DescentBB

On the topic of gay marriage, I personally think that those on the right have the weakest position on this topic then on any other issue.

I get the feeling that their justification is simply, "it's just ichey." But knowing that this would not be accepted, they usually result to the "preservation of marriage", and fall back to the slippery slope argument of, "What about the polygamists, should they be allowed to be married if we allow the gays?"

I think most guys here can safely say that if they were allowed to marry two women, and it was socially acceptable to do so, that they would at least consider it at some point in their life. So, I believe that it would be very difficult to make the argument that one is, â??born a polygamist.â?

I'm not gay, and I think that it can either be a choice or not a choice. But I don't think that it's pertinent to my views on the gay marriage issue. I think the argument against gay marriage comes from a sort of a feeling that heterosexuals invented marriage and have rights to it, more than a denouncing of homosexuals per se. Conservatives are fearing that their young daughters' dreams of growing up and marrying a rich and handsome man might in some way be marred, as would be the ideal in general.

Marriage was invented by straight people for straight people. It's far from an inherent human right. I think that homosexuals should have a different union than marriage (after all-- heterosexual couples and homosexual couples simply *aren't* the same), and that the same legal benefits ought to be provided by the government, but that, as a matter of semantics and politics and religion and whatchamawoozit, the word "marriage" shouldn't be used.

Jeff250 wrote:I think that homosexuals should have a different union than marriage (after all-- heterosexual couples and homosexual couples simply *aren't* the same), and that the same legal benefits ought to be provided by the government, but that, as a matter of semantics and politics and religion and whatchamawoozit, the word "marriage" shouldn't be used.

That would be very, very tough to make fair, and the phrase "seperate, but equal" seems to resonates from it. Besides, there is already such a thing: "civil unions" which have no where near the same rights as "marriage".

Well they should have the same rights. There's absolutely NO reason why they don't.

It's been demonstrated fairly solidly that being gay has pretty significant genetic, environmental, and choice components. In that sense, it's very much like being an alcoholic, or being a basketball player (note: if you take this to mean it's like those things in any other sense, I will take that as permission to ridicule you.) Genetics + environment + choice = you. You would be in error to say you have no choice, but you'd also be in error to treat it like something easy to change.

With respect to law and gay marriage, though, I don't think "it's a choice" or "it's genetic" have anything to do with it. That's a whole other can of worms. Suffice it to say, though, Goob, if what you wrote is really what you think the conservative viewpoint is, it's not a surprise you think it's weak. Maybe you should ask more questions to clarify your own understanding before you try to criticize.

I'm not gay and I'm not sure if being gay is a choice.

I used to be convinced it wasn't a choice but I remember Lothar made a pretty convincing argument that it was a choice, just not a conscious choice like I thought people tried to make it out to be. More like a response to enviroment and emotion.

So now I don't know.

So here's my solution:
If the state is the judge of what is marriage then they must allow it.
If the church is still in charge of defining marriage then you are either gay and have a relationship called(insert name here) or you are straight and can be "married".

Not really very difficult if you don't like to whine about stuff....just pick which one applies and get on with your life!

I don't think it being a choice or not should really have anything to do with the legality of it. I mean, are there any other laws that deal with that sort of thing, namely that if it was a choice it would be one way and if it wasn't it would be another?

Will, it's a little more complicated than that...

If the state is in charge of defining marriage, then we get into another question: WHY does the state care about marriage?

If the state cares about (and rewards) marriage because they want to encourage people who love each other to stay together, then I think you have to allow gay marriage.

But if the state cares about (and rewards) marriage because they want to encourage the creation of good environments for raising children, then I don't think you do.

See, the problem is, in order to come up with a consistant answer regarding who should be allowed to marry, we have to understand what marriage is *for*. I think the pro-gay-marriage crowd skips right over this point, assuming we all agree that "marriage is for whenever two people love each other". No wonder they can't understand the anti-gay-marriage position! If we all agreed on that as the primary purpose of marriage, we'd have a really tough time holding any position other than "everyone should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender, age, close relation to each other, etc." But we don't all agree on that, and that's where the problem comes in -- some people believe marriage is meant to create a safe place to raise a family, others believe it's meant to be a reflection of the image of God, others believe it's for legalizing sex, and still others believe it's for social recognition. There are probably dozens of other beliefs we hold on this board alone.

I've become more and more convinced that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, because I don't think we'll ever come to agreement on what marriage is actually for. Leave marriage to outside groups (religious organizations, etc.) and let them bicker about it. The state needs to create a new relationship ("civil union" or whatever) and define both what it's for and who's eligible. For example, if there are going to be tax benfits, they need to explain why they're giving that group tax benefits, and why it's good to limit those benefits to exactly that group.

You see, if the government is going to give benefits to a group, it needs to have a reason and a purpose. Right now, the government's reason and purpose for recognizing marriage is unclear. Therefore, it's hard for anyone to see why some people are eligible and others are not. It's hard to see why some benefits are exclusive to the married while others are not. And any attempt to clarify the issue -- to say "we recognize marriage for this purpose" -- is going to be met with anger. So, IMO, the only safe way to deal with the situation is to drop it altogether, and rebuild the system using a name nobody cares about (like "civil union") and a clear definition to start with, rather than using a name that people already care about ("marriage") and assuming everyone can get along.

What evidence do you have, Lothar, that homosexual families are somehow more disfunctional than hetrosexual ones?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html#I.%20 ... 20FINDINGS

Well I always said 'the government should stay out of the marriage business' but it was just my gut feeling. After reading your explanation it's clear I didn't know just how right I really was

Sorry Goob, but the wording of the question is flawed. Everyone makes a "choice" to be gay or straight. The argument would be that perhaps some people are biologically predisposed to sexual attraction to the same gender. Whether they are or not, they still make the choice to do so. But to answer the "intent" of the question, yes, I believe that some people have a higher degree of attraction to the same sex than others. Further, to answer the obvious follow-up question, I also believe the state has no right to ban homosexuality or the marriage of consenting partners, that is none of the government's business.

I don't consider myself "right" or "left," but on the whole I lean more to the "right" side. This would certainly be an area in which I disagree with the "right," or in this case, IMO, "the wrong." I also answered as the "I am not gay, but..." option.

And even if society was reversed, and guys mainly did it with guys, I imagine that I would still be fantasizing about women. I know societal pressure can be strong, but I canâ??t imagine that it is strong enough to force any straight guy to only sleep with guys. So that being said, I think it is very safe to say that heterosexuality is not a choice.

Ah, but Rawls would ask, "if you didn't know most everyone else was straight, would you still be straight?" It could be argued that most people are societally programmed to be heterosexual. I disagree with the whole premise of the veil of ignorance, but it's still food for thought.

Did you "choose" to be straight?

Lothar wrote:Goob, if what you wrote is really what you think the conservative viewpoint is, it's not a surprise you think it's weak. Maybe you should ask more questions to clarify your own understanding before you try to criticize.

We have already had several page threads on this topic Lothar; so unless you have come to some new view point or line of reasoning since then: (which yes, I would like to hear) Then it remains as the only argument for that side in which I have ever seen as remotely valid in this Country.

Clayman wrote:The argument would be that perhaps some people are biologically predisposed to sexual attraction to the same gender.

Maybe I used the word incorrectly, but this is what I meant by Gay. I don't consider a guy who sucks dick for crack money to be gay. I consider being "gay" to be a predisposition to love or be more affectionate to someone of the same sex. Actually having sex with them is merely incidental.

kufyit wrote:Did you "choose" to be straight?

Correct, though in my case not having any biological disposition to be homosexual makes the choice easier.

I've become more and more convinced that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, because I don't think we'll ever come to agreement on what marriage is actually for.

That's easy enough, make marriage like other government contracts. They enforce violations of said contract, but do not dictate the terms of them.

Can you recall the moment (or moments) you deliberated on the issue?

kufyit wrote:Can you recall the moment (or moments) you deliberated on the issue?

Yes, I've semi-seriously considered being gay, but it doesn't appeal to me. In theory it does have benefits, i.e. double-income, but it's not how I would want to live my life.

Gooberman wrote:We have already had several page threads on this topic...

And apparently you didn't understand my position then. And yes, it has grown as I've thought more about it. There's a little bit of it in my other post up there... certainly more than your "its just icky" bull that you put forth as "their real justification".

Lothar wrote:And apparently you didn't understand my position then.

Heh, so if I think a position of yours is not remotely valid for a free society, then you automatically assume that I â??didn't understand [your] position.â?

[quote="Gooberman"]Heh, so if I think a position of yours is not remotely valid for a free society, then you automatically assume that I â??didn't understand [your] position.â?

Lothar wrote:....and I won't give you a serious reply until you can explain to me WHY I avoided giving my position.

heh!

I will give you a serious reply when you can explain to me why your position really isn't as complex as you are hoping it to be....

...You also have to explain to me why the conservative viewpoint is fundamentally flawed, and why the cardinals never win the superbowl.

Or you can come back down here so we can have a conversation.

in my opinion, of course being gay is a choice. men and women are supposed to dig each other. why you ask? because thats how we reproduce. when you go against your instincts you are making a choice to do so. whether its a conscious choice or not, its still a choice.

Kur, if you say it's unnatural we agree.
However, isn't it possible for their instincts to take a wrong turn and make a guy dig other guys? Without it being a choice (subconcious or not)?

Look at the complexity of the human body and the human mind. We're not even close to understanding how the chemistry works in all it's details, let alone how the human mind works itself. Then you should be able to appreciate how much can potentially go wrong (diseases, malformations, etc.)
It is not my intention to classify being gay as a disease, but due to my opinion that it is unnatural, being gay must be due to some abnormality somewhere.

That doesn't imply it was their choice.
I'm not gay and I don't think it was my choice to dig chicks either.

Putting any religious arguments aside, I'm going to agree with kurupt in that homosexuality, while not a "disease" in the sense of the world, is an abnormality. As he put it, "guys and girls are supposed to dig each other." Let's face it, ignoring all physical/emotional pleasures, the primary purpose of our sexual hardware is to reproduce and to create new humans. That's what our bodies were designed to do. Homosexuality turns this on its head by having people be sexually attracted to those with whom there is no possible natural way of creating a new human. As far as choice goes, I personally feel that there are both genetic and environmental factors involved, but I also believe that there may be some form of choice, either conscious or unconscious as kurupt said. I've heard of cases of certain psychologists successfully "treating" homosexual patients who came to them looking for help, which implies that there is some sort of decision that the mind makes that can be overturned. Let me just state, and this should be obvious, that I have no prejudices against homosexuals; they should have ever right that every other citizen has, as an obvious fact. However, seeing as how the familial unit, the basic and most fundamental unit of society, is based upon the concept of raising and protecting children, I don't believe that anyone should have the right to marry someone of their own gender for whatever reason.

I bet none of you who think being gay is a choice knows any gay people. It's not a choice. The only choice they make is hiding it or not. While it is indeed unnatural in the normal sense, it's nothing more than being hardwired in reverse. The positive terminal is wired to the negative lead, and the negative terminal is connected to the positive lead..It's no more of a choice than bad eyesight.

I've never actually figured out why the state even bothers with marriage concerns. There's no real profit potential (that I've seen). But I also couldn't care less about marriage, as I'm not religious, and simply loving someone and living with them is enough, so I might just have a blind eye to it.

i skimmed the thread (boooo), but it seems that a lot of people in here are saying that it's a choice are, more or less, arguing that it's not a "conscious" choice.

wouldn't the fact that it's not a conscious choice not make it a choice at all?

It's a civil rights issue, plain and simple. There were plenty of people back in the days of segregation that were saying "the government shouldn't get involved." Of course they should.

Lothar, your suggestion is merely academic. Marriage is an ancient institution. No one would take seriously some sterilized fabrication by the government. The only solution is to afford everyone equal rights. Everyone is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness (private property)."

if i was lothar i would be gay too

*edit - who are we to tell other people that they can't be happy because we feel it violates some stupid religious sanctity of marriage crap. get a life, let them live their own too, they deserve it.

*sigh* we're playing semantics with the poll questions, to avoid answering them properly.

I still think that the question's wording is flawed, which is part of what is throwing everyone. Let's say that you walk into a store and a CD/DVD/whatever is in the front rank that you're really interested in buying. You still have a choice whether or not to buy it, but because you're inclinced to buy it because it's your favorite group or whatever, it's not a hard choice to make, and doesn't require any lengthy deliberation. But it's still a choice, you could have decided not to buy it. I view homosexuality the same way.

The real question is, "are certain individuals more biologically predisposed to sexual attraction to the same gender." And the answer to that question IMO is yes.

And I agree with Lothar's position that the government should get out of the marriage business, though for probably somewhat different reasons.

What do you think is the choice, Clay? The choice to be gay, or the choice to act upon it?

If you weren't gay, how could you choose to flirt with guys?

do you know any gay poeple? Other than in passing?

woo, a double!

i think his post is clear. he's saying the choice is acting on it or not. i have no problem with that characterization of the issue.

however, i think it's silly, nee ridiculous to expect anyone to not act on their sexual orientation.

tell ya what, let's let Clay lie down next to a naked Natalie Portman (or whoever HE thinks is hot) and ask him to not act on his heterosexual impulses. good luck.

Edit: one more thing. I fully understand that people can abstain from sexual activity for a great many reasons, heteros and homos alike. Maybe someone wants to save themselves for marriage, maybe somone has health problems, maybe someone abstains for birth control.

However, abstaining from sexual activity BECAUSE OF your natural sexual orientation is not a valid reason to abstain. Arguing so, is exactly the kind of christian/republican right wing wet-dream garbage that doesn't belong in America.

You're both correct. That was my point, that it's a trivial to argue that acting upon those desires is not a choice, though I will say that resisting Natalie Portman would be quite difficult. If you mean naturally being attracted to the same sex to be "being gay," to put it simply, then no, that's not a choice IMO, but choosing to act upon that is. I feel like we've been going in circles this discussion so far, but hopefully we have a better idea of what exactly we're arguing about.

Goob wrote:I will give you a serious reply when you can explain to me why your position... blah blah blah...

See, but here's the thing: my position isn't relevant. All that's relevant is the fact that we'll never see eye to eye, so the government would be better off dealing with the "equal rights" question (by creating their own relationship to give rights to) and leaving the "what is marriage?" question to society to bicker about endlessly.

It simply isn't worth the time to type out what my position is, because
1) you'll ignore it, straw-man it, or otherwise disrespect it
2) it'll distract from the questions of "choice?" and "marriage?" -- both of which I answered.

Testi wrote:I bet none of you who think being gay is a choice knows any gay people.

Not only do I know some gay people, I know some ex-gay people. It really changes your perspective once you've met someone like that. How about, you go meet some ex-gays, and then you get back to us.

kufyit wrote:The only solution is to afford everyone equal rights.

My solution was actually intended to create equal rights. Since the argument I keep hearing from the gay marriage side is "we should get the same rights as everyone else"... well, if the government ignores marriage altogether and makes up a new relationship that includes gay couples, then the rights are completely equal. Who cares if it's a fabrication, if it comes with all the rights? The only thing gays would be missing is social recognition -- and that has to be earned, not mandated, anyway.

Marriage is an ancient institution -- and this solution would leave the bickering to those who care about the ancient institution itself. Those who only care about "rights" would be totally down with my solution. (It should be noted, I fully expect opposition to that suggestion, because what people *really* are arguing for is social recognition -- they're not arguing that they should get the same tax breaks, shared insurance, etc. as me; they're arguing that I should have to think they're normal.)

Zuruck wrote:who are we to tell other people that they can't be happy

"You can't get married" is not the same thing as "you can't be happy".

Seriously... if you can't be happy unless the government stamps a "married" sticker on your forehead, you have some re-evaluating to do. If the government decided tomorrow that it wasn't going to recognize me and Catherine as married, that wouldn't destroy my happiness. It might leave me scrambling to figure out health insurance, but I really don't care what label the government gives me.

Palzon wrote:he's saying the choice is acting on it or not.

No he's not. He's saying there is a biological predisposition to be more or less attracted to people of the same gender, and there's also a choice whether to go with that or not. It's not an easy choice to reverse, but it is a choice.

This is exactly what the best twin studies say -- genetics, environment, and choice all contribute to being gay, and they're all reasonably equal in terms of how much they contribute. This accounts for everything any of us has said about gay people -- it doesn't appear they have a choice (because it's not easy to reverse, and because it's guided by environment and genetics), but some people do choose to change their orientation. It's certainly not a simple, conscious choice, but the choice does exist.

And another thing!


Not to pick on poor Clay, but he's new to this debate and his posts are interesting....

Clayman wrote: Ah, but Rawls would ask, "if you didn't know most everyone else was straight, would you still be straight?" It could be argued that most people are societally programmed to be heterosexual. I disagree with the whole premise of the veil of ignorance, but it's still food for thought.

I totally disagree that Rawls would find your question to be of relevance. I think what he would find relevant is the following question:

"if you didn't know the orientation of the majority, would you still accept a law that deprived one orientation or another of the equal right to marriage?"

Gay marriage is precisely an instance where the "veil of ignorance" can succeed in showing us how to think democratically in the design of our laws.

As to the comment about societal programming, I do not think that Rawls has bearing on that point. His theory was political/moral, and not particularly psychological. In other words, I don't think Rawls would care so much about what motivates people to be part of the marjority as he would take an interest in protecting a minority from oppression.

Lothar wrote:

Palzon wrote:he's saying the choice is acting on it or not.

No he's not. He's saying there is a biological predisposition to be more or less attracted to people of the same gender, and there's also a choice whether to go with that or not.

umm...you say you diagree but what you posted is in agreement with my statement.

FYI, i took out the part of your quote about acting on it being a choice because as i described above that is a rediculous position. I'll say more if and why you address my argument above.

Palzon wrote:

Lothar wrote:

Palzon wrote:he's saying the choice is acting on it or not.

No he's not. He's saying there is a biological predisposition to be more or less attracted to people of the same gender, and there's also a choice whether to go with that or not.

umm...you say you diagree but what you posted is in agreement with my statement.

No -- I didn't mean "go with it" as "act on it"; I meant "go with it" as in "choose to allow those desires to take root and direct your thinking, rather than choosing to put other desires in place even though you're predisposed toward the same sex." In other words, because your sexual preferences are at least partly an acquired taste (the appetites you choose to indulge grow stronger), you have the ability to decide whether or not to indulge (even in fantasy) certain appetites, and therefore, the ability to modify your orientation.

I'm not sure what part of your above argument you want me to engage. It doesn't really seem to relate to anything I've said -- I haven't talked about having sex or not having sex, only about getting the label "married" or not getting the label "married", and getting certain rights or not getting certain rights.

Lothar wrote:

Palzon wrote:

Lothar wrote:

Palzon wrote:he's saying the choice is acting on it or not.

No he's not. He's saying there is a biological predisposition to be more or less attracted to people of the same gender, and there's also a choice whether to go with that or not.

umm...you say you diagree but what you posted is in agreement with my statement.

No -- I didn't mean "go with it" as "act on it"; I meant "go with it" as in "choose to allow those desires to take root and direct your thinking, rather than choosing to put other desires in place even though you're predisposed toward the same sex." In other words, because your sexual preferences are at least partly an acquired taste (the appetites you choose to indulge grow stronger), you have the ability to decide whether or not to indulge (even in fantasy) certain appetites, and therefore, the ability to modify your orientation.

I'm not sure what part of your above argument you want me to engage. It doesn't really seem to relate to anything I've said -- I haven't talked about having sex or not having sex, only about getting the label "married" or not getting the label "married", and getting certain rights or not getting certain rights.

Your clarification is no less semantic than your original quibble with me. Your argument is entirely semantic when you say you are not talking about acting on the orientation. All you have done in this latest post is put one more step, the cognitive one, in between the orientation and the activity of acting on it. However, substituting "thoughts [that lead to action]" is easily reducible to the actions themselves since the actions necessarily depend on the orientation and the thought. Yes, your entire case is predicated on the point that thinking leads to acting.

And the rediculous position of which I'm talking about comes at the end of your post, which is to suggest that one modify one's orientation or abstain from acting on it simply because the orientation is not the standard. What i find rediculous is that anyone should modify one's orientation because you say they ought to. If one feels that their orientation is natural to them, why should they change a thing? because the bible says so? because george bush does? because a majority of americans don't approve? Rediculous! This is a democracy.

Again, there are a lot of reasons to abstain. Yet there is no logical or ethical imperative to change or modify one's orientation simply because it is not the standard.

the purpose of the governemnt is precisely to protect the rights of the minority over a majority who would strip them of those rights just to suit their own standards. people who are against gay marriage should take heed of the 'veil of ignorance' lest they find themselves living in an America where hetero marriage is outlawed. don't like it? move somewhere less democratically minded.

It would be much "easier" and more sensible for someone who is against gay marriage or even homosexuality in general to modify their religious/political orientation than it would for someone who is content with their natural sexual orientation to even consider doing so. it is literally un-American to support depriving the gays of equal rights. there are many costs to living in a free society. but the heavier pscyhic price will be paid when we rationalize building discrimination into our institutions as some of you would have us do.

I haven't given anybody REASON to make one choice over another, nor have I tried to. I've only explained that the choice exists. None of what I have written here has been intended to give reason as to WHY one might decide to change, only to explain that it CAN be done. Please, take my post to mean only what I say, and not what you think I should be saying based on your own preconceptions about my position.

No, I don't know any ex-gays. I'll have to ask my gay friends if they know any. I don't think they do.

Did these ex's simply put down their desires for the same gender, and fall in line witht he norm, or do they really go all out for women now? If that's the case, I would really doubt they were gay to begin with. Then again, being gay isn't 100% one way or the other..maybe, like women, they just got fed up with @#$hole guys too