If homosexuality is proven to be biological . . .

[OphidiaPhile]

There is more to biological then genetics. There is not so new research that indicates sexual orientation is strongly influenced by hormonal levels when in the womb.

Absolutely correct.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I feel the same way about gays.

So you would have no problem if the US also started denying Fundamentalist Christians the legal right of marriage, based on Tropical Wilds' belief that they are repugnant?

I certainly object to that idea. I don't think that the government has any place telling two consenting adults that they can't marry one another. No matter what race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender those two people are.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Right, and everyone tells the truth on the internets .

Believe what you want, it does not change the facts.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I believe marriage is between a man and woman. If that means that two men in love lose out on property rights, then maybe they should try to change the property rights.

What you believe is ultimately irrelevant and gay people will attain the right to marriage nationwide when the US Supreme Court affirms said right.

 

[WatersMoon110]

There is more to biological then genetics. There is not so new research that indicates sexual orientation is strongly influenced by hormonal levels when in the womb.

True. But I think there might also be environmental factors in the formative years (I'd say, until about 3) outside of the womb that effect sexual orientation.

But that is a good point, I was only thinking of genetics, and not thinking of things like hormone levels in the womb. But isn't everything that happens in a human body/mind basically biological?

 

[WatersMoon110]

I believe marriage is between a man and woman. If that means that two men in love lose out on property rights, then maybe they should try to change the property rights.

Why should property rights be changed? What is wrong with taking the easiest path and just adjusting the legal definition of marriage a little?

Just because you have religious beliefs about what marriage should be, that shouldn't be cause to try and prevent legal marriage from changing! You can continue to believe whatever you want, and not go to any church that would perform a religious (and legal) marriage between two people of the same gender.

 

[angellica]

What you believe is ultimately irrelevant and gay people will attain the right to marriage nationwide when the US Supreme Court affirms said right.

Maybe, or maybe it will go to a vote and marriage will be reaffirmed as between a man and a woman.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Maybe, or maybe it will go to a vote and marriage will be reaffirmed as between a man and a woman.

We do not vote on Civil Rights. These are consider to be rights that the government has no choice but to grant to everyone equally - based on the US Constitution.

 

[angellica]

Why should property rights be changed? What is wrong with taking the easiest path and just adjusting the legal definition of marriage a little?

It's changing the definition quite a lot more than "a little." What's wrong with changing the property laws anyway?

Just because you have religious beliefs about what marriage should be, that shouldn't be cause to try and prevent legal marriage from changing! You can continue to believe whatever you want, and not go to any church that would perform a religious (and legal) marriage between two people of the same gender.

Just because some people have beliefs that gays should be able to marry, that shouldn't be cause to try and change the legal definition of marriage. Why do their beliefs trump anyone else's?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Maybe, or maybe it will go to a vote and marriage will be reaffirmed as between a man and a woman.

The US is NOT a pure democracy and never has been it is a Democratic Republic which is designed to keep the majority from controlling the minority so therefore a vote would be unconstitutional.

 

[angellica]

We do not vote on Civil Rights. These are consider to be rights that the government has no choice but to grant to everyone equally - based on the US Constitution.

Cali. had a vote and the gays lost.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

It's changing the definition quite a lot more than "a little." What's wrong with changing the property laws anyway?

Just because some people have beliefs that gays should be able to marry, that shouldn't be cause to try and change the legal definition of marriage. Why do their beliefs trump anyone else's?

There actually is no set legal definition, Christians are the ones that have been trying to force a legal definition and have not succeeded. Get over it and let others live as they want , you live as you want and we will all be a lot happier.

Would you vote to take a away my right to breed snakes for a hobby?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Cali. had a vote and the gays lost.

It was overturned before because it is unconstitutional to vote on civil rights and that is why it will be overturned again.

The Supreme Court is also looking at the lies and deceit used to pass prop 8.

 

[WatersMoon110]

It's changing the definition quite a lot more than "a little." What's wrong with changing the property laws anyway?

Because just changing property laws wouldn't resulting in granting the same rights to same sex couples that are currently granted to married couples. You don't really seem to have any idea how many different things would actually need to be changed to grant the same rights granted to legally married couples to same sex couples. You don't seem to care how hard it is to do it in a different way - just so long as it keeps same sex couples from getting "married".

Just because some people have beliefs that gays should be able to marry, that shouldn't be cause to try and change the legal definition of marriage. Why do their beliefs trump anyone else's?

Because there is not valid ethical theory to show that marriage should be only between a male and a female adult human. There is, however plenty of valid ethics showing that homosexuals should be treated with equal rights. These homosexuals are people, they are tax paying citizens of the US, and they deserve the same legal rights granted to everyone else.

The only objection to doing this is the religious beliefs of people like you. Religious beliefs are not a valid basis for laws in the US. Therefore, the laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional - and the Supreme Court will eventually overturn them and gay marriage will be legal every where in the US.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Cali. had a vote and the gays lost.

And their vote was unconstitutional and will be overturned.

We do not vote on Civil Rights. No vote will prevent these rights from being granted to homosexuals. It would be far easier on you to just allow others to live as they please, and instead try to work on becoming a better person and a better Christian - by whatever personal definitions you hold for either of those.

Trying to run other people's lives will only lead to frustration and failure. Eventually everyone be treated equally under the law in the US - and I do not see that anything can be done to prevent this. Stupid attempts like Prop 8 in California do nothing but ensure that this will happen even sooner.

If it was really about what defines "marriage" then Prop 8 would have been a law to make all legal unions called "Civil Unions" in California - granting the Fundamentalist their oh-so-favorite term for religious unions. But it appears to be about denying rights to a given minority - based on heterosexist religious beliefs.

 

[Washington]

But identical twins are far more likely to be of the same sexual orientation than not.

Which is backed up by studies.

"[In 1991] Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate."

source
​

So the chances of both identical boy twins being homosexual if one is, is much higher than if one of two fraternal boy twins is homosexual, and far higher than two sibling boys born apart if one is homosexual. So there's some kind of biological construct going on.

 

[Washington]

Right, and everyone tells the truth on the internets .

Which if OphidiaPhile was lying in this case would mean he has been listing his occupation as a Geneticist in the "About Me" section just waiting for an opportunity like this. Sound reasonable to you? Not to me it doesn't.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Right, and everyone tells the truth on the internets.

You know, this is only mildly related - but I thought I'd quote you anyway.

I honestly cannot believe that people who oppose same sex marriage do so for the reasons they claim (the main one being "marriage should be between a man and a woman"). I don't know if it is just too much for me to wrap my head around people who actually believe that the legal definition of marriage needs to match their religious concept of marriage. Or if I just can't believe that someone could oppose gay rights without being heterosexist.

I simply cannot believe that someone could see homosexuals as fellow people - equal in value to one's self - and also think that legal marriage shouldn't be granted to same sex couples.

Frankly, I think it is about a person believing themself to be "better" than homosexuals, and wanting to use the law to keep homosexuals from getting equal rights - so that they can continue to feel better about themself by discriminating against homosexuals.

I just cannot see any reason for opposing same sex marriage than heterosexism (the belief that heterosexuals, like one's self, are better than homosexuals). I try to find something else in people on here who claim to have other reasons, and all of them seem to boil down to relying on heterosexist religious belief.

 

[keith99]

Which if OphidiaPhile was lying in this case would mean he has been listing his occupation as a Geneticist in the "About Me" section just waiting for an opportunity like this. Sound reasonable to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Did you check his occupation before before this thread?

If you claim to then all I have is your word.

Not that I'm questioning you ar have any reason to distrust OphidiaPhile, if anything the opposite. But I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to evidence.

And if I claim to have looked at it 6 months ago all anyone else has if my word for it. How much value they place on that depends on what they have learned about me so far on this board. Meaning only a few would have good cause to give it a huge weight. (Though I would hope many would give it some moderate weight).

 

[b&wpac4]

Cali. had a vote and the gays lost.

You don't understand how the judicial system works. If you would like, I could recommend several books that detail the system and will show you why that vote will be overturned by the US Supreme Court.