Please elaberate, your comment is vague. You are not refrencing a particular comment. So what is the half you would'nt believe

Lombardi, I hold the same belief with you about same sex marriages, I have no problem with them. But you are going to have to show me proof that homosexuality is genetically passed on. You’ve said it’s proven numerous times throughout this thread but I really need a source before I can believe that. It’s the old Nature V’s Nurture debate.

There is a lot of evidence to show particular sexualities are learned. For example fetishes and to an extent paedophilia (which doesn’t need to be addressed because it is has no correlation with homosexuality). People develop fetishes due to some unconscious repressed memory they have of their childhood – sometimes it is very conscious. I studied gender development and identity about 4 years ago in psychology but I can’t remember much of it now.

If I find some old notes and studies I'll be sure to let you know.

I'm against some of them. It pisses me off when a guy turns into a woman and a woman turns into a guy. God made you a man or a woman for a reason. If a gay guy and another gay guy or a gay woman and another gay woman want to get married, so be it. As long as they keep away from me, do their "stuff" behind closed doors, and don't turn transvestite, then I'm fine with it. -Pat

Turi, as far as I know a "gay gene" has yet to be discovered. However, genetics seems to play some part in it...

Although from a Catholic site, this page is helpful trying to understand how complex this is:

Science doesn't know for sure (yet) if people are necessarily "born gay" (hense the debate), but the consensus so far seems to be that there is a mix of nature and environment. Perhaps some are born w/ a predisposition to be gay and some environmental factors cause the "gay switch" to be turned on.

What's most important, however, is the fact that one does not CHOOSE to be homosexual -- so it really doesn't matter if it's genetic. Being homosexual isn't a choice one makes, just like being born a particular race isn't.

As such, and specifically relating to the original question, I don't think a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be much different than a law that would, say, ban marriage among members of a particular race.

The only "choice" a homosexual gets to make is whether to ACT upon his sexuality. And to not, as the religious right would love them to do, would be denying who they are.

This is an entirely different issue.

BTW - Transvestites aren't necessarily gay. From what I hear, most aren't. Transvestism means you wear clothing designed for the oppposite sex, by the way. I think you meant transexuals.

im not against homosexuals at all, just as long as they leave me alone, so if they wanna get married let them

Daigo Mick Friend -- you think a preference can be influenced, I don't; that's where opinion and not fact lies. There have been no occurances where someone turns homosexual due to gay parents. If there have been, as I said, there would be so much talk about it, it would be unbelievable. If your parents are an element in your sexuality, then there would be so many more cases and it would be publicly made known. But there have been none. If there were, you know as well as I it'd be all over the news, intwined in this gay marriage issue.

Vito The Godfather -- that statement has been discussed before... And it was also very immature. If you're going to debate in here, do it correctly and with maturity -- and not childish references.

Turi -- for one, I hear these studies on the news and in newspaper. I don't read my news online so I wouldn't know where to show these sites, because it's not where I hear them. I hear it/see it on the news. I'm sure Geoff's link would be helpful.

As for the fetish statement -- homosexuality is not a fetish, and a sexuality is not a fetish, nor is pedaphilia. Fetishes may be developed out of past experiences or environments, but then again fetishes don't come from genes and sexuality is a big departure/difference from it.

My point is that this is all new territory. Gay couples raising children is really in it's infancy. Remeber homosexuals have not been out of the closet that long so these occurances that you refer to don't exist. It will take generations to see the results. And yes I think a childs prefrence can be influenced by how their parents raises them.

Nah, dude, it's really not "new territory." Gay couples have been raising children for a while now. Maybe not in record numbers -- but they have, none-the-less. But, I really don't think gay couples getting married has anything to do with them raising children. More gay marriages do not equal more gay couples raising children. If a gay couple wants to raise a child, they will adopt one weather they are married or not -- so it's all basically irrelevant.

And even if they "turned gay" [which I find to be impossible], what's the problem if they are gay? This whole topic/subject has to do with accepting homosexuals and giving them equal benefits.

I have to call you on this one. where are these couples getting these children. What is a while a few years. Do you know how hard it is to adopt a child when you are not married. Everyone is not like Rosie O'Donnel with tens of millions of dollars at her finger tips. And don't tell me about lesbians having there own children because that has not been going on for a while.

How can some of you people say that your not against gay people, and then say you don't want to be around them?

I don't believe gay marriage for pretty much the same reasons as Don Pope. I'm not trying to be immature it's just its true. Two members of the same sex are just not meant interact with one another. I also don’t believe you are born gay or you have no choice in weather you are gay or not because you can, in lack of better words, not be gay.

But my opinion isn't really important... what is important is if we should be living in a free country, which we are, gays' should be allowed to live as they please, and get the same rights as everyone else. You shouldn’t deny peoples' rights just because you don't believe what they are doing. It doesn't hurt us at all, so why should anyone be unwilling to give them the same rights?

I should stay away from guys at school because interacting with them is wrong? j/k

I think you know what he meant. -Pat

I think you know I was kidding.

Daigo Mick Friend -- as I said, it hasn't been happening in record numbers, but it has been happening. And if there was even ONE instance where someone's sexuality changed because of their parents, you know we'd know about it in no time at all. It'd hit the news like a storm. But it hasn't happened at all -- not even once have we heard about it. That's enough to suggest it just isn't possible.

And you didn't seem to reply to any of my other points, dude... Gay couples getting married does not mean they'll be raising more children. If a gay couple wants to raise a child, they'll raise one regardless if they're married or not. Every gay couple is NOT going to automatically start raising children just because they get married. They don't have much to do with each other and are, again, irrelevant.

But, I quote as earlier --

Robert CK -- again, this has been discussed before. Back up and read the debate where we went over this before. Though, I do commend you on the maturity to admit gays should have the same rights as we do. And I tip my hat at the fact you were able to do it without immaturity.

How can some of you people say that your not against gay people, and then say you don't want to be around them?

I think that's people's inner homophobia. They don't want to be near them, because like everyone else, they stereotype homosexuals as sex craved queers who are always looking for dick.

As we've said before, though -- two homosexuals are capable of loving each other, so maybe that's a sign they are meant to love each other and be together? You can take their difference [or in this case, similarity] in sex organs/reproduction as a sign as they're "not meant to be" or you can take the fact that they can love each other as a sign they are meant to be. Who's to say what's "meant to be" or not? Why should we [or in this case, you and all who share your opinion] have the power so say so? You're ASSUMING it's not meant to be because of a inference you picked up. That doesn't make it correct, it's just a belief -- you shouldn't be able to dictate people's benefits or sexuality or love because of an inference you made. I realize you said gays should be able to marry and have those rights -- but your beliefs speak otherwise and it's led others to say the opposite. They just kind of contradict. Know what I mean?

The reason I brought up fetishes was because they are usually triggered due to a childhood experience and they help determine sexual orientation. Which means what you are attracted too. It may or may not be appropriate to assume the same for homosexuality – it’s just a theory but a well deserved one that deserves attention. JG, stepped in and made a good point also that NOTHING has been proven. That’s the main point of my original response. You simply can’t make sweeping statements that something has been proved with proof. You try that with an exam paper and it’s out of the window – fail. Sorry, but that’s basically why I can’t accept that sweeping statement.

You’re right Paedophilia is not, I repeat is not, the same as homosexuality. Anyone who says otherwise is an absolute idiot. But I feel some of the fundamentals of the development of paedophilia could be appropriate and similar to the development of homosexuality. For example, most paedophiles were abused as children. Again I am NOT associating paedophilia with homosexuality but maybe something with as significant importance happened to a person that helped trigger the homosexuality.

Like JG says though, for it to be triggered it may already be there (through genes). I’m just offering perfectly substantial critique

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. - Just messing before someone takes me seriously.

C'mon guys, lets all get naked and cuddle, explore our masculinity. Fuck, I know some of the hardest rugby players you'd ever meet and they're comfortable with their own sexuality (plus they'd destroy anyone who said otherwise).

This thread is really moving off-topic because the question is about a constitutional amendment, not about how one personally feels about homosexuality.

As suggested earlier, I too would guess there are a good number of people in the US that don't like interracial marriages, but few would reasonably argue for a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. They are different questions.

Sure this is just an election year political football. If anyone thinks the constitution will ever get amended over this, I would love to make a wager against you, and take your money!

There's no written evidence that I have that says it's been absolutely proven that it's genetical -- but I'm calling it how I've heard it. I've heard from the news [which is a reliable source] that it has been proven. I didn't read it off a site, so I can't cite any places where I have read it since I haven't, as I said earlier. I'm saying I've heard it's proven -- and I also think so, as well -- so when I say it's been proven it's with reasonable judgement.

Your theory/opinion is something you can research or follow up with -- I just don't think it's possible for something to trigger it because of all the statements I've already made. Homosexuals aren't victims -- they're normal people. You fellas are making it sound like they're diseased animals or rape victims -- they're normal people who just prefer a different sex than the majority! All my homosexual/bisexual friends have led completely normal lives -- which is enough for me to come to the logical conclusion [along with everything else I've stated various times] that something doesn't trigger it -- that it's genetical; something they can not help.

DonsAdvisor -- I agree! We've gotten completely off subject. We've gone from arguing over the ban of gay marriages to if homosexuality is genetical or if it's meant to be or what not. I do think they are elements to be discussed since they have significance and involvement... But, please...

Let's get back on subject.

Sure, I think we have been over that subject about homosexuality many times before and most get locked up sooner or later. This one has been well mannered though, is there hope for us all?

Maybe there is, FS! There was a bit of trouble caused by close-mindedness and immaturity earlier -- but it's been straightened out and for now it seems the discussion has been smooth and very honorable, as well as mature. Let's keep our fingers crossed!

Now i know your not talkin about me

I'm talking about the general point that the thread turned into a wrong direction earlier.

We just got it to a respectful and mature point -- let's not ruin it with a pointless argument.

Anyhow, back on topic.

thats what i thought

Yep. Me = scared.

C'mon now... don't start this up again

Hahaha, we're/I'm not. I won't let it.

The reason some are seeking a ban or an ammendmant banning same sex marriage is because the word marriage has been miss -interpreted. I have a Dictionary that’s about 10 years old. The word marriage is defined simply between a man & women. Today I looked up the word on Websters.com and it does include same sex as part of the meaning to marriage. Scary that the meaning of a word can be changed like that. Same sex couples sharing a life together is a practice that is generally accepted today in all facets of life. But these individuals are not only seeking acceptance but approval.


My first post in this thread indicated that gay couples should be given the same legal, civic right and benefits that married couples receive. Overall I have put alot of thought on where I stand on this issue. The link that Apple posted a few pages back helped me understand my position. Sometimes you do have to strip things down to their simplest forms.
Again I repeat that same sex couples should be given the same benefits extended to married couples. I respect there right to share their life together with someone, but when they want to call that marriage and validate it by having approval by the government or a place of worship that is where I draw the line. They want to change the meaning of an institution that has been around for over two thousand years because of their alternative lifestyle. And that is what it is an Alternative Lifestyle.

It’s not normal, it’s wrong, it’s not what God intended, and it’s not the way it is supposed to be are reasons used by those against same sex marriage. These simple reasons have been considered ignorant in today’s PC friendly world. These same reasons have been gathered and locked in same closet that these same sex avengers came crashing out of.

Marriage is between Man & Women and has been well defined and around well before Jesus walked the planet. Marriage is the foundation for society and every culture here on earth. Marriage by no means is perfect. Its sanctity has continually been threatened by divorce, adultery, and citizenship marriage, just to name a few. It does not need anything else to erode it. I thought that legal partnership would be the answer but apparently they did this 10 years ago in Sweden and the marriage rate has declined and un-wed mother rate has increased.

I don’t know what the answer is but I do know that people overall should think about the long-term affect of their decisions. It’s really easy to make a quick decision based on how it affects your small circle in life. But there is more, there is a bigger picture and people need to be responsible and accountable for the actions.

Lombardi one final point regarding children- Every child brought into this world has a mother and a father. I know that it doesn’t work out that way sometimes later in life but like it or not that the way it is meant to be, that’s how God intended it to be, that’s normal. As far as I know there is no Alternative way to create a life.

I would argue that that is not the topic/subject either. The real point is this: the President is trying to establish some sort of political issue out of something that has no business being one.

Let states decide who can marry, as they always have. The government was not delegated this power in the Constitution, and there is no reason that it should be amended to allow it. Are gays really threatening anyone's rights? No, but the government is.

Nor was the governemtn given any power to decide what is morally right and wrong in this country. So not only is the "solution" illogical (the unnecessary amendment), but so is the "problem" (gays marrying). Who does it hurt to give two gays the right to be married?!

This is nothing more than a political move by the President who is attempting to get all of the bigots and homophobes on his side. It is much like him addressing steroid use in baseball in the State of the Union. It was out of place, and certainly not his decision to make. He is simply trying to get people on his side behind the facade that he is an everyman who wants to clean up everything, including the American Passtime. He is obsessed with his Patriotic Image!

Well I am not only a baseball purist but a bigot and a homophobe as well. And he ain't getting my vote, because I can see through his petty campaign strategy.

Perfect. There are other problems in this country that need to be addressed but are overlooked.

Hey, U.S., you got two choices.

1. Overlook all moral issues and focus on governing, as you were meant to do.

2. Face all moral issues and become a totalitarian government, as set forth by the Patriot Act.

Either way, make up your mind so that I can decide wether to stay here (1) or move to Europe (2).