Gay Marriage

[Biggles]

I am not convinced the approach taken by those in California against Gay unions is either correct or ultimately beneficial to the case they present.

It is true that a number of references exist in the Old Testament that forbid homosexuality (although, as I once pointed out, not as many that forbid lending money with interest) and in the New Testament Paul had a problem with sex in general; and at one point said if it was up to him no one would get married or have sex. This has to be seen in the context that he thought Christ's return was imminent and that such unions were pointless. Jesus himself says nothing on homosexuality and only mentions marriage briefly. In fact, in answer to a question on who a person would be married to in heaven if they had more than one partner in this life (due to a previous partner dying) he answered that in heaven we would not be like man and women but like the angels (who would appear to be androgynous).

However, I digress (again). The concept of "family values" which is being touted as the reason for being against two people of the same sex declaring their love through promises of fidelity, appears flawed on a number of accounts.

Firstly, exactly what does this term mean? Do any of you feel your marriage is now unsustainable because same sex marriages have been approved in California? Will two hetreosexual people who fall in love declare that it would be nice to promise fidelity to each other but feel that they cannot because there are people of the same sex who have made the same promises? One of the complaints against homosexuals was that are were fickle and promiscuous, it seems absurd to me to then rail against them because they want to be true and loyal.

Secondly, Jesus told Christians that they are "in the world but not of the world". He asked that those who followed him lead by the examples of their lives not by burning people who disagreed with them (be it real flames or the flames of ostracising) . Their is little merit in being the Salt if Salt enacts legislation to make the food taste like salt too. Or, put simply, you cannot live others lives for them. If according to your light an action is wrong then abstain from it (be it homosexuality or eating meat on a Friday), but it is fundamentaly wrongheaded to presume to enact laws in civil courts to prevent others from doing so. I seem to recall that Paul was none to keen on Christians being litigious.

Thirdly, increasing numbers of Christian marriages are ending in divorce, it would be fairer to say that although the mote of undermining "family values" may be in the homosexual eye, beams abound in the eyes of others.

I am sorry this is a bit long, and Busyman I would like to say that this is not directed at you. I see in your writing a genuine desire to reach beyond pure legalism and search for something that is good and just.

I know I won't convince those who are convinced they can create heaven on Earth; if only the legislature and judiciary were to be on their side. I know there is nothing I can say that would convince them that they may have simply been seduced by a dream. But then one of my favourite lines in the Bible is Ecclesiastes Ch1 V2 - (if, as a Pagan, I may presume to quote someone elses scriptures).

To be honest, I am not desperately comfortable with two men being intimate and like a hypocrite go if it is two girls. However, the former is my problem not theirs and I have never been able to decide if the latter is a problem.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@20 February 2004 - 20:35
How so, you are saying there is a gay gene... if a parent passes a trait to there child it is through there genes... the gene carring the defective receptor information.... Is it reccesive?   Can you also explain how having a defective recptor in your brain can make you gay?

I gave the recessive gene scenario. This was strictly for illustrative purposes to keep things simple and to keep the post readable to the average viewer.

I thought I explained pretty clearly how it could make one straight, gay and everything in between. Is there something you can point out which is unclear?

Wizard,

The post should have read "born" gay. Inherited might imply a gay gene, which is wrong.

That was the very first line of a response to you, are you reading or skimming the posts?

A gene does not actively make you gay, but lack of properly functioning and sufficient quantities of sex hormone and other endocrine receptors may prevent one from fully developing normal male sexuality.

We are born sexually immature and must actively differentiate into our mature sexual state. At any step in this process a genetic abnormality may derail proper development. Some, as I have stated, lack the proper hormone receptors for this approriate brain maturation and are never going to develop normally.

As a simplified analogy, a nonfunctioning thyroid gland can cause a child to become mentally retarded due to a lack of hormone support which assists in development of the brain.

There is no "mental retardation" gene, it is a matter of faulty brain maturation because the proper genes were not stimulated at the proper times. This can result from either inadequate hormone stimulation or inability of the brain to recognise a hormone. This is why EVERY child born is screened for hypothyroidism. If you don't get the hormone replacemnet started immediately, irreversible mental retardation will occur. You cannot take a mentally retarded hypothyroid individual and reverse him later, it is not just proper hormone availability, but also timing is critical.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@20 February 2004 - 20:42
It is true that a number of references exist in the Old Testament that forbid homosexuality (although, as I once pointed out, not as many that forbid lending money with interest) and in the New Testament Paul had a problem with sex in general; and at one point said if it was up to him no one would get married or have sex.

So I guess you would stand squarely against 2 gay bankers marrying.

Yet another enlightening and well written effort.

[Agrajag]

Certainly a lot of talk here, much of it very clever and well thought out, however ultimately missing the point. In what way does why or how people are gay effect what rights they should have ? It seem the consensus that it is genetic, environmental or probably a mixture, whatever is true it is something which happens to someone, not something they choose. I am genetically quite tall, the fact that I am quite fat is my fault. I do not think either should effect my right to be married. I do not think that the nature of gayness is the issue here.

With regard to the atheists and agnostics, the Chuch aspect is meaningless. As you do not believe in God then surely being "married in the eyes of God" is a non sequitur. The Church wedding is therefore meaningless and is, if anything of less value than the civil one.Those who follow a religion will feel exactly the opposite and their wedding is of more significance than the civil alternative. So why not let people choose to go whichever route you want, however the non Church goers have no more right to tell the Church who they should marry, than the Chuch has to tell the state who they should not.

At the end of the day, let people express their love for each other and make a comitment to act a certain way with regard to their relationship. Let them form a contract in the eyes of the law and give them the same rights as everybody else. let the Churches decide who they will allow to be married, if anyone does not like this, then it is probably the wrong Church for them anyway.

Live and let live.

[Busyman]

Sorry hobbes, all that stuff about schizophrenia and homosexuality is hogwash.

Schizophrenia IS a physical ailment that affects the brain. I don't have a book with me like you but I know it has something to do with dopamine levels and the frontal lobe of the brain.

The stuff regarding gays being born gay or in essence having no choice is ludicrous.
You must have read JUST 1 issue of Scientific American (actually I've read it too ).

Your explanation of a person such as Skweeky is that she had a different mix of hormone levels mixed with environmental stimuli mixed with.....blahblah.

Do realized you described everyone in the world?

We are ALL different, hormones and all. You explain things as if you had petri dishes and did the tests yourself. The fact is you read articles that support your argument and ignored others.

Where is all of this on the news? There's are plenty of gay movies and propaganda.
This would support their agenda. Where is it LOUDLY?

@leftism - Could I have been gay? Sure. Would I? Hell fucking no. It disgusts me. Things about a man I find unattractive.

hobbes' rationale is that if you have sex with the same sex at anytime you have ALWAYS been gay. Totally ridiculous and I can't believe an intelligent person such as himself thinks that.

Skweeky finds either sex attractive. Not because she was hardwired but because there is something in A PARTICULAR PERSON she finds attractive.

....but I guess she was preordained at birth to be bisexual.

[hobbes]

I don't think any point has been missed. The thread just progressed on from the initial question to explore why people came to the conclusions they did.

Most people, even those who are religiously opposed to gay marriages, agreed that separation between the church and state would dictate that they should be legal.

No one has suggested that churches be forced to marry anyone against their will. There are plenty of unitarian churches which will do it with no reservations.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@20 February 2004 - 18:00
I don't think any point has been missed. The thread just progressed on from the initial question to explore why people came to the conclusions they did.

Most people, even those who are religiously opposed to gay marriages, agreed that separation between the church and state would dictate that they should be legal.

No one has suggested that churches be forced to marry anyone against their will. There are plenty of unitarian churches which will do it with no reservations.

Very good point hobbes.

I think me and like....2 other people are opposed but..............
according to our own laws religion does not matter.

[Wizard_Mon1]

That is what i wanted you to say

A gene does not actively make you gay, but lack of properly functioning and sufficient quantities of sex hormone and other endocrine receptors may prevent one from fully developing normal male sexuality.

Before this you did not qualify how a brain malformation could make you gay, the closest thing u got to it was this:

Any timing or hormone receptor problem may cause the brain or the genitalia to not form as intended.

Yes i read all the posts. TYVM.

However, lack of male sex hormone can only made you less drawn towards women it cannot make you attracted to males. In the case of males that a high amount of female sex hormone, they are not neccesarily drawn to men. Feminine males are not neccessarily drawn to men, it is more likely that they are seen as slighly different to other males and outcast during adolescence which leads them to question them selves because they are not like other males. After this what is left? They seek an alternative or an answer to why they are different.

@agrajag - yes sorry i went off topic - but i have no opinion on gay marrige other that people can do what they want.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@20 February 2004 - 18:12
That is what i wanted you to say

A gene does not actively make you gay, but lack of properly functioning and sufficient quantities of sex hormone and other endocrine receptors may prevent one from fully developing normal male sexuality.

Before this you did not qualify how a brain malformation could make you gay, the closest thing u got to it was this:

Any timing or hormone receptor problem may cause the brain or the genitalia to not form as intended.

Yes i read all the posts. TYVM.

However, lack of male sex hormone can only made you less drawn towards women it cannot make you attracted to males. In the case of males that a high amount of female sex hormone, they are not neccesarily drawn to men. Feminine males are not neccessarily drawn to men, it is more likely that they are seen as slighly different to other males and outcast during adolescence which leads them to question them selves because they are not like other males. After this what is left? They seek an alternative or an answer to why they are different.

@agrajag - yes sorry i went off topic - but i have no opinion on gay marrige other that people can do what they want.

I could take estrogen and I still won't like men.

I would grow boobs though.

[hobbes]

Busyman,

I have referenced no articles, I am just posting what my scientific backround has taught me.

Calling stuff "hogwash" is not a very eloquent rebuttal. It just says, "I don't want to believe what you are saying, but I cannot refute your statements".

Do you seriously believe that "homosexuality" is a choice, I can't believe an intelligent person such as yourself would say that.

Why are there so many priests caught for homosexual indiscretions. They are men of God but openly defy him as a choice? Or perhaps they sought the shelter of the church to fight their homosexual desires, which they are deeply ashamed of because of their upbringing. In the end, even after devoting their lives to Christ, their true natural desires came out anyway.

Openly gay priests, that really ought to give you a clue.