Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the FACT is that sex has a biological function as does mateing. I realize that humans have sex for fun more than procreation, thats fine, but it does not change the basic reasons why we have a sexual urge or a desire to mate. Since theres an obvious scientific reason for sex & mateing theres an obvious difference between heterosexual sex & homosexual sex.
One is normal & one is not.
So you must think using a condom is abnormal too.
Besides, who cares. Your opinion on what's abnormal is not grounds for discrimination. Everyone should be able to marry the person they choose.
Not all liberals are for same-sex marriage just as not all conservatives are against it, but a great many of the people who are for them are from the liberal side of the spectrum. This seems strange because many (not all) of these same people are pro-evolution. If evolution is the THING (for them), then sex is mainly for procreation. Since attraction and sexual intercourse members of the same sex is NOT biologically producitive, why would so many people who are pro science be for something that is not biologically logical?
Charles Sands
Smyrna, TN
Because generally, liberals have the common decency to love people like me for who we are and logically believe that we deserve equality.
Assexual reproduction was once the only way life reproduced.
Animals developed the ability to mate with sexual reproduction.
Males and Females started to mate.
Sex became pleasurable to ensure that males and females mated.
Males and Females began to search for specific mates who would provide good genetic material for strong and healthy children.
Males and Female began to cooperate together to protect their children.
Males and Females began to pair bond.
Males and Females began to marry.
It all began with the young. Our young remain at the heart of marriage. This is hard wired into the institution. It was true 5000 years ago. And it's true today. Children are still a core component of marriage specifically because men and women are attracted to each other to procreate. It stands to reason then that marriage is an extension of procreation. They are inextricably linked because of the reason WHY we are sexually attracted to each other.
Whether or not a heterosexual couple decides to have children is immaterial as long as they are sexually attracted to each other. Biology has hard wired in each of us a desire to procreate. That is why we desire sex. Our contemporary society might have short circuited this desire to procreate but it's still there. Remove the trappings of contemporary society... find yourself stranded on a desert island for the rest of your life with your mate... kill off 99% of humanity... you'll want to have children.
By the way, monogamy is most definitely natural. Pair bonding occurs far more often in nature than homosexuality.
Let other people do whatever the heck they want--as long as it doesn't have any effect on you.
Two gays marrying doesn't affect me one way or the other. It's freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
I don't drink. I don't like people who drink. But I'm not going to try to stop people from drinking.
See the analogy?
Do you drink and drive? Do you like people who drink and drive? Are you willing to stop people from drinking and driving?
See MY analogy?
Same sex marriages certainly DO affect all of us. No one lives in a vacuum. Everything we do affects the lives of the people around us and indeed the people far away from us too. Remember, there are no more than 6 degrees of separation between you and every other individual on the planet.
Do you drink and drive? Do you like people who drink and drive? Are you willing to stop people from drinking and driving?
See MY analogy?
Nope, because your analogy is quite flawed and inane... there is absolutely NO correlation between a drunk driver, who could KILL (or seriously injure) you, and homosexual couples who won't affect you in the slightest. Oh, I forgot, they hurt your feelings. Waaaah waaaah. I'm sorry, but you won't convince me that the threat of death/maiming is the same as hurting your delicate sensibilities. Can you convince me otherwise? How does gay marriage hurt YOU as a straight person? How will it destroy your personal relationships? Are your relationships and beliefs that unstable?
I am straight and Jewish, and I don't have any problem with allowing gays to marry. My religion taught me to love thy neighbor, not to judge, and to accept all of G-d's creatures as beautiful and perfect... how about yours? They might be "outside of the norm" according to societal beliefs, but they are certainly not abnormal in the scientific sense - as has already been mentioned on this thread. Besides, who isn't a little bit "different" in some way? I have red hair, which makes me part of only 2% of the population, so are my rights not important? I say we should embrace our differences, especially when they are harmless to other people.
Because I like to communicate & dont mind offering up my opinion.
That doesn't mean that homosexuality or gay people bother me.
Obviously they DO bother you, or you wouldn't care whether or not they married! I'm bothered by pedophiles, so I don't think they deserve to marry children... I am NOT bothered by homosexuality, and therefore I support their rights to marriage. Seems pretty simple to me.
Nope, because your analogy is quite flawed and inane... there is absolutely NO correlation between a drunk driver, who could KILL (or seriously injure) you, and homosexual couples who won't affect you in the slightest.... [snide remarks snipped]
...Can you convince me otherwise? How does gay marriage hurt YOU as a straight person?
Okay, answer me this... Is a homosexual man capable of giving (actual) woman to woman advice to his adopted daughter? Where is the daughter to get this advice? It's often best received from a parent, the mother. If the daughter is raised by homosexual men, then she is going to miss out on this type of advice from her mother. She will then have a different upbringing than her friends who were raised in homes that included a female heterosexual mother.
How is a homosexual man or woman going to give his son advice about how to delicately handle a girlfriend? Women and men think differently, especially when it comes to romance. Gay men have little experience with this.
These questions of what a homosexual can and can not teach his or her adopted child snowball into real effects on the world.
Not to mention the more often mentioned degradation of the institution of marriage. Remember, children do lie at the heart of marriage because we are sexually attracted to each other specifically because of reproduction.
Okay, answer me this... Is a homosexual man capable of giving (actual) woman to woman advice to his adopted daughter? Where is the daughter to get this advice? It's often best received from a parent, the mother. If the daughter is raised by homosexual men, then she is going to miss out on this type of advice from her mother. She will then have a different upbringing than her friends who were raised in homes that included a female heterosexual mother.
How is a homosexual man or woman going to give his son advice about how to delicately handle a girlfriend? Women and men think differently, especially when it comes to romance. Gay men have little experience with this.
These questions of what a homosexual can and can not teach his or her adopted child snowball into real effects on the world.
Not to mention the more often mentioned degradation of the institution of marriage. Remember, children do lie at the heart of marriage because we are sexually attracted to each other specifically because of reproduction.
This is another poor argument. Turn it around. What about daughters who live with divorced or widowed single fathers? No heterosexual mother in the house there. Are you suggesting that children should only be raised in 2 parent, heterosexual homes? No, you're suggesting they only be raised in heterosexual homes, regardless of whether it's a 1- or 2- parent. Therefore, this is a very poor argument, indeed.
All of your arguments are moot. They don't address the OP, which was (of course) "Since attraction and sexual intercourse members of the same sex is NOT biologically producitive, why would so many people who are pro science be for something that is not biologically logical?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry, but you won't convince me that the threat of death/maiming is the same as hurting your delicate sensibilities. Can you convince me otherwise? How does gay marriage hurt YOU as a straight person? How will it destroy your personal relationships? Are your relationships and beliefs that unstable?
I'm bothered by pedophiles, so I don't think they deserve to marry children... I am NOT bothered by homosexuality, and therefore I support their rights to marriage. Seems pretty simple to me.
