Gay Marriage

As far as controvercial topics go, Gay marriage is one of the biggest ones, but it doesnt have to be. Why is gay marriage such a controvercial topic? Closed minded self-richeous people who are too stuck in their ways, they are the reason its such a controvercial topic. I'm not saying that everyone has to think that being a homosexual is right, or that everyone should be, but for goodness sake, why stop two people from having the right to marry eachother? "You cant get married because youre gay". That sounds an aweful lot to me like saying "You cant get married because youre black." or "You cant get married because youre catholic." Discriminating against someones sexual orientation is just as good as discriminationg against their color, as far as i'm concerned. Let me guess, the next arguement will be "You can't controal color, but you can controal who youre attracted to." Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Sure, smeone can act like theyre controaling it, but really all thats doing is eating them up inside. Proof? You say yu want prof? Here, an article from outproud.org.

"In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued its "Report on the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide," which found that "A majority of suicide attempts by homosexuals occur during their youth, and gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30 percent of (the estimated 5,000) completed youth suicides annually. (5) The report recommended that "mental health and youth service agencies can provide acceptance and support for young homosexuals."

So, you say "Well if youre gay, hide it, and act like you arent.", thats just as good as handing them the gun and saying "Go ahead, shoot yourself."

Denying someone the right to commit themselves forever to the one they love just because they share the same genitalia? Heinous.

Make sure you can spell before typing. "Controal" isn't a word, at least, not an English one.

Anyways, to start, lose the coviction that being gay and being denied marriage is like being black and being denied marriage. The fundamental difference is that anything that happened to the blacks was not their choice. They didn't choose to be slaves. They didn't choose to be second class citizens. They didn't choose to be denied marriage to whites. Homosexuals DID choose to be gay, however. Blacks are understandably offended by this comparison.

And yes, I believe homosexuality is a choic, not genetic or anything else that makes it permanent. Whether you are a religious or atheist, the answer is still the same. Being religious means you beleive homosexuality is immoral. Being atheist almost certainly means you believe in evolution. But I am religious and simultaneously believe in evoultion. So, evolution is about a species evolving over a time, while nature runs it's course and eliminates what is detrimental to a specie's survival. And survival is mostly achieved by rearing and raising children. When you are homosexual, you cannot have children, so you are in direct defiance with nature's designs on your basic instincts. Consequently, homosexuality would not have survived as a genetic trait, because it is a detriment to a specie's survival. Consequently, it cannot be a permanent, innate orientation. That means it is chosen.

So, having stated that, it should also be stated that homosexuality is a huge health risk. It has not been proven that homosexuals caused AIDS, more likely that it was eating the feces of monkeys, sexual relations with monkeys, or the monkeys themselves caused it. But what has been proved is that homosexuals are generally more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts and that it is primarily transmitted through body body fluids, such as blood and semen. Rampant homosexual activity greatly increases your chance of contracting diseases like that and spreading them amongst the population.

Furthermore, homosexuality has been looked down on because it was decided that it was a moral perversion. Most of our laws reflect that premise. Killing is immoral, so we pass laws condemning murder. But, if one day we decide that something is no longer immoral, what would that seem like to those left out, those who support other things that are immoral? The cause of gay marriage is already being used to further the cause of polygamy, especially for America's Muslim population. "Why is exhibitionism immoral, but homosexuality not?", they'd say. You cannot backslide on immorality in one section and expect it to remain constant in another.

Marriage as defined as a bond between one man and one woman has been the very premise of civilization since the dawn thereof, and Western Civilization especially. Allowing a homosexual union would endanger the existing value of marriage even more, rendering it a mere commodity rather than something sacred and worth protecting for the good of family and civilization. Look what happened to sexuality. When it was finally the prevailing view that sex was no longer something sacred between two people, women in our culture came to be viewed as a sexual commodity, largely through their own actions and limitations, or rather, the lack thereof.

Let it be known that what happens between two (or three, or more) people in the privacy of their own home is no concern of mine. Regulating the bedroom is not something I support. But when the activity brings a health risk to society or is brought into the public sphere, it opens itself to public scrutiny. Like they always say, people never thought of banning homosexuality until they thought of legalizing it.

First off, I would like to point out that "anyways" is also, not a word, and that you yourself made quite a few mistakes, spelling and grammar wise, so you're in no position to correct mine.

and on to the arguements, your only arguement that cmes much down to fact is the spread of AIDS. The rest are arguements that, though they could be argued, would simply rely on the moral and religious views of the voters to decide. But, on to AIDS. Yes, homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous in some instances, I will admit, but why do you think that is? Could it even POSSIBLY be because society wont allow them to commit to the fullest? I really dont see how this arguement involves AIDS, seeing as it was originally about gay marriage, not homosexuality in general. And to point out your arguement about evolution, is it possible that, mother nature didnt force out the homosexuality gene because it stops us from becoming like rabbits and overproducing? entirely possible. Humans are not the only creatures who engage in homosexual activities either,it is more common than one would think amongst animals. Reproduction is not as much of a necessity as you would like to believe, mrpresident, because if it were we wouldnt have overflowing orphanages all over the world, we would be short on children. We wouldnt have packed classrooms, we would still have one-room schoolhouses

As for the whole "You CAN control being gay", the only thing I have to say to that is, you wouldnt know, now would you? Youre not gay, and why would anyone in their right mind choose to be something they can be killed for?

Aha, but the differnce is, I never misspelled anything twice. You did. Now, to the argument.

Fine. The AIDS part was thrown in for effect. You caught me. Slap my wrist and be gone with you. So, homosexuals are promiscuous because...we...won't let them marry? They can be committed and not marry. Sorry, but that arguement carries no weight. What have we denied them other than marriage? Nothing. They're people, too, and are treated as such. But we must be concerned with the larger scope of things. The threat against marriage is no religious one, because the advancement of polygamy is a true development. Are you for that, too? Maybe you like females being treated like McDonald's toys. Collect 'em all! Side converstion, though.

Yeah, overflowing orphanages are a real problem aren't they? 100,000 orphans every yearm and 200,000 couples looking to adopt. I'd say we have a problem with too few children. Homosexuality really just isn't the issue with that, but it's more like not enough people having children. They don't make a big enough impact to affect that. Try telling that to the Europeans. They live off that crap about a population bomb, so they stopped having children. Now look at them. Total societal collapse in 50 years, tops. By 2050, the population trend of the world is going to reverse, and it's definitely not homosexuality that's causing it. Humans can't reproduce like rabbits can. Rabbits generally are able to breed at a young age, and many regularly conceive litters of up to seven young, often doing so four or five times a year due to the fact that a rabbit's gestation period is only 28 to 31 days. It takes a human woman 9 months.

And you're right, I don't know about being gay. I never latched on to the idea of relations with another man. But, I do know that I chose to be straight because girls look so much better than guys. I could be gay. Friends of mine used to be gay, and now they're straight. They'll testify that you can change. But, would you know about being gay? If so, would you know about being straight? If so, then you just defeated yourself. You don't have confusions about sexuality. Either you like guys, or you like girls, or you play for both teams. If not, you don't have room to criticize me. And believe me, heterosexual men get killed in droves compared to homosexual men. That I can promise. Your argument there is mere projection. If I turned out to be gay, my friends wouldn't kill me, and no one else would. We have lots of gays at school, and they've never been attacked. Ever. I never hear about it anywhere, either.

aha, but it doesnt matter, I made one mistake twice, you made a few once with each, it about evens out.

And yes, exactly, because they are not allowed to marry. marriage is viewed as the ultimate commitment and when two people dont see themselves being able to reach the end of the road of commitment, they have no urge to step on to it in the beginning. And, in all honesty, no, they are NOT treated like people, people are often denied jobs if it is known that they are homosexuals, and we need not mention the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy. Polygamy and homosexuality are quite different things, also, and anyone with half a brain can see that. You, obviously cant.

If there are that many orphans, and that many couples looking to adopt, then WHY do we still have orphans? Thats another obvious. And, reproducing like rabbits was a metaphor, hun, but apparently you dont know about those either.

You, my friend, must not watch the news very often. there have been many a killings on homosexuals and transgendered people just for being so. And yes, I would happen to know about both being straight and being gay, because I do "play for both teams" and your friends, they arent really straight, or they were never really gay. Thats how it works, and I hope that someday people will get off cloud 9 and realize that.

You managed to turn this debate into a full fledged attack on my intelligence. And that's fine. Only goes to show how little of an arguement you have. Since this is a personal matter for you and not for me, I see no reason to continue the debate. But, I'd argue with a signpost, so I'll give my last.

Discrimination comes in all shapes, sizes, colors, and genders. Just because it happens dosen't make them any less of a person. If there are people who are dicriminated against because they're gay, there's still that many more people who really don't care. No one has a monopoly on it. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is one I'm apatehtic to, for obvious reasons. But it just seems kind of overbearing to me. Men and women are prohibited from relations in the Army, and homosexuals should, too. But as for keeping their gender a secret, I don't think it really matters. They're serving their country, and that's admirable enough.

And actually, to correct an insulting statement, I do watch the news. I pay more attention to the news than you could ever hope to do in a dozen lifetimes. As the name suggests, politics is my game, and the rules require me to keep up. Don't insult me.

Homosexuality are the same, in the sense that they are sexual preferences, that they are both illegal, and that they are a small portion of the population. Both of them have the potential to destroy the institution of marriage. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Marriage is the means for melding the two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole. Melding the same sex leaves an incompleteness. Ever wondered why one guy plays tough and the other acts like the woman? And it isn't any identity crisis, either. It's obvious in history that any civilization that allows marriage to weaken and devalue committed civilizational suicide. Case in point: Greece and Rome.

Your metaphor wasn't a good one. Humans and rabbits are completely different, so a metaphor comparing them is insufficient.

You don't know my friends.... Sometimes, I wondered the same things you arrogantly stated. But every time I did, I just remember the way they acted and conducted themselves, and compare it to now. The answer becomes painfully obvious.