How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

[The Corrupt Plague]

I see nothing wrong at all with homosexuality and I'm all for same sex marriage because I don't see how it's hurting anybody. I'm pretty sure that right now, gay is becoming the new black because I am seeing a few parallels with the civil rights movement. A step for gay rights would definitely be a step in the right direction because isn't everyone supposed to be equal?

 

[Hyperlust]

I'm all for same-sex marraige. I'm Bisexual and it's just crazy that if I have intense feelings for a boy then sure! I could marry them. But if I were to have those exact same feelings for a girl then well I can just go get f**ked, can't I.

I would say it's about Love but like what was mentioned on Family Guy or something, if gay people want to suffer like all other married couples, then let them/us.

 

[Misheard Whisper]

I have a close family member who's gay, but I don't know anyone who has a problem with him, or gay people in general. I mean, I know there's a lot of hate and homophobia out there, but those are just the stupid people that are scared of what they don't understand, and it's them we should be running over in steamrollers. /obscurereferencesftw

I reckon if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman a woman, who are we to say that's wrong? Love is love, right? I don't see how anybody thinks they have the right to get in the way of that.

 

[Hyperlust]

I mean, I know there's a lot of hate and homophobia out there, but those are just the stupid people that are scared of what they don't understand

I also notice, mostly with guys, that if they support same sex marriage it's like they're "gay" themselves and since they consider it to be SO negative, they're against it completely.

 

[Shining Raichu]

Whether or not those decisions will affect others can be debated until the cows come home. What you stated was your opinion.

Don't be condescending, it's not a good colour on you.

I also notice, mostly with guys, that if they support same sex marriage it's like they're "gay" themselves and since they consider it to be SO negative, they're against it completely.

This comes from bullying. If a straight guy is in support of gay rights, then the neanderthals in the grade make fun of him for being gay, even though he's not. It's a matter of volume. If anything is going to change then we need to be as loud as they are.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Don't be condescending, it's not a good colour on you.

How is stating difference between a fact and an opinion being condescending? And how is that SPAM?

Big issues during the Prop 8 campaign were how its failure would effect society. For example, people worried that churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Another concern was that public schools would be forced to teach about homosexuality without allowing for parental opting-out. Lo and behold, California is considering making homosexuality a part of public school instruction. Also, it should be noted that Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Mass. because the state was forcing them to placed children in same-sex households.

I would hardly say that legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone else.

 

[lx_theo]

How is stating difference between a fact and an opinion being condescending? And how is that SPAM?

Big issues during the Prop 8 campaign were how its failure would effect society. For example, people worried that churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Another concern was that public schools would be forced to teach about homosexuality without allowing for parental opting-out. Lo and behold, California is considering making homosexuality a part of public school instruction. Also, it should be noted that Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Mass. because the state was forcing them to placed children in same-sex households.

I would hardly say that legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone else.

It affects discriminating organizations?

 

[Dawn]

Homosexuality occurs in over 450 species. Homophobia occurs in one. Which seems unnatural now?

Bisexuality occurs in over 450 species. I've yet to see evidence of other species actually going out of their way to deny the opposite gender. That's an important distinction to make, even if it doesn't necessarily sound quite as pleasing to your argument as what you were saying. While your point might not be wrong based on this, someone else already made a fallacy due to the failure to distinct the two, and if we're going to legalize same-sex marriage, we should do it for the right reasons, yes?

They don't hurt people based on unchangeable characteristics or opinions, which is what you're proposing to keep doing.

Animals hurt eachother all the time based on unchangeable characteristics. It's called judging whether to attack what is usually prey, but in some cases may even simply be a fight for dominance. Their judgement usually involves opinions as well.

All I'm simply saying is that the 'Homosexuality is unnatural' argument is invalid.

Of course, your judgement of his argument is based on a fallacy. See my statement about distinction between bisexuality and homosexuality. Arguably, humans are very strange for having such a large strictly homosexual population. Am I saying it's wrong? Absolutely not. Strange is not necessarily bad. It is what it is. It's also arguable that what is natural is completely subjective, which is probably a more solid point for invalidating the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument.

They answered your question, and you're ignoring them because...why?

Because I find their answer arguably suspicious. I'd go on to explain what my issues are, but I'm not allowed to do that, evidently.

 

[Mattxy8]

Well I am Baptist Christian, so I dont think people of the Same-Sex should get married, I dont anything against HomoSexuals, Its just that marriage is suspose to be between a Man and a Women.

 

[BareBones]

Of course, your judgement of his argument is based on a fallacy. See my statement about distinction between bisexuality and homosexuality. Arguably, humans are very strange for having such a large strictly homosexual population. Am I saying it's wrong? Absolutely not. Strange is not necessarily bad. It is what it is. It's also arguable that what is natural is completely subjective, which is probably a more solid point for invalidating the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument.

Oh, I get that. However, if a bisexual person is in a same-sex relationship the argument against them will be "that's unnatural!", if a bisexual person is in an opposite-sex relationship nobody will bat an eyelid. So whilst I suppose what I said isn't entirely true, the aspect of it is.

I can't figure out how to word this properly, and for that I apologise. I hope you get what I meant, though.

EDIT: After careful consideration, I'd like to refer to the link I provided before. There it states it is 'homosexuality' and not 'bisexuality'. Please, if you're going to make a statement like that, provide evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

I apologise for the evidence I'm providing not being the most... credible. But there you go, there's my evidence on the quote.

EDIT... AGAIN: Okay disregard this entire post. I got the evidence at about 4am in the morning and I clearly didn't read it well enough. Nevermind.

 

[Steven]

Bisexuality occurs in over 450 species. I've yet to see evidence of other species actually going out of their way to deny the opposite gender. That's an important distinction to make, even if it doesn't necessarily sound quite as pleasing to your argument as what you were saying. While your point might not be wrong based on this, someone else already made a fallacy due to the failure to distinct the two, and if we're going to legalize same-sex marriage, we should do it for the right reasons, yes?



Animals hurt eachother all the time based on unchangeable characteristics. It's called judging whether to attack what is usually prey, but in some cases may even simply be a fight for dominance. Their judgement usually involves opinions as well..

Obviously, you've done absolutely no research what-so-ever and you're just speaking what sounds logical to yourself without any basis of proof.

 

[Hyperlust]

This comes from bullying. If a straight guy is in support of gay rights, then the neanderthals in the grade make fun of him for being gay, even though he's not. It's a matter of volume. If anything is going to change then we need to be as loud as they are.

I couldn't agree more. It's so disheartening trying to talk to a male friend about it in a serious manner and have them brush it off with "ew gaybo" and that's it.

 

[lx_theo]

I couldn't agree more. It's so disheartening trying to talk to a male friend about it in a serious manner and have them brush it off with "ew gaybo" and that's it.

As a person that associates mainly with the more academically accomplished group of my high school class, this has not been a major problem. A few people have a it out for gay people because of religious reasons, but beyond that any real discussions in that matter tend to be more civil than described in quote.

Now, with other crowds its a bit different. To me it seems like its a matter of the bullying example explained by Shining Raichu, and the idea of not caring enough, that push whether or not the masses question it (whether swayed by religious views or not). Unless people are directly effected by it (like by being it themselves or having a friend/family member with the preference), they will not care. It doesn't hurt them, why should they make any initiative to change it? The masses just usually go with the quick answer, which in this case, is referencing their religion.

 

[Dawn]

Obviously, you've done absolutely no research what-so-ever and you're just speaking what sounds logical to yourself without any basis of proof.

Ow, my toes.
You want /proof/ that an animal is not in fact homosexual if it also likes the opposite sex?

Okay then. If I honestly need to pull out the dictionary I will~

bisexual - A person who is emotionally and/or sexually oriented towards both sexes. Once viewed primarily as a phase of gay or lesbian development, bisexuality is now regarded as a valid, independent sexual identity.

A clinical term first used over a century ago, often used inaccurately, to label people who are emotional, physically, and/or sexually attracted or committed to members of the same sex. Used appropriately, it refers to affectional and or sexual behaviour between people of the same sex.

There you go, homosexuality and bisexuality should not be used interchangeably. That is a grave disrespect. Now, I'm going to go refute the evidence BareBones gave. In the process of doing that, I will provide further evidence.

EDIT: After careful consideration, I'd like to refer to the link I provided before. There it states it is 'homosexuality' and not 'bisexuality'. Please, if you're going to make a statement like that, provide evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

I apologise for the evidence I'm providing not being the most... credible. But there you go, there's my evidence on the quote.

Okay... let me show you why using the word homosexual is technically wrong.
First link:

Male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in gay sex to practice mating

Now, as you can see, they refer to it as practice mating. Clearly there are females in this species and they are not restrictive only to the males. Therefore, clearly they are attracted to both, and are bisexual. Yet, that article calls them homosexual. What I'm doing here, is pointing out a very clear problem with the evidence. The article says these are homosexual species, yet CLEARLY they are not.

There are also single gender species on that list. While they do only mate with members of their own gender, that does not imply that should a member of their opposite sex start existing, they would not be attracted to it. That would be jumping the gun. Considering most things we know are or evolved from more simple organisms that were probably single gendered, I'm prone to suspect that they would be.

Second Article:

In most instances, it is presumed that the homosexual behavior is but part of the animal's overall sexual behavioral repertoire, making the animal "bisexual" rather than "homosexual" as the terms are commonly understood in humans.

...Yeaaah, your own site just pretty much just admitted it used the wrong word right there. It does say something interesting though!

but cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known.

At first glance, I was shocked. Really, I was. However, upon investigating the source at https://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/4/773 it seems said instances were literally forced in a laboratory. In this context, it doesn't seem like a very valid example. This coupled with the fact that was the ONLY source for the claim and... yeah.

Third Link:

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual.

...Yeah they just contradicted themselves. It's pretty disrespectful for them to use the words bisexuality and homosexuality interchangeably. Given, in the past bisexuality was not considered it's own sexuality, however that /has/ officially changed. Society just seems to be slow at following up, disrespecting people left and right in the process.



On the other hand, I have to agree that homosexuality is in fact natural. Because as far as I'm concerned, human nature is perfectly natural. I don't think there's any grounds to say that the way we think and feel is unnatural unless we can actually prove it. All I'm saying, is that the human race is a bit more abnormal than you're giving it credit for. (Not that that's a bad thing. Pretty much all evolution starts as abnormalities.)

 

[Shining Raichu]

Big issues during the Prop 8 campaign were how its failure would effect society. For example, people worried that churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Another concern was that public schools would be forced to teach about homosexuality without allowing for parental opting-out. Lo and behold, California is considering making homosexuality a part of public school instruction. Also, it should be noted that Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Mass. because the state was forcing them to placed children in same-sex households.

I would hardly say that legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone else.

It affects them by placing a legal injunction on their discriminatory behaviour? I fail to see the negative aspect of that. Gay marriage or not, gay people exist and shouldn't be excluded from any curriculum. Perhaps if kids were taught about homosexuality in schools we'd see far less discrimination both in schools and later in life. But as I'm sure you'll be ever-so-vigilant in reminding me, that is my opinion.

Also, the fact that the Catholic Church stopped adoption services in Massacheusetts - depriving who knows how many children of loving homes even in traditional families - rather than allowing children to be placed in the care of same-sex couples is just another testament to how beautiful and well-intentioned that institution really is.

 

[Dawn]

Also, the fact that the Catholic Church stopped adoption services in Massacheusetts - depriving who knows how many children of loving homes even in traditional families - rather than allowing children to be placed in the care of same-sex couples is just another testament to how beautiful and well-intentioned that institution really is.

That's pretty misleading of you. Many adoption centers simply became independent of the church. The adoption centers that stopped offering services did so of their own free will, not because the church forced them. The /law/ forced them. The church merely stood by their beliefs while the independent centers made the choices. The church didn't do /anything/. All the church did was refuse to change it's beliefs, and if you think that was wrong, well...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2080669/Catholic-adoption-service-stops-over-gay-rights.html Evidence

 

[Livewire]

That's pretty misleading of you. Many adoption centers simply became independent of the church. The adoption centers that stopped offering services did so of their own free will, not because the church forced them. The /law/ forced them. The church merely stood by their beliefs while the independent centers made the choices. The church didn't do /anything/. All the church did was refuse to change it's beliefs, and if you think that was wrong, well...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2080669/Catholic-adoption-service-stops-over-gay-rights.html Evidence

Did you read the article? The church stopped providing the services in response to the new legislation. That's all on them, and it is wrong.

 

[Oryx]

That's pretty misleading of you. Many adoption centers simply became independent of the church. The adoption centers that stopped offering services did so of their own free will, not because the church forced them. The /law/ forced them. The church merely stood by their beliefs while the independent centers made the choices. The church didn't do /anything/. All the church did was refuse to change it's beliefs, and if you think that was wrong, well...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2080669/Catholic-adoption-service-stops-over-gay-rights.html Evidence

They weren't saying that the church forced anyone, they were saying that the centers that did so because they agree with the church are doing the wrong thing by refusing to place children anymore because of this.

 

[Hyperlust]

As a person that associates mainly with the more academically accomplished group of my high school class, this has not been a major problem. A few people have a it out for gay people because of religious reasons, but beyond that any real discussions in that matter tend to be more civil than described in quote.

Now, with other crowds its a bit different. To me it seems like its a matter of the bullying example explained by Shining Raichu, and the idea of not caring enough, that push whether or not the masses question it (whether swayed by religious views or not). Unless people are directly effected by it (like by being it themselves or having a friend/family member with the preference), they will not care. It doesn't hurt them, why should they make any initiative to change it? The masses just usually go with the quick answer, which in this case, is referencing their religion.

Every crowd to me has been the same way. Through high school and now in tertiary education. Only one person I know has his opinion of same-sex marraige formed by religion. Every other person seems to form their opinion on not wanting to be left out or seen as gay is some way.

 

[Dawn]

Did you read the article? The church stopped providing the services in response to the new legislation. That's all on them, and it is wrong.

Several other adoption agencies around the country have cut their ties with the Roman Catholic Church - which has ruled that gay adoption is morally wrong - in order to comply with the Equality Act.

But the CCRS, which is supported by the actor John Thomson and the parents of comedian Steve Coogan, said it could not do so because it is so closely linked to the Diocese of Salford, and will become the first Catholic adoption agency to stop offering the service.

Article clearly implies it was not just the church's choice, and that only some agencies have refused to change their stance.

The law gave the church no choice so long as they adhered to their beliefs. The law may as well have directly shut down the services instead of pretending it was at all reasonable to ask the catholic church to change their beliefs. In /fact/, the whole setup seems like a secular attack on the church. The individuals who ran the agencies that closed down strongly believed said religion. They acted on their own accord.

And when you attack the foundation (The Church) and try to force it to do things against it's will, you're pretty much begging to damage the building (The adoption services)

They weren't saying that the church forced anyone, they were saying that the centers that did so because they agree with the church are doing the wrong thing by refusing to place children anymore because of this.

The OP actually did. I don't think it was wrong at all for the agencies to act on their beliefs. The law had /NO/ right to tell them what they should believe, absolutely no right. So they gave up their jobs, since it was the only other option. What you're seeing is called a failed secular attack. People tried to force other people to abandon their religious beliefs, and ultimately failed. ...Er, in some cases anyway. Sorta succeeded in others. Boy, that is a depressing thought.