Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

Yea, true, it's not normal, but I think an orphan would rather have gay parents then no parents.

 

Agree to disagree
Nice peaceful debate. Thanks

 

Marriage is not natural. Monogamy in nature is rare. Birds have the highest incidence of forming lasting partnerships (90%), but even among birds that are socially monogamous only about 10% are sexually monogamus.

Male penguins have been observed to mate for life with other male penguins (even nesting together). Bison bulls have been known to go through courting rituals with other bulls (resulting in penetration). Female bison are known to mount each other as well. About 8% of rams show a distinct sexual prefrence for other rams even when female sheep are available to mate. Among geese and ducks about 5% of the life pairs are homosexual (close to 20% in mallards). Single ducks often lay their eggs in the nests of homosexual pairs (which often do better at raising the young than heterosexual pairs). One in ten pairs of black headed gulls are lesbian pairs that mate for life. A quarter of black swan couplings are homosexual. They often either steal single females nests or form threesomes and kick out the female when the eggs are laid. More of the offspring raised by these couples survive than those of heterosexual couples. As much as 9 out of ten pairings between giraffes happen between males. Dolphin male/female pairings only last as long as it takes to reproduce, but homosexual pairings can last for years. Whiptail lizards often engage in lesbian acts to stimulte ovultaion. Even dragonflies and fruit flies exhibit homosexual behaviour. In fact, there is no species that has sex that has been shown to not exhibit homosexual behavior. All sorts of sexual behaviour has been observed among animals in nature (from interspecies intercourse to objects, masturbation to oral sex, and even dead animals).

What makes homosexuality not natural? Because reproduction is the goal behind sex? Animals (as well as humans) do not use sex exclusively for the purpose of reproduction. They use it for dominance, socializing, maintaining loyalty (as in lions), breaking the ice (as when two groups of dolphins meet, particularly of different species, things are tense until they have an orgy), and even pleasure. Some scientists hypothesize that homosexual behaviour in some species (like dolphins) is an evolutionary advantage to help quell intraspecies aggression. Perhaps it is also a form of population control. If animals (including people) had as much sex with the intent to procreate as they just have sex, the animal kindom's population might well be too large to be sustained.

Now, if you mean that you think it is immoral, that is a different issue altogether. You are entitled to that view, but let's face it; it is a religious based view. In this country, at least, there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state so laws should not take religious morals into account (that is not to say that religious morals can never be the same as social morals that guide law, murder is a good example).

As far as you personally not wanting to be raised by a homosexual couple, that is because you are who you are. I suspect that had you been an orphan and was raised by a homosexual couple you would have a different view.

 

The fact that homosexuals makes up a small part of the population of any species (From 10% and below) actually makes the case that it not natural as in normal from a behavioral and biological point of view. It is probably the cause of a defective gene, (can't help if anyone is offended, but I'm not into PC crap)as many people with other "defective" genes also often occur around the same percentage in a population.

I don't think homosexuals should be persecuted or rights taken away, but it is entirely false what this PC stuff from people with an agenda is trying to push around saying homosexual-ism is just as normal or natural as heterosexual-ism; you will not find any reputable scientist make that claim or stake their career on such a statement, because it is not. A population significantly smaller then the majority can never logically be called the "norm". Heterosexual-ism is obviously what is natural.

Homosexual people should have their rights, if they marry each other fine, (as long as it doesn't bother or affect me) but including in the mix children, a experience that can possibly affect them psychologically and physically for some PC garbage for something that is obviously not normal is just WRONG.

There are many scientists that disagree with that as nature already provide well means of population control such as a decrease in sexual activity when resources are low or disease occur.
I don't see how homosexual-ism decrease interspecies aggression, as from reality it actually INCREASES aggression. Many heterosexuals naturally feel discomfort around homosexual activities. As for animals, have you seen how a "heterosexual dog" reacts when approached by "homosexual dog"? It doesn't look like it decreases aggression, and this can go for any species.

 

It's actually not 10% and below. In mallards it's 25%. Other species also have higher rates. Most of the rates I listed only count long term partnerships. When looking at actual percentage of animals that participate in homosexual behaviour the numbers drastically increase (like the up to 90% of giraffe interactions). Homosexual monogamy may not be high in most species, but homosexual behaviour is quite high in many species. In wolves only the alpha male and female mate. Does that mean that it is not natural for wolves to bear offspring since less than 10% of the population bears offspring? That is ridiculous. Furthermore, there is nothing more natural than gene variation. Just because a set of genes in one animal are different from other animals of the species doesn't mean they are defective.

Here is a case of the "norm" not being normal. Obesity in the US. Certainly the majority of Americans are overweight. That is the norm, but it is not normal. The second part of your argument is that bewcause something is the majority then it is natural and all else is unnatural. So left handedness is unnatural? Being white is unnatural? Blue eyes are unnatural? Blond hair? Hurricanes must not be natural because they happen so infrequently, earthquakes too. What is natural is what occurs in nature, not just what is the "norm".

Homosexual people should have their rights, if they marry each other fine, (as long as it doesn't bother or affect me) but including in the mix children, a experience that can possibly affect them psychologically and physically for some PC garbage for something that is obviously not normal is just WRONG. [/QUOTE]

There is a big difference between THE norm and normal.

Nature has several means of accomplishing most of its tasks. Population is controlled by resource limitations, disease, breeding limitations (as in wolves). I am not saying that homosexuality is a form of natural population control, just that it could be. To say that it couldn't be simply because other mechanisms exist is a false argument.

Care to provide a reference for that. Research shows that this doesn't go for any species. This is a human trait. Bonobos are 100% bisexual as a species. Lions participate in male homosexuality 100% while part of a pride. Dolphins are the best example of how homosexuality tends to decrease interspecies agression. When two groups of different dolphin species meet, they are very aggressive towards each other until they have mostly homosexual orgies. After which they act much more friendly towards each other.

 

The sodomy laws were removed from the books and now gays are demanding gay marriage and gay adoption.

The gays have their resorts and parades and no one bothers them.

They shouldn't push their values on the rest of the country.

 

Consider these points.

1] Gay people would not continue to exist if everyone was gay

2] gay adoption- They don't want heterosexuality, but want a product of heterosexuality [children] ? If they want to be gay,why do they want to copy heterosexuals as well by having children and stuff.

 

@ bluegrass special
Did you get the information from wikipedia? (it appears you did since it is the same information) I don't accept most information from a wikipedia article/link seriously. Wikipedia can be edit by anybody, the articles changes significantly from (day/week/month). Many articles from wikipedia rarely provide a link to a reputable websites/source, differenting views and are often bias in nature. My professors would never accept information based on research from wikipedia as it very unreliable. I'll respond to this post, but won't dwell too deep because this is changing from human nature to animal nature, which is what the thread is not about, and I also have a busy schedule.

Mallards also have very high rates of necrophilia, (sex with dead corpses) and raping of other mallards. I don't think they provide a good example of what is natural:
http://www.nmr.nl/nmr/binary/retrieveFile?instanceid=16&itemid=2574&style=home(PDF)

The statements about giraffes I have seen in wikipedida and the article is from only one review that was done by Bruce Bagemihl, a gay scientist. There is no other research based on giraffes available to support his claims. Also using information about two animals from wikipedia (which is not reliable or a bias-free informational source) doesn't mean percentage of homosexual activity drastically increase in the animal kingdom for every species. I can also quote about rams with only 8% of homosexual activity:
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478

Actually with wolves it is false to say only 10% of the population bears offspring. Alpha wolves are constantly challenged by subordinates, and the pack leadership is often changed. The Alpha wolf of today, often will not be the alpha in a couple of months. Wolves also have high mortality rates by accidents, disease, rival Wolf packs, and human interaction. http://www.environmental-studies.de/Wolf_mortality_Croatia.pdf
This gives several members of the pack a chance to produce offspring. Now any suggestion of homosexuality within wolves is just pure speculation as there is no research available for that, so I won't bother to dwell on that...

A defect gene is usually about when a gene do not work as it should. If homosexual-ism is causes by a defective gene, then it would explain the research found by how there are identical twins, with different sexual orientations (one twin is heterosexual while the other is homosexual). There has also been research that certain antibodies created by mothers during pregnancy or labor can affect the orientation of the child:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=3
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/3641

Being overweight occurs when there is a surplus of food; I can not find any research stating how much overweight a person is, which can range from 1lb to several..but the in case of being obese that is actually a minority:

http://health.msn.com/reports/obesity/
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/

I think that is a slippery slope to say what occurs in nature is natural. Rape, cannibalism, necrophilia also happens in nature. By your logic they are also natural.

Where do you get those figures from, I can't find any research stating that claim? It is quite hypocritical to ask me for references when you don't provide any. When I said "that it can go for any species, I was talking about the negative reactions between "heterosexual animals" approached by "homosexual animals", and not between two animals of the same sexual desire. Since human trait differs from animals then is serves little purpose to use what may or may not be natural to animals for the humans species as we have a different evolutionary path and situation.

 

Haha, I can't believe people are making such a big deal out of this. o.o

 

Yes marriage
not sure about adoption

 

Why shoulit be allowed? Their only arguement is "its love!" That canalso be used to allow incest, pedophillia, and beastiality. Not legit...

 

right, anyone could use that stupid excuse. Lets walk nude in public, "its love"...

 

Isn't that why straight people get married...?

 

but does that make it right for everything else?

 

I love when people try to equate homosexuality with incest, pedophilia and other nonsense - as if that's actually relevant to the topic at hand.

If straight couples are allowed to marry, I see NO REASON WHATSOEVER why gay couples should not be allowed to as well. How are homosexuals marrying going to affect you? It's not.

 

As far as bogart's concerned, it will create a huge crisis for the government to keep up with all the new marriage licenses! I suggested we do away with all marriage to further alleviate the threat of government employees actually doing work; no response to that idea yet...

 

While I am not nor would I use it as a reason for homosexuals not to marry as I could truly care less, how is it 'different' ?

If 2 family members love each another in that way, even though it's not 'normal' I personally don't see much of a difference from that and being homosexual IMO.