Same-sex couples begin marrying

Superfreak said:
While a person can certainly choose to have sex with either male or female, in most cases one of the two goes against our nature. I could have sex with a man if I chose to, but it is not something that I desire to do. I am not attracted to men. The reverse would be the case for a gay male. Gay men can certainly choose to have sex with a woman, but it is not something they desire and thus they would be going against their nature in doing so.
Click to expand...

This desire, this attraction, it is only a chemical reaction; an emotion. The fact that you can go out and have sex with a man indicates a choice. Nature? Hardly, and only in the sense that nature designed emotions as a drive, an impetus within us. We choose to follow that drive just as we choose to break a law or we choose to buy that candy instead of a proper meal. Or choose to abstain from sweets.

For instance, the term 'its against my better nature, but. . .' indicates a choice. Homosexuality as defined by society is a preference, subject to change and free will, choice.

Jarod said:
Most studies have shown, and I belive that people are born with sexual identity that fits on a scale.. say from 1 to 10.

A person who is a 1 is purely and unquestionalbly attracted only to the opposit sex.
A person who is a 10 is purely and unquestionably attracted only to the same sex.

Most humans, regardless of if they will admit it or not, are between a 7 and a 3. VERY few are 10's or 1's.

Because of the social stigma of being anything other than a 1, many will not even admit it to themselves if they are not a 1.
Click to expand...

This only seems to support the idea that orientation is a choice. Nowadays we have all kinds of 'orientations' and preferences; the very concept of homosexual is being muddied by the idea that it is attraction itself.

It is behavior. The question could be asked what behavior defines it (kissing, fondling, what have you) but like the pseudosciences of the 'Middle Ages' (<<including Christian based) emotions and non-empirical data are not an acceptable basis for definition when there are much more definitive alternatives.
 
pisskop said:
This desire, this attraction, it is only a chemical reaction; an emotion. The fact that you can go out and have sex with a man indicates a choice. Nature? Hardly, and only in the sense that nature designed emotions as a drive, an impetus within us. We choose to follow that drive just as we choose to break a law or we choose to buy that candy instead of a proper meal. Or choose to abstain from sweets.

s.
Click to expand...

This is just effing stupid. He chooses who to have sex with, he does not choose who he desires to have sex with. You chose your moniker well pisspoop. That's all I see here.
 
Howey said:
It's a proven fact that virulent homophobes such as you and ILA have latent homosexual desires.

You both need to go out and find a nice big fat dick to suck on. At the very least, it'll shut you up.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Virulent? Am I? No. I've established I don't approve of it. No more than I approve of laziness, gluttony, or immodesty. But this debate isnt about whether or not I approve of it.

I think you have nothing better to say but still want to learn so you stick around. You simply want to feel important.

Just lurk like everyone else, no need to troll.
 
pisskop said:
This desire, this attraction, it is only a chemical reaction; an emotion. The fact that you can go out and have sex with a man indicates a choice. Nature? Hardly, and only in the sense that nature designed emotions as a drive, an impetus within us. We choose to follow that drive just as we choose to break a law or we choose to buy that candy instead of a proper meal. Or choose to abstain from sweets.

For instance, the term 'its against my better nature, but. . .' indicates a choice. Homosexuality as defined by society is a preference, subject to change and free will, choice.



This only seems to support the idea that orientation is a choice. Nowadays we have all kinds of 'orientations' and preferences; the very concept of homosexual is being muddied by the idea that it is attraction itself.

It is behavior. The question could be asked what behavior defines it (kissing, fondling, what have you) but like the pseudosciences of the 'Middle Ages' (<<including Christian based) emotions and non-empirical data are not an acceptable basis for definition when there are much more definitive alternatives.
Click to expand...

Personally I belive it is a little of both, choice and pre-determined nature. Additionally, I dont care. What does it matter if its a choice or not.... Should we not be free to make such a choice for ourselves?
 
WinterBorn said:
Since the discussion is concerning marriage between consenting adults, adding the bestiality is simply a diversion.

That something is "natural" or not has no bearing on whether the federal gov't recognizes the relationship.

DY, you have defended the gov't intervention into marriage by saying that society benefits from stable, long-term relationships. The problem is, you have never answer my question of what a straight couple's marriage gives to society that a gay couple's does not (except for children concieved without outside assistance).
Click to expand...

What would that make your argument that animals also do it then?
 
Jarod said:
why are we spending time on if its natural or not... Why does it matter?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with your point, and it doesn't matter to me. But still and all...yeah, I never chose to be attracted to men. I was married in a playground ceremony to a boy name Alan Mazzerili in the first grade. Until a cocky hall monitor stole me from him! I never was interested in girls, period.
 
Jarod said:
Personally I belive it is a little of both, choice and pre-determined nature. Additionally, I dont care. What does it matter if its a choice or not.... Should we not be free to make such a choice for ourselves?
Click to expand...

Whether or not the government should have a say in the matter is not what Im debating. That requires a different debate. For now it's enough that some see it as a choice.

In addition, the government is not saying people cannot be homosexual. The government(s) were/are saying marriage is not legally recognized between two people of the same sex.


Why, just the other day a birth certificate was changed to allow 3 people to be listed as the parents.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/florida-ju...tificate-listing-three-parents-233555185.html
 
Darla said:
This is just effing stupid. He chooses who to have sex with, he does not choose who he desires to have sex with. You chose your moniker well pisspoop. That's all I see here.
Click to expand...

Wow, have you been reading all along? I would imagine if you have than you'd at least mentally understand my arguement at this point. This is nothing more than mindless trolling, the kind that stalls a debate.

If you honestly fail to grasp something I have said, please ask. If you disapprove, say "I disapprove". Please don't make up some pedantic middle school name for me. If you have a problem with pisskop than call me Joseph.
 
DamnYankee said:
It matters because the state shouldn't legitimize perverted behavior.
Click to expand...


1) I disagree because whats perverted to one, is not to the other.
2) If it did matter, why are we talking about natural v. unnatural instead of perverted v. not-perverted.
 
pisskop said:
Wow, have you been reading all along? I would imagine if you have than you'd at least mentally understand my arguement at this point. This is nothing more than mindeless trolling, the kind that stalls a debate.
Click to expand...

Your argument's stupid. You're the only one impressed by it. It makes no sense. It's the same argument some idiots make when they claim that gays are allowed to marry because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Go back to that class.
 
Darla said:
Your argument's stupid. You're the only one impressed by it. It makes no sense. It's the same argument some idiots make when they claim that gays are allowed to marry because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Go back to that class.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Then why isn't it a choice? You're so big and smart tell me why it isnt a choice. Any fool can deny and bluster around claiming an arguement invalid. Show me.
 
pisskop said:
Whether or not the government should have a say in the matter is not what Im debating. That requires a different debate. For now it's enough that some see it as a choice.

In addition, the government is not saying people cannot be homosexual. The government(s) were/are saying marriage is not legally recognized between two people of the same sex.


Why, just the other day a birth certificate was changed to allow 3 people to be listed as the parents.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/florida-ju...tificate-listing-three-parents-233555185.html
Click to expand...

Okay but we can debate natural v. unnatural all day... Who cares.
 
I was born with a natural tendnancy to dislike watermelon. Ive always disliked it. I could force myself to eat it if I tried, although I would have to learn to control the gag reflex... I dislike it that much. Why should I try to suppress my natural desire or lack thereof, especally if doing so makes me feel ill. Society should simply not care if I eat watermelon or not, its MY CHOICE, and I make that choice based on my natural PREFERENCE.

But I dont deny that someday my taste will change and I will begin to enjoy watermelon. If that happens I will embrace it.
 
Okay. So long as some here acknowledge it as a choice and/or at least see why/how it is a choice I am satisfied. My personal opinions are not part of this debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top