Same Sex Marriages to be Legalized in CA

Now you guy's can come out of the closet already and bring your boyfriends to California!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355836,00.html

Starting tomorrow, the state home to quite possibly the largest population of gay people is finally legalizing the marriages between gay couples. This is a pretty big break through and a real victory to gays. It's probably the domino effect that makes every state start allowing gay marriages.

There's still debate about whether churches will allow gay marriages to happen in their parishes. The results are beyond me, and I expect to hear some controversy real soon. I personally would find it very awkward to view a marriage of people of the same sex in my local church. I still wonder about the status of marriage. I was brought up to believe that marriage was a religious action, but apparently it is also a legal action, since it determines your taxes and other stuff. I think the scale is soon going to tip to one direction.

I was brought up to believe that marriage was a religious action, but apparently it is also a legal action, since it determines your taxes and other stuff.

It was also a political act back in the old days before monarchs were reduced to parliamentary rubber-stamps.

it shouldnt be called marriage though, because marriage is between two people of opposite gender.

think about this: gayness is a choice, its not genetic. if gayness was genetic or whatever, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool, as gay people cant breed.

Butts said:

think about this: gayness is a choice, its not genetic. if gayness was genetic or whatever, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool, as gay people cant breed.

Or there is a third option: it is caused by the environment a child is raised in and how we develope during pregnancy. The fact that homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of time and has been seen in almost every culture in history speaks volumes about it being more than just a "fad". I doubt primitive societies were concerned with whether it was a choice or not. Not to mention there is evidence for homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.

I believe human sexuality is much like everything else: it's influenced by both nature and nurture. Some of what we find attractive comes from our parents, society and environment as we mature. The other half is determined by developement in the womb, such as what sort of chemicals we are exposed to and how our brain developes. So in some sense, it is a choice, but it is also wired into us.

Outside of that, I can't say if sexuality is like a switch, and is either set to hetero or homo, or if it is based on degrees of attraction to both sexes. There is evidence for both, but it is not my place to say which it is. But to say that it is nothing more than a choice belies the complexity of the issue.

Butts said:

think about this: gayness is a choice, its not genetic. if gayness was genetic or whatever, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool, as gay people cant breed.

Think about this...being mentally retarded is genetic, but that doesn't mean either of the parents were suffering from mental retardation. It all depends on what's in the chromosomes at the time of conception, and the parents really don't have any control over that. Just because something's "genetic" doesn't necessarily mean either of the parents exhibits the traits of said condition.

Butts said:

it shouldn't be called marriage though, because marriage is between two people of opposite gender.

think about this: gayness is a choice, its not genetic. if gayness was genetic or whatever, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool, as gay people cant breed.

You couldn't be more dense. Almost 1500 species of animals knowingly engage in homosexuality. So I guess was a choice... I guess all those gay animals are just rebelling against their parents. You also have no clue how genetics work... you don't have to BE gay to pass on the genetics of homosexuality. In fact... you could be carry the gene for "the gay" as we speak! "Think about this" ...your opinion means nothing. Millions of scientists have tried researching why homosexuality exists and there is no definitive answer. The only real conclusion is that it isn't simply "choice".

it shouldn't be called marriage though, because marriage is between two people of opposite gender.

...in your state. In California and Massachusetts, it has no gender distinction. This goes for several other nations as well.

Surely its just down to the classic old nature/nuture debate? Its just down to preference - i mean i may be a straight man but that doesn´t mean im attracted to every girl. In fact where i come from there is a real shortage of hot women!

Well regardless of the causes of homosexuality I can't exactly see what would stop you from giving a legal status equal to marriage available to them. They're not going to be married in churches unless they're Unitarians or something anyway, so that's not going to upset anyone. With as many secular things as there are I'm confused as to why people focus on homosexuality. You can't really convince someone to be gay anymore than you can convince someone to not be gay, so there's not a "threat" there.

This will probably be seen as a necessary step for human rights that overcame some ridiculous thinking.

Well, it's nice that more people can do what they want in a supposedly free country. Good for them.

As for the genetics/choice deal. All my gay and bi friends claim they chose to be that way, and anecdotal evidence, my friends, is absolute.

/thread

Well, there's always a choice. The option would of course in this case be, living a lie, and be miserable until you die or decide to go with the other choice.

Butts said:

gay people cant breed

Oh gno! I'd better tell my gay friend that his kid is someone else's. Strange how he looks just like him though.

Evilalien4 said:

Surely its just down to the classic old nature/nuture debate? Its just down to preference - i mean i may be a straight man but that doesn´t mean im attracted to every girl. In fact where i come from there is a real shortage of hot women!

I couldn't agree more. I think people can become gay the same way people can get into emo music. It's just what they like. I like punk, and ska and hardcore music, but there are tons of bands in all of those genres that I think are shit. And I think once people pick a side, they feel obligated to stay on that side. If they keep switching sides, it gets on people's nerves. And I'm pretty sure humans have a desire to be liked or at least accepted.

I'm not as concerned with the causes of gay people, their already here and no one has an exact answer, we'll just be shooting the same evidence back and forth, and no one's gonna give up, because people are already inclined to pick a side and stay with it, even if the results are questionable.

My real concern is blurry line between church and state. I know we're all in favor of keeping religion out of our justice system. But I had learned as a child when I was brought up, that marriage was a religious action. In fact, Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments in Roman Catholic Christianity. It clearly states in the religious education text books I used to have, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Not man and man, or woman and woman. Apparently that's not the case anymore. Maybe gays can be married legally in California, but that doesn't mean they're married in religious terms. The question that I'm inferring, is a simple case of "What came first, the chicken or the egg?". Except in this case, what came first, religious marriages, or legal marriages?

In my eyes they used to be the same thing, but I can see they are starting to break apart, and becoming more distinctive, until we may have to declare marriages as obsolete. It's a real horror to imagine, it's starting to frighten me a little. I hope there's a realistic solution.

Before I rant on more about this stuff, I don't really know a whole lot about foreign religions, and cultures. All states and cultures host marriages right? Do other religions besides Christianity say anything about marriage as a religious practice?

Butts said:

it shouldnt be called marriage though, because marriage is between two people of opposite gender.

I think marriage is a legal contract. As an immigrant, I had to get married to live in this country. We recieved some tax and health benefits and probably some other benefits I don't know about yet.

To me, it makes absolutely no difference between me and my partner if we are married or not. The only difference is our legal standing in the state.

think about this: gayness is a choice, its not genetic. if gayness was genetic or whatever, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool, as gay people cant breed.

Think about what? Can I think you are a fucking moron? You really should learn a thing or two about genetics and evolution. Humans everyday do things which go against their apparent urge to pass on their genes. Suicide, inbreeding, homosexuality, abstinence, contraception, abortion... and so on and so on... But these things do no harm to the number of our species. We are a successful species in spite of these things.

As Human beings, we do have a far more higher functions which sometimes go against the survival of our genes, but by and large, they are beneficial, hence they remain. Suicide is just a byproduct of something that is far more useful to our survival.

Homosexuality is not a choice for most gays. This is simply a fact. Just by looking at a gay person, without prior knowledge of that person, you can often tell they are gay. And I'm not just talking about their fashion or the way they have their hair cut... I'm talking about their face structure and how gay men can often look really effeminite and how lesbians can look really buff. It's pure genetics.

Marriage was initially a religious action, and the problem is essentially that it has been made into a legal action as well, through various laws relating to marriage. I've long thought that the best solution to the gay marriage problem would be to separate the terms and practices of "legal marriage" and "religious marriage from each other. Here's how this would work in terms of legislation:

1: Two people of any gender combination can be legally married, become part of the same legal category as every other married couple, and enjoy the same benefits of every other married couple.

2: Government cannot force ministers/priests/other religious persons to perform marriages against their will. Whether a church performs a marriage or not is its own decision. A church is a private club, and has this right. A gay couple wishing to be married should find a willing church if they want a religious marriage, or can be married by another public government official if they only want legal marriage.

3: When a couple enters into religious marriage, they are free to choose whether or not this is also a legal marriage. Married couples could exist that are married in a religious sense and not a legal sense. A couple when married by a judge could also consider themselves as married in a religious sense (though this would be silly) because "religious marriage" would not be a regulated term.



As for the nature versus nurture debate, I'll confirm that both factors are crucial to a person's orientation. It's definitely not purely a choice. Among other evidence, it has been found that when a female fetus is exposed to more androgens (such as testosterone) than is normal, the girl will be more likely to prefer "boy" activities when young and is more likely to become a lesbian later.



Aaaand changing the mood slightly, I think you should all watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50

JohnnyRancid said:

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?".

If you accept Darwinian evolution, the egg came first. The animal that laid it was not a chicken but the mutant inside the egg was. :)

Butts said:

think about this: gayness is a choice, its not genetic. if gayness was genetic or whatever, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool, as gay people cant breed.

I think that's a very foolish way to think about it. I mean, I'm gay and I've been that way my entire life and I never recall ever deciding or "choosing" to be gay. Just the same way I think the straight people here never chose to be straight, or to find certain tastes, smells, places, or types of music appealing.

Creaphis said:

Marriage was initially a religious action, and the problem is essentially that it has been made into a legal action as well, through various laws relating to marriage. I've long thought that the best solution to the gay marriage problem would be to separate the terms and practices of "legal marriage" and "religious marriage from each other. [etc.]

Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this way.

Butts said:

it shouldnt be called marriage though, because marriage is between two people of opposite gender.

How would you call it? Butt-buddies? (pardon the pun, blame South Park)

Butts also said:

think about this: gayness is a choice, its not genetic. if gayness was genetic or whatever, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool, as gay people cant breed.

They certainly can. There are certainly people who denied (to themselves or to others) being gay, and plenty got married and had kids before (if at all) they came out.

Interestingly, someone I know had a daughter, and later accepted his sexual preference. So did his daughter, who has a girlfriend for a number of years now.

Enjay said:

If you accept Darwinian evolution, the egg came first. The animal that laid it was not a chicken but the mutant inside the egg was. :)

Maybe, at some point, a brave chicken accepted its childbearing preference and chose to lay eggs.

Most likely the chruch is gonna do it's best to avoid accepting gay marriages for its own reason. Having glanced through this thread, I completely agree with the need for a seperation of "religious marriage" and "legal marriage". If the lines become clear, marriage of gays would become less of an issue. The church is a different matter that will do its own thing.

In fact, that just brings the matter back to the whole seperation of church/state argument

what i meant about gay people cant breed is, they cannot have children naturally with each other, as men do not have wombs, and a woman does not have a penis. sure, test tube babies are possible and all that...

i do know that genetics are not based on traits and alleles alone, there are chromosomal disorders. chromosomal disorders are what cause retardation. im not that stupid, whoever was accusing me of not knowing how genetics works. im not against gay people, im just putting it rather bluntly. i only skimmed through the comments caused by my controversial statement (which i purposely said, btw) and so far it seems everyone is hell-bent to prove me wrong. i dont really care if there are gay animals. there is a species of cuttlefish that the males "practice" having sex with each other before they mate with a female, and sex with a male can be considered gay.

Just because I force a man to stimulate me orally to the point of ejaculation doesn't make me gay. It makes him gay!

Homosexuality is a double standard that I find quite queer (heh pun). Any relation with of two males is sodomy while two attractive fornicating females is sexy.

Butts said:

i do know that genetics are not based on traits and alleles alone, there are chromosomal disorders. chromosomal disorders are what cause retardation. im not that stupid, whoever was accusing me of not knowing how genetics works.

I think you're contradicting yourself. Your argument appears to be like this: "if homosexuality was genetic in origin, it would necessarily breed itself out as it provides a selective disadvantage that would discourage the gene from being propagated". However, there are numerous common genetic diseases that exist; whether you call them "chromosomal disorders" or anything else is irrelevant (and there are many different types of genetic disease with different causes at that). So it is clear that if some genetic conditions continue to exist, others can as well. In fact, there is reasonable scientific evidence that there is at least a partial correlation between homosexuality and certain genetic factors.

Secondly, you make the assumption that if homosexuality is not genetic in origin, it is automatically "a choice". With the slightest bit of thought this can be seen as patently absurd. Think about it this way: presumably, you're heterosexual. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Do you believe you could "choose" to be gay if you wished?

Yo I could care less about what Butts said. If it was unclear, don't pick flame wars about it. Regardless of whether it was ignorant, or intelligent is really unnecessary. I really wanted to pose an interesting group discussion, Not a one-on-one post to the death. (or a 10,000 on one in this case) I'd hate for this thread to be reported to a mod.

Anyway, I'd like to see this 'legal marriage' and 'religious marriage' seperate. I wonder how legal marriages would work though. Does this mean that two roomies could decide to "marry" even though they are the same sex, heterosexual, have no feelings for each other, and are only in it for the benefits?

JohnnyRancid said:

Does this mean that two roomies could decide to "marry" even though they are the same sex, heterosexual, have no feelings for each other, and are only in it for the benefits?

Straight people already do it.

JohnnyRancid said:

Anyway, I'd like to see this 'legal marriage' and 'religious marriage' seperate. I wonder how legal marriages would work though. Does this mean that two roomies could decide to "marry" even though they are the same sex, heterosexual, have no feelings for each other, and are only in it for the benefits?

So? Most of opposite sex marriages occur for the same reason you assume same sex marriages to occur.

As for the sanctity of marriage I saw keep it legal marriage only for the reason I'd hate to see the government force any Christian organization to adopt alter a tradition they don't believe in. That's not a government I want oppressing me.

I'd have to say I'm cool with gay marriage and all but I'm more for the continuation of the Human race.

fraggle said:

I think you're contradicting yourself. Your argument appears to be like this: "if homosexuality was genetic in origin, it would necessarily breed itself out as it provides a selective disadvantage that would discourage the gene from being propagated". However, there are numerous common genetic diseases that exist; whether you call them "chromosomal disorders" or anything else is irrelevant (and there are many different types of genetic disease with different causes at that). So it is clear that if some genetic conditions continue to exist, others can as well.

Wrong or not, Butts still has an interesting point. It's something I've considered myself, because a genetic propensity to homosexuality certainly seems like a strong inhibitor for reproduction. But, our race has advanced past many prior evolutionary requirements, and homosexuality seems to be just one of the many remarkable traits which emerged when survival suddenly became virtually guaranteed. I realize that there's also homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but how many wild animals are really strictly homosexual instead of what we would consider bi?

Also, it seems to me that equating homosexuality with a "chromosomal disorder" may be equally offensive with considering it purely a choice - but I know that you just meant it as an example, so don't worry about defending yourself.

The separation-of-church-and-state solution to this problem is probably the one that will ultimately be reached - by the government of our generation, if not the current one. It seems clear that society's values are heading in that direction.

Haloless0320 said:

I'd have to say I'm cool with gay marriage and all but I'm more for the continuation of the Human race.

Honestly I wouldn't miss it. I'd be transhumanist if I believed any of that technology were actually possible.

Then theirs the argument no one human being is in fact 100% straight either. It's just so conditioned to be wrong people immediately put it off or ignore same sex attraction altogether.

i only skimmed through fraggles reasonable scientific evidence link about gayness. it sounds like certain parts of the gene in the chromosomes dont have a repressor on it, or the "heterosexuality trait" is being repressed by the lack of a certain chemical, which suggests that assuming there is a gene for heterosexuality or homosexuality, its in every living person.

btw the sequence of dna determines what amino acids and such will be made and a certain combination could possibly cause a persons brain to develop differently, and that could cause the person to be homosexual.

i still think its a persons choice to be gay though, nothing will ever change my quote, "worthless opinion". if my opinion was so worthless, why would anyone bother to respond to it?

Butts said:

i still think its a persons choice to be gay though, nothing will ever change my quote, "worthless opinion". if my opinion was so worthless, why would anyone bother to respond to it?

So to actually answer my previous question, are you saying that you choose to be straight, then? Do you have control over who you feel attracted to? Obviously I don't know your personal preferences, but suppose, hypothetically, that you preferred blondes to brunettes, but for some reason felt embarrassed that an attraction to blondes was a "cliche" - could you change your own preferences wilfully to find brunettes more attractive, and to stop finding blondes more attractive?

If not, how is homosexuality any different, and in what sense is it a "choice"?

EDIT: Saw this this morning on BBC news:

As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay
- Dr Qazi Rahman, Queen Mary, University of London