Gay Marriage

[MessengerOfDreams]

Gay

Here's my big view on gay marriage. I've supported it for years, even before I fully realized myself as bisexual.

Marriage isn't going to change the fact that gay sex happens. It isn't going to change the fact that sexual assault happens. Gay people are going to do whatever it is they do, and most of them, like most men and most of y in general, are going to be perfectly fine people who just happen to have sex and fall in love with each other.

Why, given that this is the case, is marriage such an outlandish, sinful concept?

Ricky Gervais, like most comedians, put it best. (paraphrase) "They've got to be thinking 'all the other stuff we get u to and it's the marriage thing that they don't like. Imagine going to a judge and saying' excuse me, canbi marry this man?' 'No.' 'Well, can I ♥♥♥♥ him... ...?' 'Certainly.' 'But I can't marry him?' 'No! *gag*'"

In many ways, in a society founded upon Christian values, and with Christian and religious values being the number one enemy of this subject, according to scripture, wouldn't gays be slightly more moral as a married couple in the eyes of God as opposed to otherwise? Wouldn't that be a bit more PC? They should have the right to marry and to be regarded with the same benefits married couples get. To deny them that is nothing more than tunnelvisioned hubris.

Honestly, though, I don't care what people do, sexually or romantically. As long as it's not a grown person with an underage person (and I also think incest should be counted out for health reasons, but even then- not my case.) and as long as there is equal consent, they shouldn't be judged by anyone not involved. Teens should be allowed to have sex (parental consent withstanding), polygamous relationships should be no problem, LGBT relationships should be no problem. As long as both are of (or under, in the case of teens) age, both consent to it and there is no case of deliberate infidelity or betrayal of trust, I see no problem.

Does that sound crazy or does it make sense to you as well? Personally, the fact that this is a gigantic social issue instead of common sense really blows my mind. To me, that's what's crazy.

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

Everyone seems to think everyone else hates it and thus self-inflicts peer pressure on themselves in a sense, and then you have the tunnel-vision purists who just go "♥♥♥♥ off" when you ask them to explain, because they have no foundation for their hatred. I can't see how this would be such a big issue otherwise.

[lordpat]

Well, Logos does not mean necerasly scientific proof, but simply saying out loud logical chains of thoughts. But seriously though, thiese speeches related to this kind of issues require all three Logos, Ethos and Pathos; and none of them is more important than other. You used Ethos as well as you grouned your arguments with "scientific investigations", meaning that your data is relaible.

"If people are happy with one thing and that thing they do does not harm you; just let them do it."

Same goes to homosexuality. Is it a thread to humanity? Well, if it is (tho I terribly doubt so), there is nothing we can do about it. People that are happy being homosexuals most likely won't change their point of view. Think of it like forcing someone else to change his/her religion. It is very likely it won't work. If someone is sad being gay, then he/she would not want to marry. If someone was suffering because he is gay, he will probably do something about that, but he won't marry, not at least he got that problem solved and he is happy.

And the other thing is, would allowing gay marriage make more people gay? If homosexuality is a menace of humanity, would that stop it any way? Well, it maybe would already gay people come out of the closet, since they seem to be more accepted in society and have a better chance of life with so. It would make existing gays happier, but it is very unlikely it will transform people. Normal marriage stills exists. Those who are heterosexuals will still have that resource. Maybe they will question, but I believe that is a good thing at the end of the day. I believe that the only way to confirm your sexual orientation (as well as plenty other things) is asking yourself and meditating.

Also, about people that say that marriages are for people to have kids:
a) not really. A lot of married couples do not have kids and are not planning to do so.
b) sperm banks.
c) with the ammount of children in orphanates, I believe it may be even good for society.

[darthbrowser]

Well, Logos does not mean necerasly scientific proof, but simply saying out loud logical chains of thoughts. But seriously though, thiese speeches related to this kind of issues require all three Logos, Ethos and Pathos; and none of them is more important than other. You used Ethos as well as you grouned your arguments with "scientific investigations", meaning that your data is relaible.

You are correct in noting that I used all three in my argument, and note that I didn't discredit any one of the pillars, but rather stated that I felt Logos should take perecedance, followed by Ethos and Pathos.

I do disagree with you in your assertation that none is greater then any other, my personal opinion, based on studies of humanity and the history of human interaction, is that emotion is best when it is greatly curtailed in favor of logic. I suppose you could compare my ideals for humanity to the Vulcans of Star Trek - however, I would say that some emotion must be preserved for philosophical reasons of purpose. In essence, emotion should provide us with over-arching goals of existence - not make decisions anywhere else. Think of it as strategy vs. tactics - our "humanity" can give us an ultimate goal, but logic should have near complete dominance over everyday situations. It may indeed sound rather misanthropic - or at least boring - but consider all the problems that would be solved. Isn't that what countless philosophers and humanists have strived for? If such a dream is so important, surely it could accommodate a price.

To get back on topic, I would question your assertion that homosexual marriage would not change the proportion of homosexuals in society. If homosexuality is formed by developmental factors, then an ideal society, if that is to be considered one without any social stigma against homosexuality, would encourage those who would otherwise not have become homosexuals to do so. If you argue the deterministic standpoint - that homosexuallity is determined by genetics and cannot be influenced by enviroment, this would still hold true because any gene with such a high prevalence must be present in a large proportion of the species. For instance, lets say there was a straight-forward "gay gene", which resulted in homosexuality upon a genotype of xx (With the alleles being X and x). In order to maintain any significant number throughout the millienia of human evolution, there would have to be large prevalence of heterozygotes. If we make that assumption that some heterozygotes, because of epigenetic reasons, may become either more X or x prominent (which is seen in most other "simple" two-allele genes), then in a society completely free of stigma some Xx individuals more inclined to allele codominance would choose to become homosexual, a choice which they would have otherwise blocked subconsciously from an early age because the social stigma would cancel out any non-complete dominance of the x allele.

Thus, regardless of whether you believe it is entirely chosen or genetic, decreased social stigma, such as that resulting from large-scale acceptance of homosexual marriage, should increase the prevalence of homosexuality in my opinion.

[lordpat]

To get back on topic, I would question your assertion that homosexual marriage would not change the proportion of homosexuals in society. If homosexuality is formed by developmental factors, then an ideal society, if that is to be considered one without any social stigma against homosexuality, would encourage those who would otherwise not have become homosexuals to do so. If you argue the deterministic standpoint - that homosexuallity is determined by genetics and cannot be influenced by enviroment, this would still hold true because any gene with such a high prevalence must be present in a large proportion of the species. For instance, lets say there was a straight-forward "gay gene", which resulted in homosexuality upon a genotype of xx (With the alleles being X and x). In order to maintain any significant number throughout the millienia of human evolution, there would have to be large prevalence of heterozygotes. If we make that assumption that some heterozygotes, because of epigenetic reasons, may become either more X or x prominent (which is seen in most other "simple" two-allele genes), then in a society completely free of stigma some Xx individuals more inclined to allele codominance would choose to become homosexual, a choice which they would have otherwise blocked subconsciously from an early age because the social stigma would cancel out any non-complete dominance of the x allele.

Thus, regardless of whether you believe it is entirely chosen or genetic, decreased social stigma, such as that resulting from large-scale acceptance of homosexual marriage, should increase the prevalence of homosexuality in my opinion.

Well, that really depends on what you consider an ideal society. For me, an ideal society is one where people allow others to chose by themselves and with armony. If in a society people forces others to become homosexuals, then for me it is not ideal. Accepting does not mean forcing, there is a difference. Yes, now black people are accepted in the society, does that mean people are becoming more and more black? Well, we don't know. Remember evolution is not sudden. It is a conitnous process. In the short-term, I find practically impossible that gay marriage would incrase the ammount of gay people. And maybe in long-term it does, but how do we know? why should we care anyway? In the far future it is hard to tell if "society" as we know it will continue to exist. Well, you are right. I don't know if it won't incrase the amount of gay people, it may will, but for the moment the changes are trully noticeable, humanity may not even exist.

Anyway, I really can't see the big problem anyway. Even if homosexuality exists, there are different ways of having children. Imagine a world (if possible to imagine) where everybody is gay. What would people most likely do? (implying nature cannot turn them heterosexuals) Men deposit their sperm in a sperm bank, women would get children with those. Then you can get adoptions, and such. There are ways humans will be able to get foward with it, our society is smart enough.

So, tbh, I really can't see a reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. You can complain homosexuality is wrong, but reality is it exists. It is a phenomena, and at this point, it is worthless to try to reverse it. You can try to make people happy with themselves, or to make them feel sad just for you to get an illusion of "balance" that will be broken again by the constant change of the human society. Is it a disease? You can call it like Autism. If someone is happy with it, he won't want to change it. If someone is sad, he may do something about it. But trying to change it againts their will is an insult and a mistake.

[darthbrowser]

Well, that really depends on what you consider an ideal society. For me, an ideal society is one where people allow others to chose by themselves and with armony. If in a society people forces others to become homosexuals, then for me it is not ideal. Accepting does not mean forcing, there is a difference.

The "ideal society" I was speaking of was an example created solely for the thought experiment - it is essentially perfect tolerance, whereby no social stigma/opinion would exist for or against homosexuality. The point was to remove society's effects on individuals so I could freely examine influences not emulating from society, and thus their effects in isolation. Gay marriage by itself shouldn't increase the number of homosexuals in a society, but as a form of increased tolerance for homosexuality, it would for the reasons I stated in the post you quoted. In essence, I'm not examining gay marriage itself as much as I am making a hypothesis about the effects of increased tolerance - and acception of gay marriage would be a form of increased tolerance.

As for this,

Yes, now black people are accepted in the society, does that mean people are becoming more and more black?

I don't quite see what you mean by this...if you're talking about skin color itself, I suppose increased racial tolerance would entail increased miscegenation, which, theoretically, and with differing standards of beauty assumed to be non-existent (as these would affect reproduction rates), would indeed create a population of roughly biage-colored individuals out of multi-racial starting population, like the United States. So yes, the skin color of the population as a whole would change. If you're are talking about culturally, I would say you'd be walking a tight rope and nearing sterotype usage. Defining "culture" is almost impossible to do along racial/ethnic lines in an integrated society.

[lordpat]

As for this,

Yes, now black people are accepted in the society, does that mean people are becoming more and more black?

I don't quite see what you mean by this...if you're talking about skin color itself, I suppose increased racial tolerance would entail increased miscegenation, which, theoretically, and with differing standards of beauty assumed to be non-existent (as these would affect reproduction rates), would indeed create a population of roughly biage-colored individuals out of multi-racial starting population, like the United States. So yes, the skin color of the population as a whole would change. If you're are talking about culturally, I would say you'd be walking a tight rope and nearing sterotype usage. Defining "culture" is almost impossible to do along racial/ethnic lines in an integrated society.[/quote]

I agree, that was a bad example. And no, I was not talking about culture, lol, about the skin color. I had another example but I forgot it...oh me.

The important question here is, is it worth not to attempt to increase the tolerance? You can try and say that homosexuality will increase on the long term, and yes, it may be true; but what is the other choice? The other choice is making some people feel empty and unhappy. And for what? For a hypothesis that may or may not happen, and judging on how complex these situations tend to be, I can say it is likely they will not work. I find it unfair that we do not people the right to do whatever they please to do as long as they do not harm us. That is the law of Montesquieu pretty much: our rights go as far as the others' start. Is there really a reason for this not to be aprooved?

[darthbrowser]

The important question here is, is it worth not to attempt to increase the tolerance? You can try and say that homosexuality will increase on the long term, and yes, it may be true; but what is the other choice? The other choice is making some people feel empty and unhappy. And for what? For a hypothesis that may or may not happen, and judging on how complex these situations tend to be, I can say it is likely they will not work. I find it unfair that we do not people the right to do whatever they please to do as long as they do not harm us. That is the law of Montesquieu pretty much: our rights go as far as the others' start. Is there really a reason for this not to be aprooved?

You're saying - unitentionally, I belive - that homosexuaility is inherently bad by saying the likihood that "homosexuality will increase" is a risk that carries some chance - hence your antecedent question of whether it would be "worth" it to increase tolerance. The statement effectively implies homosexuality is bad, as asking is it "worth" it implies a negative side effect of increasing tolerance - in this case, the negative side effect implied would be an increased prevalence of homosexuality.

Based on your previous statements I know those aren't your views, so I think you may be assuming I'm against it personally. I've tried my best to stay objective throughout this thread because I cannot validate any bias on the issue - any conclusion I could come up with would obviously come from some non-objective influence - be it pressure to be "progressive" - which assumes that homosexuality is a good thing, among other assumptions, or more conservative pressure, which states homosexuality is a bad thing - neither one of those absolutes appeals to me.

Honestly, I'm afraid there may not be a scientific/objective answer, because the whole thing is so entrenched in "good' and "bad." The founders of psychology, Freud in particular, believed that humans were essentially driven entirely by sex, and every aspect of human psychology could be viewed in that light. From an evolutionary perspective, this does make sense - without any higher reasoning involved, sex/reproduction is the only purpose of life. That logic will lead you a "bad" conclusion however - like bestiality, or any similar example, homosexuality doesn't result in reproduction, and thus Freud classified it as a disorder. He said that such 'conditions' came about because of the human focus on sex - with so much intellect subconsciously devoted to so simple a concept, it isn't hard to imagine various offshoots and diversions popping up in human psychology, a result of the brain essentially over-thinking the whole thing, on a subconscious level.

Psychology has long been seen as one of the more avant garde fields - as a result, its not hard to see why the current generation of psychology - heavily immersed in current political ideals of post-modernism and other neo-progressive forms of thought, tends to be in favor of homosexuality and attempts to argue in favor of it as a natural thing, though they usually avoid the subject all togather because of the difficulties associated in saying homosexuality is natural when it has no known evolutionary purpose. At the same time, Freud and his contemparies are still highly studied and respected - so their views, which saw homosexuality as a disorder, are still floating around to contrast and cancel more recent theories.

Given that psychology is so indecisive, I tried to turn to biology for answers - but, since, as I said, the controversy around the subject is barring any biochemical research into it. The only thing I've ever found was what I said in my first post in this thread - about the rise of social orders. However, all that says is that homosexuality poses no threat to the human species now, without rampant STDs. If the whole question is seen as good/bad, that doesn't answer anything - it doesn't hint whether homosexuality is a positive or a negative, only that it is harmless today. Furthermore, you might have also noticed that all it did was explain how discrimination against homosexuals arose, not how homosexuality itself arose.

That problem is still the biggest facing the current LGBT rights camp - if homosexuality is genetic, how could it have possibly survived this long, as homosexuals do not pass on their genes by reproduction? Recently I've seen arguments to the effect of saying homosexuals chose to mate with females as a result of social pressure, using modern examples of homosexuals today and in the past century being ashamed and thus marrying heterosexually. However, that can be debunked by the fact that discrimination against homosexuality correlated with the rise of civilization - in other words, for most of human history, there was little pressure for homosexuals to mate heterosexually in order to conform to social pressures or bias.

That all supports Freud's view - which said that homosexuality is not genetic, rather, its simply a rather common psychological anomaly that occurs in random individuals. This means that it occurs because of human psychology itself - there is no "gay gene", as any member of the species can experience it - explaining why homosexuality could have been persistant throughout human history, despite homosexuals not reproducing. Obviously, if this is correct, it means homosexuality is a sexual disorder, as Freud originally classified it - not exactly a scientific win for homosexuals.

As if to further hurt that "Not a choice" idea, the example of the highly tolerant and openly homosexual society of ancient Greece - ironicly brought up by homosexuals the most - seems to hint at homosexuality being a choice influenced by society. If sexual orientation was truely set in stone by genes, why did so much of ancient Greek literature and art feature homosexual relationships? The concentration of genes in the human race has hardly changed since that time - a mere two and half thousand years ago - so wouldn't a far larger proportion of the current human race be homosexual, matching the proportions of ancient Greece? The only way to explain this is to say that homosexuality is a choice - thus, in the open and encouraging society of ancient Greece, people could freely choose to either be homosexual or heterosexually, and thus many choose homosexualiy. In other cultures which looked down on homosexuals, far fewer people would be expected to choose that life - which is what we see today.

Because of those things, I personally believe homosexuallity will be found to be a "genetic predisposition" thing - i.e., a choice, but genes are partially involved, so some people are more likely to become homosexuals then others.

That brings me back to my original dilemma - the "good/bad" idea. Homosexual rights activists today tend to lean on the genes-only idea because they want to equate homosexuality with other things universally accepted - such as racial differences, which cannot be changed. However, saying homosexuality is a choice actually isn't saying its a bad thing. Religion is a choice, but people have a right to make that choice, for instance.

The problem thus comes with that fact that choices can be good or bad - returing a lost wallet is a choice, as is rape - one is "good", one is "bad." Saying homosexuality is purely genetic can be seen as way to try and avoid this question - so homosexuals don't have to prove to religions that the choice is "good." Thats my dilemma. Science and logic abandon me at this point, and I refuse to make any decision without them.

Hence, I have no opinon on the subject.

There just isn't enough research. I'm just making an educated assumption in saying homosexuality will turn out to be a choice - it may very well be found to be fully generic, having had some important use to the species in the distant past, thus removing the "good/bad" debate all togather.

All I've really been trying to do here is clarify what little scientific research there has been on the subject, since whenever I see science brought up in the debate it seems to be badly skewed with bias, depending on who's using it. I haven't really been trying to offer up any opinion of my own as much as provide food for thought for the rest of you.

Meh. Sorry for the wall of text... .

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

stop you're causing a feedback loop

[lordpat]

The important question here is, is it worth not to attempt to increase the tolerance? You can try and say that homosexuality will increase on the long term, and yes, it may be true; but what is the other choice? The other choice is making some people feel empty and unhappy. And for what? For a hypothesis that may or may not happen, and judging on how complex these situations tend to be, I can say it is likely they will not work. I find it unfair that we do not people the right to do whatever they please to do as long as they do not harm us. That is the law of Montesquieu pretty much: our rights go as far as the others' start. Is there really a reason for this not to be aprooved?

You're saying - unitentionally, I belive - that homosexuaility is inherently bad by saying the likihood that "homosexuality will increase" is a risk that carries some chance - hence your antecedent question of whether it would be "worth" it to increase tolerance. The statement effectively implies homosexuality is bad, as asking is it "worth" it implies a negative side effect of increasing tolerance - in this case, the negative side effect implied would be an increased prevalence of homosexuality.

Based on your previous statements I know those aren't your views, so I think you may be assuming I'm against it personally. I've tried my best to stay objective throughout this thread because I cannot validate any bias on the issue - any conclusion I could come up with would obviously come from some non-objective influence - be it pressure to be "progressive" - which assumes that homosexuality is a good thing, among other assumptions, or more conservative pressure, which states homosexuality is a bad thing - neither one of those absolutes appeals to me.

No, no. That was reffering to my previous posts, and it was not directed to you. It was mostly for those those who thought (though I terribly disagree) that homosexuality will destroy the human race. I was asuming that was true, but I do not believe in that. It was directed to those who are not tolerant and do believe homosexuality was a bad thing, and most likely won't change their minds. (Sorry, I should have marked that. Pardon moi).
I don't believe homosexuality is "good" or "bad". It just happens. I believe it is important to accept that happens and not try to just look at the window and avoid everything. Reality is; it exists. It has existed for a long time, and chances are it will continue to exist.

I'd like to end the 1 on 1 debate here. I get tired when this goes for too long, though I did have fun. Feel free to reply me, but I don't think I have too much left to reply.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The other subject to this is Religion. Some branches of christianity is firmly againts gay people, the Bible says (though I think that is questionable) they are "an abomination". What do you think about it?

EDIT: Thanks Kab, stupid mistake is stupid.