Why I'm pro gay marriage

[Chief1C]

I look at being openly gay as a positive thing, in that my mother never asks me when I'm getting married; or when she's going to have grandkids anymore.

[HERBIE1]

Actually, the role of sex in humans is much more complicated than simply being about procreation.

Yes it is, but from a purely biological standpoint, animals have sex to procreate, and we are simply a more evolved animal(or at least some of us are...) LOL

I read somewhere that possibly dolphins may have sex for "fun", but I'm not quite sure how you would prove something like that.

I look at being openly gay as a positive thing, in that my mother never asks me when I'm getting married; or when she's going to have grandkids anymore.

Good point, I guess. LOL

[JPINFV]

No argument, although there are a surprising number of folks who experiment. I worked with a woman who changed teams almost daily. First she said she was hetero, then she was bi, then she was a lesbian, then she went back to hetero and married a guy. Seriously screwed up in the head, but that's another story...

I do believe there is no doubt people are born with their sexual orientation. How you may chose to ACT is another issue.

A few quick probing questions regarding "sexual orientation" (quotes will make sense as you read the questions), even if not totally germane to gay marriage:

Is sexual orientation ternary (binary but with 3, yes I had to use Google to find the term, I'm not that smart) (homo, bi, hetero), or is there a spectrum?

Can sexual orientation be like other tastes? I like pizza, but I don't like pizza every day.

Is sexual orientation and romantic attraction the same thing? Can someone enjoy homosexual sex, but not want to marry someone of their own sex/gender?

Is sexual preference the same as sexual urge? Can you enjoy and engage in a type of sex (thus being a choice) without having an innate urge to engage in a type of sex (non-choice)?

If you don't experiment, can you really say you aren't ____? Ever "not liked" something up until the moment you tried it?

Here's where it gets sticky, if you ask me. As I said before, we are changing an essentially eternal definition- marriage. Up until recently, there was no question about how you define a marriage. NONE. In the traditional sense, the VAST MAJORITY of people got married to share their lives, and to start a family. Again- until very recently- in terms of mankind- the only way to have your own biological family was via heterosexual sex. We'll leave adoption out of this mix for now. Yes, many people now define marriage as more of a business arrangement, but again, I'm talking traditional definitions.

I'd argue that marriage has for much longer been more of a business and social decision than a love/share life/raise a family decision. Actually, I'd argue that, if anything, the business side has gone down drastically. When was the last time you've heard patriarchs arranging marriages for various reasons? When was the last time you've heard about a bride giving her husband's family a dowry? Even the Code of Hammurabi had laws governing dowrys. If anything, up until recently marriage was a business decision. Then there was a period where it was about love and raising a family, and now it's about legal protections and rights (imagine if you couldn't make medical decisions for your spouse who is in a coma).

However, if we want to talk about "traditional marriage," I'm up for hearing your justification for bringing back dowrys and the wife submitting to the husband. After all, those have been tradition for much longer than they have not been.

My point is- we are playing God. No, not in the religious sense but as in a mother nature way. We are tweaking life, creating it in artificial ways, and my gawd- even decided that the sex we were born with can and should be changed.

Is not the entire practice of medicine the mere act of playing God? If God is to decide who lives or dies, who are we, as health care providers, to intervene in God's will. After all, if God intended someone to die of pneumonia, who are we to deny God that by giving antibiotics? Similarly, if God decided to cure someone of pneumonia, why would he need us to give antibiotics?

Now instead of asking, "Who are we to play God," we should be asking, "To what extend should we play God?"

In regards to sexual reassignment, what happens when sex doesn't match gender? Furthermore, how do we define sex? Is it chromosomes? If so, then should we force every woman with androgen insensitivity disorder or 5-alpha reductase deficiency to get a penis (after all, they are XY, and by chromosomal definition male)? If it's about the organs an individual is born with, then what happens when they are ambiguous? Is that a small penis or an enlarged clitoris (look up pictures of congenital adrenal hyperplasia and guess the sex before looking up the disorder)?

If a person's sex doesn't match their gender, then how is sex reassignment any different than a boob job or face lift? Where is the justice in saying a woman with a penis must live with the penis, but we can fix the woman with size AA breasts? Shouldn't the woman with small breasts submit to God's will that she have small breasts?

edit: After all, is sex reassignment really anything more than cosmetic surgery? Taking a relatively fit male, and a shave, wig (or just long hair), the right clothing, the right padding, the right makeup, a little voice training, and you can probably get a relatively convincing female appearance. It would be relatively easy to legally change names to a unisex name. Besides that, names over time change from one gender to another (I had a male classmate in high school whose name was Ashley, there was no question that he was straight or that he was male), and it would be trivial to choose one of those names. So there's nothing stopping transexuals from going out and acting and dressing like the opposite sex. /edit.

Now we note the difference between us and animals. If we are biologically programmed as males NOT to be monogamous, then why are we so picky about who we copulate with? I doubt a simple social stigma would deter many folks if this was such a base desire.

Why not? Look at the Catholic Church molestation cases and the Penn State case. Look at rape. If simple social stigmas about sex means that boys who were molested (OMG, the boys are gay) and rape victims (the victim was obviously was asking for it, and doubly so in man on man rape) can force victims to not come forward, can it similarly make men and women suppress urges?

...

We make choices based on societal standards, moral and ethical concerns.

Emphasis added.

Didn't you just say that such simple social stigmas wouldn't deter folks with a base desire?

Edited December 2, 2011 by JPINFV

[Chief1C]

My point is- we are playing God. ------ We are tweaking life

Well, in the spirit of individualism, isn't it ours to tweak? I tend not to believe that any one character is responsible for all living creatures, events, disasters, the weather, etc., on the face of this Planet that we call Earth. I mean, at one point, you have a being, with a stone. At another point, you have 2c4, on a computer made of plastic, putting thoughts in words, and someone eight thousand miles away knows about it twenty seconds later. How the hell we got from point A to point Z times 99 Billion+, I haven't the foggiest of clues. But I'm pretty sure it involved some tweaking of what humankind was supposed to be doing, in the eyes of, whatever caused humankind to develop.

Keep in mind, I'm not feeling very well, kind of like I'm going to puke, or faint from uber severe abdominal cramps...and I may have over thought my response to this one, just a tad. If you're easily offended, to fricken bad, cry a river, build a bridge and go get me some Pepto-Bismol.

[chbare]

I would argue, no. As part of this physical system known as the universe, we must also play by the rules. Therefore, we cannot "play God" per se because, ultimately we are part of the system and subject to it's rules.

Regarding any tweaking that led humanity to it's current state:

The most fundamental aspects of the physical world are probabilistic. Intelligent life may or may not be a statistical outlier, but with enough time, pretty much anything is possible even if not likely. I am not convinced anything is particularly special about us because it's a big, old universe. Processes have been occurring for a long time and I'm not surprised that we are here if we simply consider all the probabilities and all the processes that occur.

[tniuqs]

Squint passes the Pepto thru the internet ... Jeeze I can't wait till teliportation happens.

Well back to the thread .. the topic I thought was Gay Marriage. I do have some issues with messing with the human reproductive system and please do not misunderstand my the birds and the bees "theory" a turkey baster is not my personal idea of the ways thing should go down. That said I have zero issue with a gay couple raising children but because there a now around 7 billion two legged rats infesting he planet perhaps adoption would be a far better option.

cheers

[chbare]

That depends somewhat on the context. For example, developed countries in fact have rather low birthrates among their populations. Many of these countries have a rapidly aging population. This is particularly significant in techhnologically developed countries such as Japan where the birth rate is nearing stagnation.

Countries where overpopulation and resource limitations are a significant problem include undeveloped or developing nations. I do not see homosexual couples who undergo non-traditional forms of conception as a significant source or problem when considering the potential population issues on this planet.

[tniuqs]

That depends somewhat on the context. For example, developed countries in fact have rather low birthrates among their populations. Many of these countries have a rapidly aging population. This is particularly significant in techhnologically developed countries such as Japan where the birth rate is nearing stagnation.

Have you been to Japan ? a touch crowed there, just saying, and China has effectively forced birth control policy's, one has to ask the very serious question can you have your cake and eat it too ?

Countries where overpopulation and resource limitations are a significant problem include undeveloped or developing nations. I do not see homosexual couples who undergo non-traditional forms of conception as a significant source or problem when considering the potential population issues on this planet.

Please define undeveloped ! ??? I have lived in areas where $$$ was not the driving force, in a culture but they had extremely WEALTH in their lifesytles, clean water, no junk food on every corner, food unadulterated by Monsanto blah blah blah .....

Oh: I will take you to task on that "item" with the current trend world wide we are looking to 9 billion is a very, very short time frame, fossil fuel energy depletion (lack of insight into developing true alternatives) global warming .. the PUSH for cheap labourers to rape the planet is not sustainable to the Planet in of itself, without some controls in situ my children will not be living, near the same standards of living. Frankly if one looks objectively as a species we will have population controls in place ... I choose sustainable development not multi national big brother corporations deciding what is best for shareholders.

Back on topic "animal studies" i.e rats the 4 legged variety, and the incidents of homosexuality when confined in a overcrowded enviroment with unlimited food resources is markedly increased .. just saying maybe mother nature is smarter than we first believed ? Although with winds at a Beaufort scale of 8 to 9 today and telecom tower threatening to blow over on my clinic mother nature can be a bitch too !!!

[chbare]

Again, I do not see homosexual couples having children as being an issue.

[systemet]

I think arguing against gay marriage on the basis of homosexual couples being unable to procreate is similar to arguing that an impotent man or a woman who has had a hysterectomy shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage and procreation have become increasingly removed from each other as more people have children before marrying, or never marry.

I also don't think that a gay couple marrying lessens my marriage in any way. If anything has cheapened the institution of marriage in the last couple of generations it's been the staggering increase in the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples. That being said, I'm also grateful we (I assume), mostly live in societies where it's now acceptable to end a marriage if it's become destructive.