Maybe I do a short summary of the debates so far before continuing answering. Others can continue to build on this summary as the debate continues.
Proposition
- Happiness for gays to pursue their desire.
- Rights for gays.
- Ensures less casual sex with a committed marriage partner.
Opposition
- Cause reproduction issues. (Wider adoption of technology aided tools for reproduction, instead of sex for reproduction, may eventually lead to production of robots to substitute humans)
- Influence the nurture environment (parental care, peer pressure, community) to favouring more people who have inclinations of attraction towards same-sex to engage in homosexual acts.
- Making homosexual acts an alternative way of life may make it more of choice, rather than a combination of natural inclinations and some choice, influencing others who may not have inclinations of attraction towards same-sex. (http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation)
- Homosexual acts leads to health problems among homosexuals, especially higher percentage of STD. (http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm)
The restroom thing reflects some deeper issue about equality, it will probably be one of the issues that gays would ultimately fight for. If gays were recognised for marriage globally, there is most likely one playing the role of male (husband) and the other playing the role of female (wife). So why should they be discriminated for the role that they serve? If in a hetero relationship, the husband goes to Gents and the wife goes to Ladies. Why it should not be the case for homosexual couple? If you add the children into the picture, it will seem even more likely. Who's going to take care of homosexual's daughter in the restroom when they are still kids when both of the homosexuals are in Gents? In hetero relationship, the husband usually takes care of the son and the wife usually takes care of the daughter in restroom.
...........? LOL??? GAY = MEN = LIKING MEN.... one doesn't act like a woman that is the most stereotypical thing I have ever heard... that's like saying ALL black people LOVE fried chicken.... OR all ITALIANS eat spaghetti and meatballs... Transsexual is a totally different thing, that's a woman trapped in a mans body or man trapped in a female body TOTALLY different.
I've seen plenty of straight men take their daughters into the male bathroom... why should this be different with gay men?!?!? you are crazy
AND YET AGIAN!! what does this have to do with gay marriage??
Gays are men attracted to men, lesbians are women attracted to women. But for simplicity, we just use gays as examples.
Usually, in a gay relationship, there is a guy playing the femine role and another guy playing the masculine role. I'm not sure if this is a sterotype or it is true for most of the cases. As far as the gay relationship that I have been exposed to, it's usually like that.
For straight men taking daughters into male bathroom, it really depends on the age of the daughter. Above certain age limit (I saw one is 3 years old), you cannot do that anymore. But for hetero couple, the wife can still take care of the daughters above that age. But it's going to remain a problem for gays.
Gay marriage itself comes under the broader category of gay rights. So this is an eventual manifestation of gay rights if the first step of gay marriage is granted. We have to think about the consequence of gay marriage in the longer term and not just short term.
That is a stereotype that people like you continue to perpetuate.
Gender roles are archaic social constructions that should not apply to any relationship. Hetero or Homo.
Gender roles is another debate already. But as far as current situation goes and in terms of pragmatism, the gender roles that I have referred to are still applicable across most of the countries. The traditional way of thinking males have to work outside and females staying at home to take care of children is of course no longer applicable. But what I mentioned about here is just husband taking care of sons and wife taking care of daughters due to convenience in terms of gender. That's not really a lot about gender roles anyway.
http://en.wikipedia....f_homosexuality People have always had gay sex, sorry. The increased awareness and acceptance of homosexuality has allowed gay communities to form, but hasn't changed the number of people that are gay. You still haven't refuted the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that societies that accept homosexuality still have far more straight than gay people. And even if you do believe that non-procreational sex is immoral and 'twisted,' what gives you the right to cast moralistic judgment on massive groups of people whose behavior doesn't directly affect you or infringe on your rights in any way?
Again, you're vastly overstating the influence of your so-called "nurture environment". People who are raised in communities completely void of gay people still turn out gay. It follows that children who have exposure to both heterosexuality and homosexuality will turn out to be the orientation that they are genetically predisposed to. Also...are you casually suggesting creating gay ghettos? Concentration camps?
You can make this argument about literally anything. You could argue that black people shouldn't have the right to vote, that minority religions should be banned, that immigration should be ceased because it would change society and cause people to question their values. Treating everyone equally under the law and allowing gay couples to marry in no way affects the rights of anyone who doesn't want to get gay married.
In the wiki page you mentioned, there are a number of terms being used: same-sex love, same-sex affection, homosexuality behaviour, same-sex sexual interactions, same-sex sexual life, same-sex relationship. So the descriptions suggest some level of difference in homosexuality behaviour and not all are referred to gay sex. Anyway, what I have mentioned is not about whether people have had gay sex. It is about the inclination of attraction towards same-sex does not necessary directly lead to same-sex sexual behaviour. The records suggested in the wiki page only highlights certain gay sex examples but the number of actual people who have inclination of attraction towards same-sex should be much higher (if percentage of gays population have not been changed from early days to today) but not that many were recorded could indicate a significant portion of these desires were controlled. But you would hardly see such situation in today's gay community, there is little attempt to control such desires and that's what I mentioned about the trend of increasing sexual acts between same-sex individuals.
I have stated that attraction towards same-sex is an inclination, rather than genetic causes. To completely attribute sexual orientation as natural and not a choice at all, it should be proven that this attribution is caused by the genes. One thing we can be sure of as of now that it is certainly not a hereditary genes. If that is the case and since homosexuals is unable to reproduce in the past, such genes will have been eliminated in the genes pool. Then the possible gene will likely to be similar feature as those that cause blindness, deaf or whatsoever in the infant. But there is still no study to prove the existence of such genes. So for now, it is still more acceptable to regard it as an inclination until such gene is found. For an inclination, it just means a higher percentage of action happening but there is still room for choices to be exercised. For stealing inclination, under a good nurture environment and if the child is willing to change, then such inclination could be stopped. Likewise, for homosexual inclination, there are records of people turning from homosexual to straight through therapy or counselling, showing that people can still have some choice over such inclinations. While many people have suggested how therapy or counselling is not working, it would be too hasty to disregard those successful cases totally. In those therapy or counselling, there is also some suggestion about people unwilling to cooperate and very repulsive towards such treatment and hence they have not worked for them. This again could suggest people have the choice to control their inclinations depending on their willingness to cooperate or desire to control those inclinations.
Looking at the breakdown of homosexuals, comparing the percentage of gays in countries that legalise gay marriage to those countries that prohibit gay marriage, there is already quite a significant percentage difference. Even if at this current stage, straight people still have much higher percentage, it does not guarantee for the future. If number of people with attraction towards same-sex has not changed through legalisation of gay marriage, it is showing that more people have openly declared that they are gays and sexual acts have certainly increased with little effort or attempt to control that inclination.
Anyway, the debate on whether to support or not support gay marriage focuses on the effects of such cause. If there is no effects of such gay marriage on others, then there will not be violent objections or even a controversial issue at this point of time. A lot of these effects are actually long term effects so its effects will not be manifested in the short term. But that does not mean that we should be ignoring these long term effects as once those effects are manifested, it will be too late and we cannot turn back the clock.
For the influence of nurture environment, it is not an overstatement to say that it has a significant influence on anyone since it includes parental care, peer pressure and community. Most people's belief system, character, aspirations, value system are shaped by this nurture environment. People who are raised in communities completely void of gay people may still turn out gay because of natural inclination and some form of choice. But the percentage of people who have inclinations of attraction towards same-sex engaging in gay sex would likely be lower than another community that openly encourage people to engage in gay sex if they have any inclinations of attraction towards same-sex.
I disapproves of any suggestion of gays concentration camps, in fact, I also disapproves discriminations against gays at workplace, schools, etc. I'm merely using that as an example of impact of nurture environment. However, discriminations against the person and the action is two totally different thing. For example, i would agree that a criminal should be given a second chance after they are released from jail and not be discriminated against, but that does not mean that I approve of his criminal behaviours before he was jailed.
An argument can be used to argue for a lot of other issues does not necessarily make itself a weak argument. But one argument alone is not enough to reach any reasonable conclusion. But there are obviously stronger arguments for the few issues you raised, that's why that argument did not determine the outcome of the conclusion. Changing society or questioning value for the better or for the worse is another question to ask in this type of argument and is often debated in itself. If the rights attributed to a group is inherently making things worse for the society, then it may be better to maintain status quo. The obvious case would be not attributing the right to kill humans to Cannibalism tribes and still maintain the law that murder is punishable by life sentence or death penalty.
No it's not easy to get repulsed at the word illness unless you're an idiot. Mental illness is a very real thing. I have mentally ill people within my family but homosexuality is not a mental illness nor is it a variation from being a normal human being and you have no evidence to back that up. Homosexuality has always been around, if you go back to the time of Aristotle, or even back in the Biblical times (even though the Bible is quite biased) homosexuality existed. Gay marriage wasn't legal then, and yet gay people still existed just as they do now. There are countries where gay people are killed for being gay, and yet they continue to exist in those countries. People tried to correct homosexuality for DECADES within the medical field before they realized that homosexuality is innate and there's nothing wrong with it. Still religious people try to correct homosexuality TODAY and they fail time and time again. Maybe if you took my advice and read a book, you'd understand better. And again, I want you to go do your own research then get back to me because at this point I know you're acting willfully ignorant.
I have stated that attraction towards same-sex is an inclination, rather than genetic causes. To completely attribute sexual orientation as natural and not a choice at all, it should be proven that this attribution is caused by the genes. One thing we can be sure of as of now that it is certainly not a hereditary genes. If that is the case and since homosexuals is unable to reproduce in the past, such genes will have been eliminated in the genes pool. Then the possible gene will likely to be similar feature as those that cause blindness, deaf or whatsoever in the infant. But there is still no study to prove the existence of such genes. So for now, it is still more acceptable to regard it as an inclination until such gene is found. For an inclination, it just means a higher percentage of action happening but there is still room for choices to be exercised. For stealing inclination, under a good nurture environment and if the child is willing to change, then such inclination could be stopped. Likewise, for homosexual inclination, there are records of people turning from homosexual to straight through therapy or counselling, showing that people can still have some choice over such inclinations. While many people have suggested how therapy or counselling is not working, it would be too hasty to disregard those successful cases totally. In those therapy or counselling, there is also some suggestion about people unwilling to cooperate and very repulsive towards such treatment and hence they have not worked for them. This again could suggest people have the choice to control their inclinations depending on their willingness to cooperate or desire to control those inclinations.
By the way, I think the correction for homosexuality that you mentioned are still restricted to therapy and counselling. If there is no medical breakthroughs and we are still confined with these two methods, then the success rate may be low. But it cannot be totall denied that such methods have worked for some. Anyway, I have mentioned about other possibilites such as injection of hormones. No such methods have been tested yet so it is too early to determine effectiveness of these methods. As with any other disease, years or decades of trying may still be futile but it does not mean that they should be stopped. For example, until now, we have not found a cure for cancer which has surfaced decades or centuries ago but scientist and doctors are still researching. It is with new technology and this kind of dedication that we have found cure for many of the diseases that is thought to be uncurable decades or centuries ago. But if we already rejected such idea, how is it possible for any advances? Some people are so repulsive towards ideas like injection of hormones when most of us have been taking vaccinations. There's scientific approach to test out these researches before it is implemented on humans such as testing on animals. Such approach is also adopted in the testing of new drugs on people. Before it is even used on most people, it would have been tested with a number of people who are willing to be tested.
