A very honest question

I am sure this can and wil be seen as baiting by some...but what isn't these days

Tell me...honestly...

How does gay marriage harm others? I keep hearing about how it will destroy the family or society and in a moment of devil's advocate I could kid of understand where one might think that. I disagree but I could see it. No..I am after a different answer here.

How does it harm you personally?

I've heard conservatives, religious folks, and several others discuss how it is damaging in a personal level. I will happily entertain any answer at all. I want to know how a gay man or woman hurts you or your family on a personal level.

Thanks a bunch

-Kyo

Because on a religious level it goes again most texts that say that only man can bed a woman, and the more conservative the religion, it is only for procreation.

On a societal level, it teaches young children that it is acceptable for man to marry man and women to marry woman. This would snow ball and cause a major reduction in population. This would also limit the DNA pool. These factors could cause civilization, if it is large enough, to crumble. In a hypothetical sense.

On a personal belief, I think they can get married and be together. I don't think that they should be allowed to have children. If they have them from previous relationships they should have strict visitation with them and especially when their partner is with them. Also they should not be allowed to adopt. The reason that I say this is, children are taught there moral and ideas that they carry in life, in the home. I believe that homosexuality can be taught. And if a child is exposed to this, they will carry it in there own lives. Children should be taught that boys and girls go together, not boy boy or girl girl. It isn't natural for that to be, it is an abnormality.

In my view, just as many hetero relationships are sufficiently dysfunctional that they shouldn't be allowed to have children. Having said that, the inverse is also true: Homosexual relationships are loving and balanced and provide a safe environment for children.

There are many fine examples from the wild animal kingdom of homosexual couples raising orphaned young. This is true of a variety of creatures. It's quite well documented that all animals have a substantial percentage that are homosexual. It is Natural.

My view is that heteros can produce their own children. If they can't, tough. Nature doesn't want you to. Homosexuals can adopt - and *only* they may adopt.

There. Balance achieved.

In my view, just as many hetero relationships are sufficiently dysfunctional that they shouldn't be allowed to have children. Having said that, the inverse is also true: Homosexual relationships are loving and balanced and provide a safe environment for children.

But what I am saying is that it is teaching homosexuality as being an acceptable norm, which in both our society and in nature it is not.

There are many fine examples from the wild animal kingdom of homosexual couples raising orphaned young. This is true of a variety of creatures. It's quite well documented that all animals have a substantial percentage that are homosexual. It is Natural.

Please document your sources. As far as my biology, anthropology and most other classes dealing with the animal kingdom, there are not true homosexual species outside of humans. there are tribes of animals that break down roles in the pride where all the females raise the young, but they all belong to an alpha male or a group of males. Please back your argument.

My view is that heteros can produce their own children. If they can't, tough. Nature doesn't want you to. Homosexuals can adopt - and *only* they may adopt.

There. Balance achieved.

Here your own argument defeats you. If a hetero can't reproduce, nature doesn't want you to. Then Homos can't reproduce, nature doesn't want them to have children or else nature would make it possible, not a social program. I guess we should let nature take it's course.

As you wish. Please follow the links to a variety of animal research into and observation of naturally occurring homosexuality.

news.bio-medicine.org...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www3.interscience.wiley.com...

news-service.stanford.edu...

Google Scholar's entire listing of docs on this subject:

scholar.google.com...

For some entire books on the subject, please see:

linkinghub.elsevier.com...

www.amazon.ca... X" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">ijoc.org...://www.amazon.ca/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natrual-Diversity/dp/031225377 X

You could have done the search yourself. It wasn't difficult. And frankly, with what constitutes the "norms" of our society, it seems to me that it's high time for a serious re-think of our positions on things. Your education clearly needs a bit of sprucing up. When I studied anthropology and biology in the late 70s and early 80s, homosexuality was discussed as being a natural occurrence in 7-11% of animal societies, depending on the animal. I don't know what the new numbers are but it sounds to me like you're a victim of Bush Science.

Nature doesn't allow certain people to reproduce- at least together. Please do some research into the subject. It can be anything from low sperm count to an "inhospitable environment" to spontaneous abortion to failure to thrive and on and on and on. Some people simply cannot produce viable offspring. That's why we, in our *cough* wisdom, developed in vitro fertilization, aka test tube babies. Is that natural or is it just one of our norms?

My question to you is, what are you trying to say? All I can see is that you're spouting rhetoric.

It's a pleasure to be your foe. Thank you for the compliment.

with all the hatred, butchering, killing, maiming, blowing each other to bits in the name of war, religious hatred, divorces, racism, sexism, corporate greed and bullying in the world i say this

good on em for finding love on this screwed up rock on which we revolve

reply to post by bigvig316

Originally posted by bigvig316

My view is that heteros can produce their own children. If they can't, tough. Nature doesn't want you to. Homosexuals can adopt - and *only* they may adopt.

There. Balance achieved.

Here your own argument defeats you. If a hetero can't reproduce, nature doesn't want you to. Then Homos can't reproduce, nature doesn't want them to have children or else nature would make it possible, not a social program. I guess we should let nature take it's course.

Dude, then how do homosexuals exist in the first place? Nature's been taking it's course since the beginning of the existence of anything and in all that time it hasn't done away with homosexuality. I highly doubt that it came into existence the very moment Homo Sapiens appeared on the planet either.

There are plenty of well documented cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom ranging from beetles to birds to great apes. Do some research would you?? Sheesh. If anything it seems that our dear homosexuals are, in fact, helping the rest of the species out by raising and caring for orphaned young. This seems to be the case especially among birds. A gay couple of males often rescue abandonned eggs from certain death, raising the hatchling into a perfectly "normal" heterosexual adult.

Lets see if I can find an example...

Here's something: Link
And here: Another link

I believe both articles go into how homosexuality actually benefits the species. Neither of them should be biased, as they're both from what are seen as credible sources of scientific information.

There are videos on YouTube I could present to you as graphical evidence, including homosexual whales and a masturbating bird. Also, I found an article about how an early scientist on the subject of animal homosexuality was subject to ridicule by her fellow scientists, but I found that to be beside the point here. I can send a U2U if you happen to need further info on the subject.

Furthermore, some animal species, such as some whiptail lizards, are solely female, reproducing by means of parthenogenesis. Though they can be impregnated by males of closely related species, that seems to be rare. Is nature, then, slowly making the male-gender obsolete?



[Edited for a typo]

[edit on 10-11-2008 by Helioflorae]

I personally don't see anything wrong with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgenders having honest, loving relationships with each other. They are certainly no worse than heterosexuals when it comes to having either great relationships or bad ones. I know that christians say that it is bad because in their view homosexuality is bad. They also say, without proof, that the average gay relationship only lasts three years. Yet how many christian marraiges end between 3-7 years. Quite a lot, if you look at the statistics. So I think it's okay if those that are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender engage in relationships. I also think it is high time that we pass laws that would allow them to get married as well.

reply to post by KyoZero


I have been involved with this discusiion for some time outside of this thread, and your question is really spot on. It always comes back, after bible rhetoric, personal feelings, etc to: how, in any way shape or form has this affected you personally, ever?

ColoradoJens

Yeah, along with darwinists who've done little if any research on the subject, and try to justify their obvious homophobia with it.

And fail.

Well that's wha i am getting at here. I am just not sure how it realy harms people on a personal level. Even if a gay man hits of me...where is the harm? I just cannot see it but I'll be damned if I am not going to listen. I'd like to actually hear all sides.

-Kyo

reply to post by KyoZero


Understood. I am all for the discussion.
For me, I am typically concerened with those things that directly affect me ie: bad drivers, loud neighbors, unleashed dogs, solicitors , etc. Gay people don't really fall into that category because I rarely interact with gay people; if I do, I don't know it because they have done nothing wrong to me.
I see kids with green/blue/red/gold hair, mohawks, goths, punks, gangstas, rich kids in bmws, delinquints, drug abusers, everyday - some bother me slightly, others don't. Those kids who hang and smoke behind the 7-11 ususally end up littering and trashing something. I am concerend with the local cops who do nothing about anything.
I am getting stared at by the drunk cowboys at the bar looking for a fight, the drunk neo-con and liberal college students, the angry drunk business guy and the dude who glared at me when I cheered as the Broncos scored on his Chargers. I am not worried about gay people. Perhaps I am secure in my sexuality and thus other than the topical discussion, it does not worry me. Now that kid next door who keeps shooting off pop bottle rockets into my yard...

ColoradoJens

Very well said...

Love the responses...at least you admit they haven't harmed you

I would however love to hear from someone who is bothered

-Kyo

reply to post by KyoZero

?? Wasn't sure what the 'at least you admit that haven't harmed you' thing was in reference to. I was just adding my two cents in a way perhaps some may understand. If this thread is only for your debate with posters/ideas than I'll not post here again. Thanks.

CJ

I'll bite.

Personally, I feel it devalues my own marriage because if two men or two women can marry, then honestly, why can't some zoophile marry his horse/cat/dog. Most zoophiles would if given the chance. They profess to love their animal mate. They only want society to give them the opportunity to legitimize the love they can't help but feel as it does for a standard heterosexual relationship.

Marriage is supposed to be the most important bond in two people's lives. It is supposed to be the foundation upon which a family is built.

I have no problem with gay people themselves. Their life choices are their own. I don't care whom they sleep with or live with, or who is the beneficiary of their life insurance. But I do have a problem with what I have with my husband being called the same thing as the relationship between two men or two women. In my opinion, legitimizing gay marriage only serves to cheapen the institution.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. I have nothing against two people of the same gender marrying. How could it possibly harm anyone? What you do with your spouse is no one's business and it shouldn't matter what gender they are.

By the way, I have had homosexual birds. They were in a large cage with both sexes, but two of the males were a couple. They got along with the rest of the birds, with no problems.