Maybe there is a social component as well. All I know is that I never chose to be gay, any more than people choose to be straight. I think people are who they are, and in most cases you can’t change your basic sexual orientation. [/quote]
Wow, all we need is for Zeb to reply and it would be like old times, good to see you around forlife.
Hey Aussie, I don’t mind if Zeb skips the thread. I learned last time that endless debate gets you nowhere. I’m just here to share my perspective, rather than try to convince people of anything
[quote]orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I would actually be interested in your thoughts on the slippery slope arguments that people make. That extending legal benefits to gay people paves the way to extending them to other arrangements such as polygamy. If you think it’s a legitimate argument.
Also what you think of those kinds of arrangements. The distinction you make between gay relationships and those arrangements. And whether benefits SHOULD also be extended to them or whether they should NOT be in your opinion.
My personal opinion is that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want, as long as it involves consenting adults and there is no inherent harm in doing so.
That aside, I see a qualitative difference between gay relationships and polygamous relationships. Gay relationships are a reflection of the way a person is hard wired, while polygamous relationships are a reflection of social/religious beliefs. You can’t choose whether or not to be gay. Not that both aren’t potentially valid relationships, but I do see them as being fundamentally different.
Whoa, trust me I am hard wired to be polygamous, and so is the human species as a whole.
And yes there is serious evidence to support this, like the difference in size between men and women and the size of the male testicles.
So it is more appropriate to say that monogamous relationship are a reflection of religious beliefs, for better or worse.
[/quote]
Monogomous relationships are a reflection of moral beliefs and committment. I do believe we are geared towards polygamy. That’s what makes monogamy so meaningful and such a great gift to your spouse/partner. It’s loving someone so much that you’re willing to make a committment to that person and resist all temptation. It’s the ultimate gift. I think it’s one of the things that separates us from animals too. Not just choosing monogamy over polygamy. But that we can make choices and committ to leaving our lives a certain way as a general matter rather than just following our instincts. I also don’t think we are COMPLETELY hardwired to be polygamous. I think there’s an strong innate feeling of betrayal in the wake of infidelity that is more than just cultural. I’m not saying polygamy is inherently bad. I’m fine with it IF it’s freely entered and all parties are all happy in the arrangement. But monogamy is meaningful BECAUSE it’s hard. It’s too bad that this thread is just starting to get interesting just when I will literally have NO time to post.
I think there’s only a feeling of betrayal when your partner violates the terms that define your relationship. There are couples (gay and straight) that allow for various degrees of “polysexuality”, and as long as both stay within those consensual conditions there isn’t any betrayal.
Traditionally, the definition of marriage has included the default agreement that the couple remain sexually monogamous. Do you think this should continue to be the case?
My partner and I are monogamous, but I know others that have different agreements. As long as people stay true to whatever they agree upon, I see nothing wrong with it.
I see all the “anti-gay marriage” people have run away.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I see all the “anti-gay marriage” people have run away.[/quote]
There is little left to cover. We haven’t seen anything new - gay marriage is the nose in the tent of any and all forms of alternative relationships getting public sanction, and that spells the end of the public institution of marriage, as it would be defined out of existence.
This point was conceded pages ago - and, in fact, applauded by some of a libertarian bent as a good result.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I see all the “anti-gay marriage” people have run away.
There is little left to cover. We haven’t seen anything new - gay marriage is the nose in the tent of any and all forms of alternative relationships getting public sanction, and that spells the end of the public institution of marriage, as it would be defined out of existence.
This point was conceded pages ago - and, in fact, applauded by some of a libertarian bent as a good result.[/quote]
That wasn’t really directed at you.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
That wasn’t really directed at you.[/quote]
And yet, I answered it nonetheless.
There we go.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And I’m still waiting for JS to offer up some proof as to why Polygamy is so very bad and should not be next in line for marriage rights.[/quote]
And that is a still-unanswered question. The entire enterprise of the gay marriage movement is predicated on the idea that consenting adult relationships deserve “equality” with binary heterosexual relationships on the relativistic notion that one relationship isn’t better than another.
That works just as well for consenting polygamy and every other relationship.
There isn’t a good rebuttal we have seen - so the old conclusion remains.
Well I’m of the opinion that polygamy should be legal.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Well I’m of the opinion that polygamy should be legal.[/quote]
I would not particularly have a problem with it if the primary effect would not foster Utah, compound-like, cultish, pseudo-slave polygamy. From things I’ve read in the past, it’s a big problem.
I will go back and see what I can find on the status of polygamy in this country when I have time. If it’s just isolated incidents and the majority of polygamous relationships are truly consenting, I don’t particularly care.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I would not particularly have a problem with it if the primary effect would not foster Utah, compound-like, cultish, pseudo-slave polygamy. From things I’ve read in the past, it’s a big problem. I will go back and see what I can find on the status of polygamy in this country when I have time. If it’s just isolated incidents and the majority of polygamous relationships are truly consenting, I don’t particularly care. [/quote]
I see what you mean, but we do have laws in place to prevent old men from marrying 4 year old girls. And I’m almost certain marriage has to be an agreement between consenting adults.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…gay marriage is the nose in the tent of any and all forms of alternative relationships getting public sanction, and that spells the end of the public institution of marriage, as it would be defined out of existence.
[/quote]
How does allowing consenting adults to enter a civil contract of marriage spell the end of the public institution of marriage?
Maybe it spells the end of what you personally define marriage to be, but other countries define marriage differently. Having a different definition of marriage doesn’t make marriage obsolete any more than allowing women to vote makes voting obsolete.