Are there any secular arguments against gay marriage? - General

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46160959]that is clearly not true as most of the gay people today grew up in a time period where they were highly ostracized and treated like shit. Clearly you're wrong.[/QUOTE] No, I've talked to my sister, who is gay about this. She liked boys and only boys, and it wasn't just society pressuring her. Now she's bisexual. Also she has other kinds of mental illness.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160951]I believe that gay people are born straight and develop a liking for the opposite sex through social conditions. If they live in a society where homosexuality is accepted then they would be more inclined to subconsciously consider it.[/QUOTE] I've grown up in an area of the southern US which has historically been homophobic since it's existed more or less and i'm gayer than most rainbows. This is blatantly false and i'd like to know what crackpot study you might find to back this up (if any exist).

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160970]No, I've talked to my sister, who is gay about this. She liked boys and only boys, and it wasn't just society pressuring her. Now she's bisexual.[/QUOTE] oh, so that's your proof? Wow, that's some great proof. Guess what? I've talked to a lot of gay people about this, I'm bisexual myself, and I don't remember a time where I didn't find myself attracted to both sexes. Many of the gay people I know, in fact, all of them that I've talked to about this have made it pretty clear that they always knew what they were, they hid it or fought it in some cases to fit in but they always knew. Gay people who grew up in the 60's, and who grew up before then, are clearly proof you're wrong buddy. They couldn't exist in a time period where they were hated by your own argument.

[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;46160973]I've grown up in an area of the southern US which has historically been homophobic since it's fucking existed more or less and i'm gayer than most rainbows. This is blatantly false and i'd like to know what crackpot study you might find to back this up (if any exist).[/QUOTE] I have known gay friends for my whole life. I have two gay relatives. Unless they were all born bisexual or society made them believe they were straight, then they developed a liking for the opposite sex. It probably can happen earlier in life, which is why some people think they are born gay.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160986]I have known gay friends for my whole life. I have two gay relatives. Unless they were all born bisexual or society made them believe they were straight, then they developed a liking for the opposite sex. It probably can happen earlier in life, which is why some people think they are born gay.[/QUOTE] Do you have any evidence towards your point other than 'i know somebody'?

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160986]I have known gay friends for my whole life. I have two gay relatives. Unless they were all born bisexual or society made them believe they were straight, then they developed a liking for the opposite sex. It probably can happen earlier in life, which is why some people think they are born gay.[/QUOTE] There's studies that show that kids know from an early age who they are

[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;46160993]Do you have any evidence towards your point other than 'i know somebody'?[/QUOTE] Do you have any evidence that you were born gay? If you were born straight and became gay before you had any sexuality then you would never know. Also this whole argument is assuming people are born with any sexuality and it's not developed anyway. Something I have yet to decide upon. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46161017]There's studies that show that kids know from an early age who they are[/QUOTE] This doesn't prove people are born gay. You can't prove it because once someone has the ability to answer that question then they have probably been around some time.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161023]Do you have any evidence that you were born gay? If you were born straight and became gay before you had any sexuality then you would never know.[/QUOTE] you're the one making sweeping statements accusing an entire sexuality spectrum of being mentally ill, not me all i know is i've always felt closer to men than women, but never said a word about it because i always grew up hearing people ostracized for being 'faggots' and boys being literally beaten for acting 'too girly' or 'homo'. you ever considered that maybe people keep shut about their sexuality until they're adults or at the very least old enough to be able to protect themselves because their entire support structure is often homophobic?

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161023]Do you have any evidence that you were born gay? If you were born straight and became gay before you had any sexuality then you would never know. Also this whole argument is assuming people are born with a sexuality and it's not developed anyway. Something I have yet to decide upon. This doesn't prove people are born gay[/QUOTE] It's a thousand times better evidence for it than anything you've said

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161023]Also this whole argument is assuming people are born with a sexuality and it's not developed anyway. Something I have yet to decide upon.[/QUOTE] Well, it's a good thing the truthfulness of a statement doesn't reply upon whether or not a person on the internet believes in it.

You're an armchair sexuality expert too good for studies on the subject. That's too much man.

[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;46161044]you're the one making sweeping statements accusing an entire sexuality spectrum of being mentally ill, not me all i know is i've always felt closer to men than women, but never said a word about it because i always grew up hearing people ostracized for being 'faggots' and boys being literally beaten for acting 'too girly' or 'homo'. you ever considered that maybe people keep shut about their sexuality until they're adults or at the very least old enough to be able to protect themselves because their entire support structure is often homophobic?[/QUOTE] You have no evidence that you were born gay. I have no evidence that you were born straight and became gay. People are born to have children. Sure gay people *can reproduce and nature only cares about what works. But for almost all of history they didn't have the science to do this. If you were born this way how is that the gene could have survived? And that it could have survived within so many people? Explain this.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161068]You have no evidence that you were born gay. I have no evidence that you were born straight and became gay. People are born to have children. Sure gay people *can reproduce and nature only cares about what works. But for almost all of history they didn't have the science to do this. If you were born this way how is that the gene could have survived? And that it could have survived within so many people? Explain this.[/QUOTE] pretending to be straight and forcing yourself into a straight relationship isn't science. pretty sure that would've been the go-to in the past.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46158291]I'm gonna go ahead and say it is a slippery slope. For example, homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. So did pedophilia, and now it's a sexual identity thing. Marriage used to be something sacred. It was between one race, two genders and unbreakable. Now it's just a contract between two individuals which paves the way for polygamy. I think we should do away with marriage altogether. It's not like they are gonna do anything differently if they're allowed to marry.[/QUOTE] sorry, could you explain how today's marriage "paves the way for polygamy"? because you yourself just said its between two people, still, meaning it is still monogamous. Unless you're referring to divorce, which has been a thing for, what, 250 years? If not more? not even touching the rest of this post wtf

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161068]You have no evidence that you were born gay. I have no evidence that you were born straight and became gay. People are born to have children. Sure gay people *can reproduce and nature only cares about what works. But for almost all of history they didn't have the science to do this. If you were born this way how is that the gene could have survived? And that it could have survived within so many people? Explain this.[/QUOTE] A theory could be that the gene has a [I]natural tendancy[/I] to develop in large populations because it can be beneficial. Some study on this too. People aren't born to have children, evolution provides for the survival of the species, not specifically procreation. Gay people could have more benefit being gay than not to the survival of the species.

First you say it's a social condition, then you say it's a gene. Make up your mind.

[QUOTE=M_B;46161107]sorry, could you explain how today's marriage "paves the way for polygamy"? because you yourself just said its between two people, still, meaning it is still monogamous. Unless you're referring to divorce, which has been a thing for, what, 250 years? If not more? not even touching the rest of this post wtf[/QUOTE]Right now it is between two people. But since we've already removed the others aspects of it, then that could go away too. That's all I was getting at. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46161111]First you say it's a social condition, then you say it's a gene. Make up your mind.[/QUOTE] You're the one who believes it's a gene. [QUOTE=gerbe1;46161109]A theory could be that the gene has a [I]natural tendancy[/I] to develop in large populations because it can be beneficial. Some study on this too. People aren't born to have children, evolution provides for the survival of the species, not specifically procreation. Gay people could have more benefit being gay than not to the survival of the species.[/QUOTE] Interesting, so you say that homosexuals could benefit the survival of the species in general? This doesn't make much sense to me, evolution is not conscious of what is occurring in other animals. Do you have another example of a gene with this natural tendency to develop? I mean most animals have two eyes, but this is because we evolved from a common ancestor and this gene was passed down.

oh wow no wait I'm wrong, way wrong [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#History[/url] Divorce is significantly older than that.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161121]You're the one who believes it's a gene.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46161068]If you were born this way how is that the gene could have survived? And that it could have survived within so many people? Explain this.[/QUOTE] huh

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161068]If you were born this way how is that the gene could have survived? And that it could have survived within so many people? Explain this.[/QUOTE] Probably the same way genetic infertility does? I shouldn't have to explain this, nobody should, but just because a person possesses a gene does not mean it is being expressed. If X is a normal, dominant allele, and x is a recessive allele that causes genetic infertility / homosexuality / another rare quality, a person with Xx can spread this gene without actually having to live with it. A daughter to a colorblind male and a female with no colorblindness alleles will carry a gene for colorblindness, but it's not actively being expressed because it is a [i]recessive[/i] gene. It's usually safe to assume that any uncommon genetic traits in humans is recessive.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161121]Right now it is between two people. But since we've already removed the others aspects of it, then that could go away too. That's all I was getting at.[/QUOTE] You can make the same comment about the way people wear underwear, don't just spout total nonsense because "it could happen" just because you disagree with interracial and same sex marriage, that's very asinine.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161121]Right now it is between two people. But since we've already removed the others aspects of it, then that could go away too. That's all I was getting at.[/QUOTE] Your arguments are all strawmen [editline]5th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46161121]Right now it is between two people. But since we've already removed the others aspects of it, then that could go away too. That's all I was getting at. You're the one who believes it's a gene.[/QUOTE] I never said that so now you're putting words in my mouth. It's not a gene. That's been proven. Don't speak for me.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46160913]It's debatable whether people under 18 can consent. It's imaginable that a 17 year old could, you must admit. But that's considered pedophilia. A homosexual marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but allowing it is perpetuating a mental disorder which can bring about homosexuality in other people. I said it before, homosexuality is a product of social conditions. I've seen this happen to my gay friends who became gay not because they were born that way, but because they were bullied or never had a gf/bf. Maybe they were born bisexual or were "tricked by society" into liking people they didn't like. One of my siblings, who is gay, only liked boys when she was growing up. Now she's bisexual. I don't believe she started liking girls into much later in life.[/QUOTE] Ah, yes, your gay friends. The ones who were bullied into being gay or gave up on being straight because easier to find a gay guy than a straight girl. The friends who totally exist. As for your sister: [QUOTE=MillySoose;46160970]No, I've talked to my sister, who is gay about this. She liked boys and only boys, and it wasn't just society pressuring her. Now she's bisexual. Also she has other kinds of mental illness.[/QUOTE] What exactly has she said? Did she say "I only liked boys, and I didn't like girls at all, but suddenly I started liking girls"? Or are you intuiting it from how you've seen her? And how exactly did she "like" them? And when did she start "liking" girls? [QUOTE=MillySoose;46161068]You have no evidence that you were born gay. I have no evidence that you were born straight and became gay. People are born to have children. Sure gay people *can reproduce and nature only cares about what works. But for almost all of history they didn't have the science to do this. If you were born this way how is that the gene could have survived? And that it could have survived within so many people? Explain this.[/QUOTE] Just because you're born with it doesn't necessarily mean it's an inherited gene. It could be a simple mutation of the part in charge of sexual attraction. [QUOTE=MillySoose;46160951]No I explained this. It's because it's not natural and is linked to changes in personality (in this case it IS the change in personality.) Also I never said that people would adopt being gay from their parents or from being around gay people. I believe that gay people are born straight and develop a liking for the opposite sex through social conditions. If they live in a society where homosexuality is accepted then they would be more inclined to subconsciously consider it.[/QUOTE] Or maybe, if they live in a society where homosexuality is accepted, they then feel safer about coming out rather than hiding it?

[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;46161133]huh[/QUOTE] What? How does this make me sound like I believe people are born gay? I was challenging someone elses beliefs that people are born gay. If people are born a certain way it's implied that it's genetic.

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161171]What? How does this make me sound like I believe people are born gay? I was challenging someone elses beliefs that people are born gay. If people are born a certain way it's implied that it's genetic.[/QUOTE] It's more complicated than just being a genetic marker.

[QUOTE=PeejsterM;46161141]Probably the same way genetic infertility does? I shouldn't have to explain this, nobody should, but just because a person possesses a gene does not mean it is being expressed. If X is a normal, dominant allele, and x is a recessive allele that causes genetic infertility / homosexuality / another rare quality, a person with Xx can spread this gene without actually having to live with it. A daughter to a colorblind male and a female with no colorblindness alleles will carry a gene for colorblindness, but it's not actively being expressed because it is a [i]recessive[/i] gene. It's usually safe to assume that any uncommon genetic traits in humans is recessive.[/QUOTE] If this were true we could predict when this gene would show up in humans, even without knowing what the gene actually is. (by allowing homosexuals to have children with women)

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161255]If this were true we could predict when this gene would show up in humans, even without knowing what the gene actually is.[/QUOTE] what a nonsensical statement do you know anything whatsoever about genetics? do you know what a gene IS? are you even a real person?

[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;46161270]what a nonsensical statement do you know anything whatsoever about genetics? do you know what a gene IS? are you even a real person?[/QUOTE] Why not? If the gene for homosexuality is recessive and the gene for heterosexuality is not, couldn't we use Punett squares?

[QUOTE=MillySoose;46161255]If this were true we could predict when this gene would show up in humans, even without knowing what the gene actually is. (by allowing homosexuals to have children with women)[/QUOTE] You [i]can[/i] predict these sorts of things, though. We have this neat thing called a Punnett square. If a Xx and a XX breed, how likely are you to get a xx? The only actual issue is plotting out the human genome, and finding out what lies where. No point in trying to predict this sort of thing if we don't know precisely where the gene for homosexuality lies.

[QUOTE=PeejsterM;46161283]You [i]can[/i] predict these sorts of things, though. We have this neat thing called a Punnett square. If a Xx and a XX breed, how likely are you to get a xx?[/QUOTE] See above.