Gay Marriage

Let's not forget that there's strong evidence indicating a powerful correlation between genetic relationship and homosexuality:Gay Men in Twin Study - The New York TimesIt's certainly not something purely genetic, but it looks like genes are definitely a component. There's also been evidence that gayness is developmental or epigenetic, and some factors are environmental.For the most part though, the biological basis of homosexuality is well-documented.

quote:

---

It has already been proven that you can pound gayness out of a gay man but you can't pound blankness out of black man.

---

Because severe psychological trauma and aversion therapy is perfectly synonymous with healthy heterosexuality.Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And I would honor that choice. It's entirely OK with me if you're a lesbian. However, you have just sealed the case for gayness-by-choice. Does it matter that nature made you gay if that's what you'd choose anyway? So it's choice after all. But I'm OK with that. However, it doesn't help your argument that nature made you gay and you didn't have anything to do with it.

​

”HM

---

Wait, wait.Let's look at it this way. Michael Jackson chose to go through a series of plastic surgeries to become white. This doesn't mean that ethnicity is a "choice." Hell, this method of argument can be applied to just about anything that human beings are innately born with.Just because the ability to change yourself exists ex post facto doesn't make the original nature (in this case, homosexuality) a "choice."It's a horrible, horrible argument.

quote:

---

The jury is still out this matter of choice.

---

I think we've given you more than sufficient evidence as to how homosexuality is determined through genetic, developmental, and physiological factors. But in the end I think everyone is missing the big picture here.Whether or not homosexuality is natural or not is wholly irrelevant to its ethical implications. Genes that lead to a greater tendency towards alcoholism are perfectly natural, but alcoholism isn't considered an ethically stable position just because it's "natural." On the other hand, synesthesia is a perfectly natural neural phenomenon, but we don't think it's ethically unstable because it's natural.Natural phenomena are, at best, amoral. What matters regarding the ethical content of a proposition isn't the descriptive elements, but the prescriptive elements. If anyone wants to argue whether or not homosexuality should be accepted, it's best to divorce it from the scientific study of it.

Let the state give civil unions to everyone that wants one: gay, straight, polyamorous, transsexual, etc. Let the churches decide what's marriage and what isn't. Everyone gets their civil rights and the government doesn't step on anyone's religious toes.Simple.

quote:

---

Not yet. Not until it is so well understood that it can be "corrected" if one should make that choice. I'm afraid I still suspect that if Chuck and Larry should raise little Bobbie into manhood, then little Bobbie would be more likely to turn out gay. And I have to ask if this is a good thing for little Bobbie. I don't believe there are enough scientific data on this matter to know what really happens to little Bobbie.

---

Being raised by heterosexual couples didn't make the vast majority of homosexuals in society any more heterosexual. Why would homosexual couples have some special voodoo effect that turns their children gay?You say that being raised by homosexuals will turn otherwise-heterosexual kids gay, but don't address the fact that being raised by heterosexuals doesn't stop kids from growing up homosexual. You argue firmly that you know the natural causes of heterosexuality, but are baffled or unconvinced of the natural causes of homosexuality when your knowledge of the mechanisms of both are equally nebulous (and therefore, it must be a "choice" on some level). You argue that if it becomes medically possible to alter your sexuality, those who don't undergo this therapy will prove that homosexuality is a "choice," when at the same time you ignore the fact that this argument would make ethnicity a "choice" (due to Michael Jackson's plastic surgeries).You're upholding intellectual double-standards and ignoring the other side of the equation. Logical fallacies aside, if you want people to open up and accept your views, you're going to have to grant the same courtesy and exercise the same capacity you want from us.

quote:

---

I'm sorry to have to say this again: They already have the same rights I have. The law doesn't say that a gay men can't marry any woman of his choice, just like any straight man. The law says that any man can marry any woman of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the gay man in that regard.

---

quote:

---

"Church" isn't defined as a scientology building and "pants" isn't defined as being 28 inch waists. However, "marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

​

False analogy.

---

Well, I don't know about that.

quote:

---

For example, in late medieval France, the term affrrement -- roughly translated as brotherment -- was used to refer to a certain type of legal contract, which also existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe. These documents provided the foundation for non-nuclear households of many types and shared many characteristics with marriage contracts, as legal writers at the time were well aware, according to Tulchin.

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070823110231.htm

quote:

---

Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex.[8] Female-bodied two-spirits usually had sexual relations or marriages with only females.[9] In the Lakota tribe, two-spirits commonly married widowers; a male-bodied two-spirit could perform the function of parenting the children of her husband's late wife without any risk of bearing new children to whom she might give priority.[10] Partners of two-spirits did not take on any special recognition, although some believed that after having sexual relations with a two-spirit they would obtain magical abilities, given obscene nicknames by the two-spirited person which they believed held "good luck," or in the case of male partners, boosted their masculinity. Relationships between two two-spirited individuals is absent in the literature with one tribe as an exception, the Tewa.[11] Male-bodied two-spirits regarded each other as "sisters," it is speculated that it may have been seen as incestuous to have a relationship with another two-spirit.[12] It is known that in certain tribes a relationship between a two-spirit and non-two-spirit was seen on the most part as neither heterosexual nor homosexual (in modern day terms) but more "hetero-gender," Europeans however saw them as being homosexual. Partners of two-spirits did not experience themselves as "homosexual," and moreover drew a sharp conceptual line between themselves and two-spirits.[13]

---

Two-spirit - WikipediaSacred, sanctified, socially-recognized homosexual unions did exist, it's just a matter of time and culture, which are very much subject to change. For the longest time in Europe, marriage was mostly a matter of political convenience and little more. There's nothing a priori about the term "marriage" that necessitates a heterosexual union.If expanding the definition and legal status of "marriage" has occurred in the past, there's nothing that morally or rationally keeps us from doing so now.

quote:

---

BeagleBob, really great article! But I also noticed what Tulchin says about a proving historical "gay marriage":

​

quote:

---

Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrrés were using affrrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents."

---

Yes, I should think it would be impossible to prove. Nevertheless, this article is very unfriendly to the argument, my argument, that 2-sex marriage is the only tradition.

​

BeagleBob writes:

​

Sacred, sanctified, socially-recognized homosexual unions did exist, [although it can't be proven,] it's just a matter of time and culture, which are very much subject to change.

Is my edit fair?

​

”HM

---

Well don't forget the Native American Two-Spirits. They definitely had marriages that could be considered homosexual or transsexual in nature.So supposing the affrements were non-sexual, how about we issue marriage licenses to two men without regard of whether they're having sex or not. If they wish to have sex, then that'd just be gravy and the marriage license is silent on the matter.