Gay Marriage

[McLovin]

Complex interplay of genetic factors - this says nothing.

The article/study basically says they don't believe there is any evidence for homosexually being due to environment (a generic statement not supported by anything at all specific). It's really stated as a personal opinion.

So because one article states:
1) it isn't due to environment ( no evidence)
2) it is due to genetic factors (no evidence)

That is evidence enough? I don't mean to be harsh, I actually enjoy your posts in the trading forums but... Aren't you embarrassed to post that as evidence? You'd never post anything so flakey on the trading boards!!!!

It's not an article, it's the stated position of the peak body of psychiatrists in the UK. If you really think they arrived at that position by sticking in their thumb in the air or drawing lots, then so be it. If you want to find evidence to prove/disprove their position, then go for it. I'll trust their judgement over what a few pundits on an IBB say.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I'm not fixed on any point of view, just throwing up some ideas here, some contradictory... like the following single case study...

Derren Brown is gay. He's also an expert in psychology, mentalism, influence and hypnosis. What he can do with peoples minds is quite extraordinary....there are few as skilled and powerful as him. He wasn't happy being gay when he was younger. He tried everything on himself in order to 'cure' his gayness. And it didn't work. While working on oneself is not that easy, one might say that this is fairly strong evidence for the genetic/biological cause.

 

[explod]

Who cares?

In a free world the individual should be able to do as pleases providing there is no violation of anothers freedom.

See the Rolf Harris case is now hitting the open news, these are the points for useful discussion in my view.

 

[bellenuit]

It is odd to suggest that homosexuality is a lifestyle preference, when many homosexuals, before they had the courage to come out, have often recounted how they hated themselves for the way they were and how they would give anything to be "normal" just like other people. Unless they are also masochists, why would anyone show a preference to a lifestyle or sexual orientation that they hate.

 

[stewiejp]

Agree with the principle you're talking about, but perhaps consider that a homosexual orientation will not preclude people from alcohol/drug abuse, penury, or abuse.

One would hope the adoption process would eliminate, or at least reduce the risk of such. Having said that, hetero couples aren't bound by processes which preclude negative circumstances for their children, in the future gays may not either - through surrogacy/ivf etc

 

[stewiejp]

On the more predominance of homosexuality in today's society - Our society is a lot more "Gay Friendly" than it once was. This isn't necessarily "encouraging" people to become gay, more embracing them to show their true feelings/sexuality. Years ago people with homosexual tendencies would rather live alone as a bachelor or spinster than "come out". That, IMHO is a good thing.

 

[pavilion103]

Who cares?

In a free world the individual should be able to do as pleases providing there is no violation of anothers freedom.

See the Rolf Harris case is now hitting the open news, these are the points for useful discussion in my view.

The children if adopted. No one in a free world has the right to deny the child their right to a mother AND father.

To suggest otherwise is a complete violation of their basic rights.

 

[Tink]

Agree Pavilion and this is exactly what its all about.
No one cares about the children. Everyone is too busy yelling about their rights.

 

[Calliope]

Agree Pavilion and this is exactly what its all about.
No one cares about the children. Everyone is too busy yelling about their rights.

Yes. The rights of those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are being trashed.

 

[Julia]

for the record, I've never ever met anyone who has been involved in a "three way" love pact. I've never really heard it reported any where either. I'm not sure how people are saying it is "common" or "prevalent" and the "next big step." Sounds like hyperbole from my, admittedly, shorter experience of the world.

Good that your last sentence recognises your youth and possibly narrow social experience.
You can hardly expect that people involved in relationships of more than two persons are going to line up at your local supermarket and make an announcement. Despite the open acceptance now of homosexuality, we've not yet reached the stage where more complex relationships are going to be widely accepted.

You'd not need to spend long in a general medical practice to become aware of some of the bizarre sexual relationships that people enjoy. Ditto in an HIV clinic where patients can list dozens of sexual contacts, none of whose names they know.

And don't assume that all these people proclaiming the right to homosexual marriage are engaged in what you would consider to be morally pure relationships. Plenty of apparently exclusive/monogamous homosexuals still, as a couple, cruise public toilets etc in search of interesting variation.

This debate is filled with hyperbole.

That depends on your point of view. I'd suggest it's also filled with naivete.

Sexuality is a continum not a binary outcome. If you are right at the gay end of the sexuality spectrum then you're going to be gay. Most people sit somewhere along the spectrum rather than at either end.

Agree entirely.

Last time I checked, paedophilia was not a sexual preference any more than liking MILFs is.

Can you clarify what you're saying here? Are you suggesting paedophilia is a choice or a biological compulsion, just the same as homosexuality?

 

[explod]

Agree Pavilion and this is exactly what its all about.
No one cares about the children. Everyone is too busy yelling about their rights.

In many cases in the current overcrowded world children are wanting for good parents.

However, gays should not ha ve the rights to adopt or have invetro fertilisation.

The rights of all to make thier own choices, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with children. I am not gay myself, had three children and have eight grandchildren.

People who I know that are gay are very gentle caring individuals. This discussion has nothing to do with children.

 

[Tink]

So why do they have to destroy the concept of marraige when it has always been about the family unit. It has always been about mother, father, child.
They have their union, marraige is about families and has always been about families.
So now we have to omit one?
The children are the victims in this -- a generation trying to find their biological parents.

 

[explod]

So why do they have to destroy the concept of marraige when it has always been about the family unit. It has always been about mother, father, child.
They have their union, marraige is about families and has always been about families.
So now we have to omit one?
The children are the victims in this -- a generation trying to find their biological parents.

People that are gay did not choose that, they were born that way. Marriage is just a word. The important aspect is that of a devoted faithful union, whether man and woman to hve children or a pair of gays to love and look after each other. Happy people together are better than that just described by Julia wandering around dark toilets to find thrills. There is always going to be that but more normalised relationships in marriage can only be of benefit to all, including children.

A bit like celebacy, it creates psychological problems leading sometimes to abuse. Gays being shunned and treated less equal must bring about similar type problems and issues.

 

[Calliope]

I am not gay myself, had three children and have eight grandchildren.

Good for you Plod. You are the first proponent of gay marriage on this thread to declare they are not gay. By the way, having children is not proof against gayness. Oscar Wilde had two sons.

 

[pavilion103]

Of course this is about children. Anyone who says otherwise is so short sighted.

WHY DOES NO ONE GIVE A TOSS ABOUT A CHILD'S RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND FATHER. Shame on you all.

People should have to balls to stop spouting none sense about rights, whilst ignoring where this issue is heading and the rights if the innocent children that will be suppressed.

 

[bellenuit]

Good for you Plod. You are the first proponent of gay marriage on this thread to declare they are not gay. By the way, having children is not proof against gayness. Oscar Wilde had two sons.

So you are assuming those who support gay marriages on this forum are probably gay? Or that to argue the case why gays should have similar marriage rights to heterosexuals requires you to declare your orientation because the arguments don't stand up on their own?

 

[Tink]

Can you clarify what you're saying here? Are you suggesting paedophilia is a choice or a biological compulsion, just the same as homosexuality?

Thats it Julia.
Thats why we have undercover police masquerading as children all over the internet catching these people out at their meeting point, not to mention the ones bringing in children slaves.
Its a sickness but its out there -- their preference.

 

[explod]

This thread is not about peodophiles, deviants or children.

We are talking about people who are for all points and purposes, law abiding and apart from being gay are perfectly normal in all other aspects.

The question is, should they be allowed to be married. I know a male couple who have been together for nearly 30 years, they run a business and one is also a minister of a religeon who still conducts services.

Such couples do no harm to anybody and are in fact generous and the first to help anyone in trouble, as a couple together too.

Marriage brings with it security in later years and the benefits of the state. A married couple or couple together recieve overall less in Government benefits than does the combined amount of two singles.

If by allowing them to marry we will have happier people which is a benefit to everyone.

And of course the sanctity of a good marriage is the ideal for having children but it has never guaranteed their protection and could be argued that under the cover of a marriage a peadophile being one of the partners have been shown to get away with it till the children have often sufferred all the way to later adulthood when sometimes the perpetrator has passed on. How about the Father in England who had his Daughter locked up in a cellar for many years and had three children to her. He was married and his wife must have known. These are very very much more important issues but not part of this debate.

So if we stick to the question of the thread, where is the problem ?

 

[Calliope]

So you are assuming those who support gay marriages on this forum are probably gay? Or that to argue the case why gays should have similar marriage rights to heterosexuals requires you to declare your orientation because the arguments don't stand up on their own?

No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?

 

[Pager]

If gay people want to get married then I cant see why not, its up to them, there part of the community and should have the same rights as everyone else, the whole issued is being overblown, surely there are more important issues to tackle.

As for the argument about if or not homosexuality is normal then IMO it most defiantly is NOT, up to the individuals involved and in all other aspects of life a person may be normal but to say being gay is normal just isn’t right.