Gay marriage OK because homosexuals born that way and deserve to have romantic relationships too?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, the reason 7 year olds can’t get married is because the don’t have the capacity for consent. Animals cannot put a paw print. Yes, if the law was changed, they could, but that’s another argument for another day. WHY WON’T MY PROPOSAL WORK? Nobody has definitively answered that. You all keep trying to change the subject. Just because a law is changed, that does not mean everybody is going to start lobbying for their sexual orientation to be recognized. Don’t change the subject again, give me a valid reason why the state can’t stop granting marriage licenses, and start granting civil unions.
 
Roamin_Catholic said:
Okay, the reason 7 year olds can’t get married is because the don’t have the capacity for consent.
Click to expand...
Right. Under current law they don’t have the capacity to consent. But the law could be changed to give them the capacity to consent.
Animals cannot put a paw print
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. The law can specificy what constitutes a valid signature, and it could be changed to accomodate that.
WHY WON’T MY PROPOSAL WORK? Nobody has definitively answered that. You all keep trying to change the subject. Just because a law is changed, that does not mean everybody is going to start lobbying for their sexual orientation to be recognized. Don’t change the subject again, give me a valid reason why the state can’t stop granting marriage licenses, and start granting civil unions.
Click to expand...
You didn’t bother answering my objection.

The reason why your proposal would not work because it would allow anyone of ANY SEXUAL ORIENTATION to get one.

This means pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, etc. can get civil unions.

This is what happens when sexual orientation becomes a reason for granting civil unions. All sexual orientations must therefore be accomodated, and there are lots of them!
 
cristininha said:
I understand your approach, but I think “not normal” carries a stigma that is often perceived as meaning something is “wrong”, instead of just “not normal” in the sense of “not in the norm”, this is why I prefer to use “not common”.
Click to expand...
Maybe the word deviant is better.
 
anthony6 said:
wikipedia is a bad source to use. anyone can write what they want there. so don’t use it for truth when you are reading some one elses opinion.
Click to expand...
I think that used to be the case but wiki is highly monitored now. Typically if someone posts nonsense to the site it is deleted within an hour. Also there are usually foot notes which list references. These can be checked to validate information.
 
cristininha said:
The human genome has been mapped out, but is far from being entirely understood. No one can affirm there is no genetic involvement in homosexual behaviour. The likelihood is that there is.
Click to expand...
There is no gay gene.

But, epigenetics shows that your behaviors can be passed down.

We should look in the food supply.

If there was a pill that cured SSA there would be a line to get it.
 
RobbyS said:
Well, it is not normal in the strictest meaning of the word. At most 10% of the population engages in such behavior, at least on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Asians make up a larger % of the worlds population than any other race. Using your criteria of normalcy everyone who is not Asian would also be considered"not normal."
 
A romantic relationship is not something you “deserve” from the government.
 
court14 said:
This is an interesting forum. I have been scanning the posts and replies and noticed a basic misunderstanding of Human Sexuality.

Is homosexuality natural? Sure. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom especially in higher mammals (elephants, dolphins, and primates other than humans.)

Homosexuality is not something a person decides to be so the idea that same sex marriage would somehow have negative effects on children is just plain silly. The most recent studies we have (dealing with gay men) indicate that sexual orientation is determined in utero before birth. It has to do with an immune response from the mother and the receptor cites for testosterone in the unborn child’s brain being less receptive to said hormone. As a result the brain develops more like a female brain. Hence same sex attraction.

Groups like NARTH are dismissed by the scientific community because they make claims which have not been validated using the scientific method.
Click to expand...
That something occurs in nature does not make it consistent with it being natural as in rightly ordered. All types of things happen in our fallen world. That does not make them healthy or ordered correctly.
 
court14 said:
Asians make up a larger % of the worlds population than any other race. Using your criteria of normalcy everyone who is not Asian would also be considered"not normal."
Click to expand...
Race is not equivalent to behavior.
 
BobCatholic said:
Right. Under current law they don’t have the capacity to consent. But the law could be changed to give them the capacity to consent.

Yes, they can. The law can specificy what constitutes a valid signature, and it could be changed to accomodate that.

You didn’t bother answering my objection.

The reason why your proposal would not work because it would allow anyone of ANY SEXUAL ORIENTATION to get one.

This means pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, etc. can get civil unions.

This is what happens when sexual orientation becomes a reason for granting civil unions. All sexual orientations must therefore be accomodated, and there are lots of them!
Click to expand...
These are all still non sequiturs. Contracts both in government and the private sectors are not valid if the person signing said contract does not have the mental capacity to do so. A good example of this would be an adult with mental retardation. If that person signs a contract say for an auto loan no court will recognize it as being valid.

For People to marry animals or children under 18 requires much more that changing a couple of laws. Basically our entire legal system would require (at least legislative and Judaical branches) major shifting. The implications of this shift would be mammoth because legal consent involves so many areas.

Our system now states that adults over 18 (with a few exceptions) can give legal consent. So the consent portion is already a done deal. The analogy of same sex marriage and bestiality still doesn’t wash.
 
fix said:
Race is not equivalent to behavior.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t equating race with so called “behavior.” I was responding to a post which stated that 10% of the population is gay and 90% is not therefore said 10% is not normal.

By this standard anyone who is not in any majority would be considered abnormal.
 
court14 said:
I wasn’t equating race with so called “behavior.” I was responding to a post which stated that 10% of the population is gay and 90% is not therefore said 10% is not normal.

By this standard anyone who is not in any majority would be considered abnormal.
Click to expand...
I still am not seeing your point? Race is not pathologic in any way. An inclination to bad behavior is not good. This all depends on accepting there is a correct order and a correct understanding of what health means.
 
court14 said:
I wasn’t equating race with so called “behavior.” I was responding to a post which stated that 10% of the population is gay and 90% is not therefore said 10% is not normal.

By this standard anyone who is not in any majority would be considered abnormal.
Click to expand...
A behavior is an effect which must have a cause. Someone who is attracted to the same sex may never engage in homo-genital activity but this does not indicate the person is not gay. Sexual orientation involves much more than sex.
 
court14 said:
A behavior is an effect which must have a cause. Someone who is attracted to the same sex may never engage in homo-genital activity but this does not indicate the person is not gay. Sexual orientation involves much more than sex.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with equating same sex attraction with race?
 
fix said:
I still am not seeing your point? Race is not pathologic in any way. An inclination to bad behavior is not good. This all depends on accepting there is a correct order and a correct understanding of what health means.
Click to expand...
Nor is sexual orientation but thats is besides the point. The point was that calling anything other than the majority (49% vs 51% the 49%) abnormal is misunderstanding normalcy.
 
The problem is a misunderstanding of what natural means and what health means. Simply claiming there is a congential reason for same sex attraction, or some such reason, is no justification for stating it is reasonable, healthy, or “normal”.
 
court14 said:
I doesn’t. I was addressing your calling sexual orientation a behavior.
Click to expand...
The inclination itself, even if never acted upon, is not ordered correctly. And that is true of many other inclinations as well. The other inclinations just do not have all the political agitprop this one does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top