Support NeoGAF

[bjork]

You know who was a hot Mormon? Julie Stoffer. I wonder what she's up to nowadays.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

What I love is how I usually add bigots to my ignore list, but they're banned soon after anyways. It's like the system knows what I'm thinking.

I don't think anything I've said is bigoted in any way, if you were referring to me.

Let gays marry, that's fine. I still believe that marriage, in the eyes of God, is between man and woman. I think I can believe that without having issues with gay people or their rights. If the laws of the land want to define it as simply between two humans, go ahead. You'll never catch me protesting gay rights in any fashion or even speaking out against them. I just respect what I believe to be God's desire for His children; and that's an entirely separate thing.

 

[M3wThr33]

Oh please, you people can go on claiming homosexuality is "environmental" and what not, but what evidence do you even base that on besides opinion?

I've been gay for as long as I can remember. I have three brothers who were raised the same exact way I was, and none of them are gay. So what happened to me?

I was BORN this way!

It's the same way for every gay person I know.

But it's not the only way. Young sex abuse victims often become homosexual, too. The fact that there's no 'one way' means that it's useless to call it a choice.

I don't think anything I've said is bigoted in any way, if you were referring to me.

Let gays marry, that's fine. I still believe that marriage, in the eyes of God, is between man and woman. I think I can believe that without having issues with gay people or their rights. If the laws of the land want to define it as simply between two humans, go ahead. You'll never catch me protesting gay rights in any fashion or even speaking out against them. I just respect what I believe to be God's desire for His children; and that's an entirely separate thing.

Nope. Just the people blindly supporting the Mormons for attacking something the constitution has no right defining. Implying a Christian belief into an amendment is just wrong and goes against everything we founded this country for.

But I do believe the biggest issue is people confusing legal marriage with religious marriage. Just because legal marriage was based off of Christian stuff doesn't mean it has to exactly follow it. What about athiests getting married?

 

[FitzOfRage]

Edit: Damn . . . I forgot the word 'crusade' or 'campaign' or something at the end of the subject line.

For a second I was expecting to read about a new classification for agressively homophobic unions ("Will you anti-gay marry me")

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I don't think anything I've said is bigoted in any way, if you were referring to me.

Let gays marry, that's fine. I still believe that marriage, in the eyes of God, is between man and woman. I think I can believe that without having issues with gay people or their rights. If the laws of the land want to define it as simply between two humans, go ahead. You'll never catch me protesting gay rights in any fashion or even speaking out against them. I just respect what I believe to be God's desire for His children; and that's an entirely separate thing.

Sorta like wanting my kid to be a doctor, but not throwing a fit when he decides to be a mechanic? I think God and I see eye to eye -- don't sweat the small shit!

 

[bjork]

Implying a Christian belief into an amendment is just wrong and goes against everything we founded this country for.

I think so too. And I really still don't get why people care what some other guy does in his own home or place of work, but these debates always go in circles. :shrug:

 

[M3wThr33]

I think so too. And I really still don't get why people care what some other guy does in his own home or place of work, but these debates always go in circles. :shrug:

Because parents take pride in what they teach their children. And closeminded ones want to make sure their children are just as closeminded as them. They don't want to embrace change or even let people have choice, because obviously if you can grow up having the same mindset your pastor tells you, it's obviously the best thing.

But it's just the next step in equal rights. Hilarious that at one point we outlawed interracial marriage. That's just crazy. But back then there were people who were against it. The same kind of people defending this, just 40 years ago.

Pull out a George Carlin quote.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

 

[kame-sennin]

Homosexuality hasn't been linked to any biological cause as of yet. The best evidence towards that theory is peoples inability to switch sexuality via psychology and people born with inherent sexuality. The "research", however, is not medical science, its something else entirely.

Ok.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11604463

Can't they just keep on wearing their magical underwear and keep their personal views on marriage to themselves? Seriously, what harm does it do them?

I hear this all the time, what belief is this a reference to?

 

[TheHeretic]

Ok.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11604463

Thats interesting and all, but its a fairly blunt test and the sample size is tiny. I'm really talking about pinpointing what makes people homosexual, whether it be genetic, biological, emotional, or a mixture of all 3. I'm not against homosexuals in any sense but ruling out nurture for nature because of anecdotal testomony from people who claim to have "always been gay" isn't a scientific approach to the issue.

On a similar subject (and no, i'm not comparing homosexuals to criminals), there are 3 crucial components that make many serial killers and rapists. Mental illness, mental damage and being victims of child abuse. A total third of what makes a serial killer is set at birth, and even more interesting is the concept of a psychopath. One in a hundred people are psychopaths; people born with an inability to process complex emotions in a way ordinary people do.

The concept of accountability is complex but whether or not people "choose" to be homosexuals, I find it very unlikely that there is a simple switch in the human brain that can turn homosexuality on and off.

 

[Nexus Zero]

I still believe that marriage, in the eyes of God, is between man and woman.

That's nice but marriage is an arbitrary human institution.

 

[TheHeretic]

That's nice but marriage is an arbitrary human institution.

Marriage has its roots in religion and even in a secular sense has legal bearings designed around the concept of a man, a woman, and children.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Gay marriage is like the Wii if you really think about it

I mean that in a good way.

Hmmm...

 

[kame-sennin]

Marriage has its roots in religion and even in a secular sense has legal bearings designed around the concept of a man, a woman, and children.

I'm pretty sure that's not true at all.

 

[Knox]

I'm totally with the Mormons on this one. In fact for every single gay marriage in California I'm going to have three straight marriages. That'll teach them from tearing my moral fabric, I'm going to have an army of wives knitting that shit right back up.

 

[TheHeretic]

I'm pretty sure that's not true at all.

Well the origins of marriage are are ambigious and for all intents and purposes untraceable, but in terms of actual documentation the Romans were the first I can think of that actually gave it structure. If you were caught being a homosexual in the Roman empire you were burnt alive.

 

[Hitokage]

Well the origins of marriage are are ambigious and for all intents and purposes untraceable, but in terms of actual documentation the Romans were the first I can think of that actually gave it structure. If you were caught being a homosexual in the Roman empire you were burnt alive.

You do understand the Roman empire came long long after what can be considered "early history". At any rate, I think it's more likely that marriage first became formalized with regard to issues of estates and nobility than issues of spirituality. After all, marriage has always been available as a tool to bind clans large and small.

Of course, it probably was just to say "this woman is mine, not yours".

 

[Killthee]

I hear this all the time, what belief is this a reference to?

Temple garments. I think I first heard about them in a GAF thread about the mormon South Park episode.

 

[TheHeretic]

You do understand the Roman empire came long long after what can be considered "early history". At any rate, I think it's more likely that marriage first became formalized with regard to issues of estates and nobility than issues of spirituality.

I quite clearly stated it was the first recorded instance of marriage, not the first instance of marriage period. Not many civilizations recorded their history before the Romans.

 

[Dolphin]

Well the origins of marriage are are ambigious and for all intents and purposes untraceable, but in terms of actual documentation the Romans were the first I can think of that actually gave it structure. If you were caught being a homosexual in the Roman empire you were burnt alive.

Marriage has existed in some form in every culture in known human history. Sorry, you're wrong.

And about Rome...
http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html

Read up.

 

[kame-sennin]

Temple garments. I think I first heard about them in a GAF thread about the mormon South Park episode.

Thanks. Seems a bit mean-spirited to call them "magic underwear". They're just like any other religious garment worn to show piety.

 

[TheHeretic]

Marriage has existed in some form in every culture in known human history. Sorry, you're wrong.

And about Rome...
http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html

Read up.

Wrong about? Nothing you've said contradicts anything i've said. If you have a point try making it without being condescending.

 

[Hitokage]

Thanks. Seems a bit mean-spirited to call them "magic underwear". They're just like any other religious garment worn to show piety.

Except they're actually held to be protective and have symbols sewn on to them that are supposed to be cut out before old garments are disposed of. Really though, the "mean-spiritedness" doesn't come from that alone, but of a general derision of the group.

 

[Rorschach]

(Although I already have a good idea of what you're going to say)

I very much doubt it.

Californians better watch out, they might explode and start killing each other!

We're navigating uncharted waters here. Anything is possible!

You hate them for their freedom.

That's because they have too much of it and they're destroying my hypothetical children's innocence right from under them! Poor, theoretical bastards never stood a chance.

 

[msv]

Thats interesting and all, but its a fairly blunt test and the sample size is tiny. I'm really talking about pinpointing what makes people homosexual, whether it be genetic, biological, emotional, or a mixture of all 3. I'm not against homosexuals in any sense but ruling out nurture for nature because of anecdotal testomony from people who claim to have "always been gay" isn't a scientific approach to the issue.

Almost anything concerning the human mind is a blunt test, we don't have the means to dig deeper yet. In this sense you acknowledge you don't know either way, is it nature, nurture or both? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt before we figure out for sure what causes this difference? All evidence available points to the biological factor, it would be extremely stupid to fake it (they seem to be pretty sincere to me) and it has been proven not to fuck up a nation, since many other have had same-sex marriages for much longer.

On a similar subject (and no, i'm not comparing homosexuals to criminals), there are 3 crucial components that make many serial killers and rapists. Mental illness, mental damage and being victims of child abuse. A total third of what makes a serial killer is set at birth, and even more interesting is the concept of a psychopath. One in a hundred people are psychopaths; people born with an inability to process complex emotions in a way ordinary people do.

Then why take the example of serial killes AND rapists none the less? Why not merely say it could still be very much nurture if that's your opinion? Again to this I say, at least give them the benefit of the doubt if you don't "agree" (people not wanting to allow same-sex marriages make me sick to be honest, the ones trying to forbid things like this are the real problem imo)

The concept of accountability is complex but whether or not people "choose" to be homosexuals, I find it very unlikely that there is a simple switch in the human brain that can turn homosexuality on and off.

This doesn't make much sense, a simple switch? Accountability? Even if it was a choice, it would still be their choice, as long as they're not harming anyone they're fine.

 

[Nexus Zero]

Marriage has its roots in religion and even in a secular sense has legal bearings designed around the concept of a man, a woman, and children.

Well in a secular sense does it bloody matter? That's what's great about secularism; it's not (or should not be) haunted and stifled by past dogma.

 

[Brannon]

Again, I don't want the thread to steer from its original course, but are you saying that evidence is now proof? Until they isolate a gay gene or something along those lines...

Like fruit flies and some animals that have been made gay through genetic science? Whatever it is, they're able to make them born preferring the same gender, and they can do it regulary. Something has been isolated. May or may not be the case for humans, but we'll never find out because that would be a serious ethics violation. At any rate, it still makes the 'gay gene' an increasingly sound theory, and not wishful thinking.

 

[TheHeretic]

Almost anything concerning the human mind is a blunt test, we don't have the means to dig deeper yet. In this sense you acknowledge you don't know either way, is it nature, nurture or both? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt before we figure out for sure what causes this difference? All evidence available points to the biological factor, it would be extremely stupid to fake it (they seem to be pretty sincere to me) and it has been proven not to fuck up a nation, since many other have had same-sex marriages for much longer.

I agree there is a biological element, but what I don't pretend to know is the ratio nessecary combined with environmental circumstances. Our knowledge of the human mind is shallow but still quite sophisticated. We know the parts of the brain that control certain activity and we know the frontal lobe governs our self control.

Then why take the example of serial killes AND rapists none the less? Why not merely say it could still be very much nurture if that's your opinion? Again to this I say, at least give them the benefit of the doubt if you don't "agree" (people not wanting to allow same-sex marriages make me sick to be honest, the ones trying to forbid things like this are the real problem imo)

The degree to which our brain governs our choices is a very serious issue. To me, someone saying "I was born gay, and thats that" is an avoidance. It diminishes their capacity and a human being to make a decision. If someone is born gay then why not be born a serial killer? As repulsive as the comparison is both are simply a divergance from what we might consider "normal" brain activity. The concept of accountability and hence free will is very complicated, as is sexuality. We talk about homosexuals as if someone simply is or isn't, in truth there are bisexuals and all sorts of people with all sorts of different sexual desires.

This doesn't make much sense, a simple switch? Accountability? Even if it was a choice, it would still be their choice, as long as they're not harming anyone they're fine.

Please don't push and anti-homosexual agenda on me when I have simply not expressed it. I am talking about the science of homosexuality, I could care less who people fuck.

 

[Nexus Zero]

If someone is born gay then why not be born a serial killer?

But then you're missing the point. Personally I think people are both born and nurtured into being serial killers. Or rather, some people are more predisposed than others. The difference is, and this is what renders your line of argument null, that serial killers harm other people and infringe on their freedom, two consenting adults in love do not.

 

[TheHeretic]

But then you're missing the point. Personally I think people are both born and nurtured into being serial killers. Or rather, some people are more predisposed than others. The difference is, and this is what renders your line of argument null, that serial killers harm other people and infringe on their freedom, two consenting adults in love do not.

The consequence is irrelevant, I am simply talking about causation.

This is not, in any way shape or form, a morality point I am making.

 

[Nexus Zero]

The consequence is irrelevant, I am simply talking about causation.

Fair enough, I just don't see the point of discussing causation when it has no baring on how we should deal with it. It is irrelevant.

 

[msv]

I agree there is a biological element, but what I don't pretend to know is the ratio nessecary combined with environmental circumstances. Our knowledge of the human mind is shallow but still quite sophisticated. We know the parts of the brain that control certain activity and we know the frontal lobe governs our self control.

The degree to which our brain governs our choices is a very serious issue.

How so? How can you not be anti-homosexual and still consider this a serious issue? Why is it a serious issue if you don't care what homosexuals do? (only concerning homosexuality here ofcourse, there are other cases where it might matter, but here?)

To me, someone saying "I was born gay, and thats that" is an avoidance. It diminishes their capacity and a human being to make a decision.

Avoidance? It's as if you thought homosexuality is something to account for? But you said you didn't care what they did?

If someone is born gay then why not be born a serial killer? As repulsive as the comparison is both are simply a divergance from what we might consider "normal" brain activity. The concept of accountability and hence free will is very complicated, as is sexuality. We talk about homosexuals as if someone simply is or isn't, in truth there are bisexuals and all sorts of people with all sorts of different sexual desires.

Welcome to the most basic ideas of nature and nurture. Only homosexuals know wether it's a choice or not. Others don't know as of yet, we might figure it out, yes, but in the meanwhile, why not believe homosexuals when they say they're homosexual?

Please don't push and anti-homosexual agenda on me when I have simply not expressed it. I am talking about the science of homosexuality, I could care less who people decide to fuck.

Then why discuss the nature/nurture factor of homosexuality in the first place. All you seem to be concerned with is the "sanctity" of marriage then.

 

[TheHeretic]

Fair enough, I just don't see the point of discussing causation when it has no baring on how we should deal with it. It is irrelevant.

Well, if you knew serial killers couldn't stop themselves would you look at them differently? You are right that the end result is irrelevant, i'm a (light) liberal myself, I only chimed in because these threads always result in someone saying "gays are born that way" when there is little evidence to support that. 99% of GAF believes gays have the right to marry so anyone expressing an opinion otherwise is virtually committing account suicide.

I think marriage should remain a male/female dynamic personally, but I don't oppose gay marriage. It doesn't bother me that gays can marry in any real way, I just don't see why homosexuals feel the need to "get in" on a tradition.

words.

I'm not going to explain myself to someone who has made up their mind concerning my opinions.

 

[msv]

The concept of accountability is complex but whether or not people "choose" to be homosexuals, I find it very unlikely that there is a simple switch in the human brain that can turn homosexuality on and off.

This doesn't make much sense, a simple switch? Accountability? Even if it was a choice, it would still be their choice, as long as they're not harming anyone they're fine.

Please don't push and anti-homosexual agenda on me when I have simply not expressed it. I am talking about the science of homosexuality, I could care less who people fuck.

If 'accountability' isn't of any concern to you, then don't bring it in the discussion. You're clearly relating accountability with homosexuality there and we're discussing same-sex marriage here, not the nature/nurture aspect of homosexuality. If you're going to be off-topic be clear about it.

What is your stance on same-sex marriages? I.e. Do you want to allow them or not?

 

[mambadragon]

Imagine if these conservative Christian groups put as much time into fighting poverty as they did fighting homosexuality.

 

[msv]

Well, if you knew serial killers couldn't stop themselves would you look at them differently? You are right that the end result is irrelevant, i'm a (light) liberal myself, I only chimed in because these threads always result in someone saying "gays are born that way" when there is little evidence to support that. 99% of GAF believes gays have the right to marry so anyone expressing an opinion otherwise is virtually committing account suicide.

"Little" scientific evidence may be (not so sure about that), but all scientific evidence we have points to the direction of homosexuals speaking the truth. Also not giving them the benefit of the doubt seems ridiculous to me (not in a scientific sense obviously).

I think marriage should remain a male/female dynamic personally, but I don't oppose gay marriage. It doesn't bother me that gays can marry in any real way, I just don't see why homosexuals feel the need to "get in" on a tradition.

You don't see why, just leave it at that then. You have no evidence either way, let them be. They obviously want it, let them have it. This negative stance you have towards this issue reeks of bias.

 

[Nexus Zero]

Well, if you knew serial killers couldn't stop themselves would you look at them differently?

I do look at them differently, at least to most people. That doesn't mean I think they have any place in society.

It doesn't bother me that gays can marry in any real way, I just don't see why homosexuals feel the need to "get in" on a tradition.

Because they grow up with the same hopes and dreams as everyone else?

 

[Yagharek]

But it's not the only way. Young sex abuse victims often become homosexual, too. The fact that there's no 'one way' means that it's useless to call it a choice.

I think youre misrepresenting the situation. Like almost all behaviour in all other animals including humans, there is a bit of nature and a bit of nurture responsible. Homosexual behaviour in animals is well documented, and given we are also animals it should come as no surprise that some - or many - people are that way inclined.

I think a more interesting debate is the disdain so many people have for the practice. It's like society has a massive repressed sexual tension thrust upon it by conservative practices that forces people to think of the practice with active repulsion. Those of us who arent repressed generally are indifferent about the behaviours of people with different preferences to ourselves.

So, people are gay? That's their choice/nature. I don't see how any reason (choice or nature) is anyone else's concern. It's just the way it is.

Imagine if these conservative Christian groups put as much time into fighting poverty as they did fighting homosexuality.

Then there would be a lot more HIV infections as a side-effect of their other agendas.

-------------

One final point. I would wager that monogomous (for all intents and purposes - marriages) relationships predate religious traditions on the matter. Like many traditions (eg christmas, hannukah) religions have appropriated other traditions from other cultures. I doubt marriage is any different.

 

[Wraith]

"The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children," the four-paragraph letter states.

Yes, the church's teachings are totally clear. It's a shame that the law isn't supposed to follow your bullshit religious teachings then, isn't it?

 

[Mash]

I think so too. And I really still don't get why people care what some other guy does in his own home or place of work, but these debates always go in circles. :shrug:

It's because God totally gives a crap what people do without clothes on.

 

[Baconbitz]

I think its the dumbest stuff ever. Gays are people too and should be allowed to marry.

 

[Kipz]

An all knowing, all powerful god in charge of the cosmos has nothing better to do than worry about whether two guys or girls love each other. Such trivial matters seem important to an insignificant race in the scheme of things I suppose.

 

[Ceres]

It's because God totally gives a crap what people do without clothes on.

God is a pervert.

 

[Kipz]

God is a pervert.

I used to think God was up in a cloud crying as I touched myself.

 

[TheHeretic]

I used to think God was up in a cloud crying as I touched myself.

Thats what I still think, which is why I still use a fork taped to a toilet brush

 

[KingGraham]

I just don't see why homosexuals feel the need to "get in" on a tradition.

Seriously? You don't see why gay couples might want hospital visitation rights, tax incentives, inheritance rights that can't be challenged by bigoted families?

Seriously?

 

[Xapati]

Homosexuality hasn't been linked to any biological cause as of yet. The best evidence towards that theory is peoples inability to switch sexuality via psychology and people born with inherent sexuality. The "research", however, is not medical science, its something else entirely.

Actually:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel...13.900-gay-brains-are-hardwired-at-birth.html

Seriously? You don't see why gay couples might want hospital visitation rights, tax incentives, inheritance rights that can't be challenged by bigoted families?

Seriously?

And the fact that it helps general acceptance.

 

[Evander]

Gays are people too

You have some pretty controversial views, there.

 

[Ceres]

Seriously? You don't see why gay couples might want hospital visitation rights, tax incentives, inheritance rights that can't be challenged by bigoted families?

Seriously?

And this is where the argument of civil union vs marriage comes into play. Though as long as the government is going to continue calling it a marriage license, I don't see how anyone can refer to it as purely a religious institution that a particular group of people should be barred from.

 

[Evander]

And this is where the argument of civil union vs marriage comes into play. Though as long as the government is going to continue calling it a marriage license, I don't see how anyone can refer to it as purely a religious institution that a particular group of people should be barred from.

The REAL solution is to abolish the legal institution of marriage, and just give civil unions to everyone.

But THAT would be unpopular.

 

[krypt0nian]

The REAL solution is to abolish the legal institution of marriage, and just give civil unions to everyone.

But THAT would be unpopular.

The straight people would never give up something they are denying to others.