Do you support gay marriage?

[Salvador]

Why do you keep referring to this?
What kind of authority do you think this guy has? Why should I care what he thinks about anything except his own affairs?
Tom

He is a gay match maker, who thinks marriage should be kept as a traditional custom between a man and woman. I'm simply demonstrating there are gays who do consider the reasons marriage should be kept as a traditional custom between a man and woman.

 

[Polymath257]

Before Obergefell vs Hodges . some states did ban all gay marriages.. none of these same-sex marriages were recognized in these states banning gay marriages. Then came along Justice Ginsberg who shifted the balance of the SCOTUS that federalized control of same-sex marriages rather than allowing the people of each state to determine if gay marriages should be recognized in their communities.

Good for her?

 

[Nous]

Before Obergefell vs Hodges . some states did ban all gay marriages.. none of these same-sex marriages were recognized in these states banning gay marriages. Then came along Justice Ginsberg who shifted the balance of the SCOTUS that federalized control of same-sex marriages rather than allowing the people of each state to determine if gay marriages should be recognized in their communities.

Why the hell are you singling out Justice Ginsburg as being somehow instrumental to Obergefell? Justice Kennedy is the one who wrote it (as he wrote Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, Hurley v. GLIB). The Obergefell majority held civil marriage is a fundamental right, just it held in Loving v. Virginia, Turner v. Safley and Zablocki v. Redhail), and that therefore the laws denying equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and their children violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, due to such denial lacking any rational basis. You don't have any argument pertaining to the Court's rationale for the Obergefell holding, do you? I.e, you don't have any argument that civil marriage is not a fundamental right or that there is some compelling reason to deny same-sex couples and their children the plethora of rights that come with the couple being recognized as married, do you?

 

[Nous]

Animals from higher to insect- partial list
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia

mammals full list List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia

Just one of many:

"Elevated levels of testosterone in utero"[15] increases aggressiveness and both male and female spotted hyenas mount submissive same-sex members who likely have lower levels of testosterone from their mothers.[16][17][18]

It sounds like you are taking offense over people's opinions.


What do you mean?

Sexual attraction has been studied and used in our literary arts and history for AGES and ages. Whether attraction or just behavior, or a mix, its not a big deal using labels. You may have issues with the words LGBTQ, many people do; those are social constructs. Built up because of anti-gays, violence, and coming together to fight for ones life and rights to live. We can call ourselves Jamasafoots for all we care.

That doesnt mean hetersexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are just social constructs. Biology doesnt work that way.



Biological attraction??? Im not a doctor but this is the best I can find. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sex-gender-and-sexuality-its-complicated/ A little of both views about social construct and the views on the definition of gender, sex, a bit of history, and just general understanding of how the body, our genes works, in regards to our sexuality. Evolutionary Psychology Insights Regarding Human Sexuality | Eisenman | Europe’s Journal of Psychology Im not debating with you. I never heard of sexual attraction being a social construct. Id have to ask my straight friends, if I had any, if they just became attracted to their opposite peer or where they influence by their environment. I dont know what they would look like if I asked them that. Ha.



Switch sexual orientation to sexual attraction; that word is throwing you off.

You are talking about behavior. Behavior isnt bias. Our physiology is. Behavior has nothing to do with who is LGBTQ. It just means science and history decided people who act in X behaivor are This and Y behavior are That. Homo/heterosexuality have to do with psycological and pysiological attraction. Sexual orientation just tells you who. Nothing more.





1. Whether one is LGBTQ is a social construct
2. Who one is attracted to based on physiology and psychology is not.

a. You gave me the definition of social construct. I wont repeat it.

b. I dont know if you are familar with the words physiology, biology, and psychology in relation to sexual attraction. Im not a doctor so youd have to look that up and reflect on your own sexual experiences in relation to atraction.



You have to clarify without being rude. I am not a doctor. Unless you are asexual?, Im not sure what you are talking about

So, neither of you can cite any evidence by which to conclude that humans or non-human animals have any immutable, biologically-determined sexual orientation. Correct?

 

[LuisDantas]

He is a gay match maker, who thinks marriage should be kept as a traditional custom between a man and woman. I'm simply demonstrating there are gays who do consider the reasons marriage should be kept as a traditional custom between a man and woman.

There are people with all kinds of expectations and beliefs.

Showing their existence, particularly as isolated cases, does not make their stances significant, logical, or defensable.

If you want to discuss that specific stance, please do in fact discuss it. What reasons do you see as possible for it to exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, neither of you can cite any evidence by which to conclude that humans or non-human animals have any immutable, biologically-determined sexual orientation. Correct?

Oh my gosh. You are not addressing our posts. Not even reading them.

Sexual orientation refers to sexual attraction
Orientation just tells you who

Break apart the def. of the word.

Do you want evidence people are sexually attracted to other people????

I am not understanding your question. Are you saying sexual attraction is inherit if the orientation is to opposite gender but attraction is not if its same gender?

And with animals, are you saying sexual attraction is not inherit animals?

This gay thing is throwing you off.

Edit. Nous. Read our links

 

[Nous]

Oh my gosh. You are not addressing our posts. Not even reading them.

Sexual orientation refers to sexual attraction
Orientation just tells you who

Break apart the def. of the word.

Do you want evidence people are sexually attracted to other people????

I am not understanding your question. Are you saying sexual attraction is inherit if the orientation is to opposite gender but attraction is not if its same gender?

And with animals, are you saying sexual attraction is not inherit animals?

This gay thing is throwing you off.

Edit. Nous. Read our links

I am reading your posts, and they are lacking any citations of evidence that support your claims that sexual orientation (or, if you wish, monosexual "attraction"--which you haven't been able to define) is an immutable, biological trait.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am reading your posts, and they are lacking any citations of evidence that support your claims that sexual orientation (or, if you wish, monosexual "attraction"--which you haven't been able to define) is an immutable, biological trait.

I am still confused. You need evidence that people (and animals) are biologically attracted to other people (or animals)?

Is your biological attraction (if not asexual?) a social construct?

 

[Nous]

I am still confused. You need evidence that people (and animals) are biologically attracted to other people?

No, you're only using vague words and ideas that you can't define in order to avoid the issue of what it means to assert that individuals have a monosexual orientation as an immutable biological trait. The assertion of individuals having a monosexual sexual orientation as an immutable trait means that these individuals can only be sexually attracted to one sex, not to another sex of persons. And you haven't cited any evidence of the existence of such a trait. Right?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The assertion of individuals having a monosexual sexual orientation as an immutable trait means that these individuals can only be sexually attracted to one sex, not to another sex of persons. And you haven't cited any evidence of the existence of such a trait. Right?

Huh..

I didn't say mono...people are attracted to other people regardless how many, who, and why. Once you understand biological attraction, everything else

If someone is male or female for example, is related to whom one is physically and emotionally aroused. Whether it's fifty or one isn't the point.

You need evidence of this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, you're only using vague words and ideas that you can't define in order to avoid the issue of what it means to assert that individuals

have a monosexual orientation as an immutable biological trai

How so? I never said humans are only specifically attracted to one gender or have a monosexual orientation. Where did you get that???

I said sexual attraction is not a social construct. Poly, mono, whatever, isnt my point.

Also, online, it is hard to find any academic sources on sexual attractions. Those links is the best I can fine in relation to my point not your conclusions of what you say is my point.

The assertion of individuals having a monosexual sexual orientation as an immutable trait means that these individuals can only be sexually attracted to one sex, not to another sex of persons.

Thats your conclusion. I said sexual orientation isnt a social construct. Which this helps prove my point. If it were, I can see why humans would be mono orientated. Though, I think thats a product of the church if Im not mistaken. Humans are attracted to other humans.

Like animals, many humans have a predominate attraction (I read mostly for reproduction) or orientation towards specific people (or animals to animals: a horse isnt attracted to birds for exaple) of their own kind and similar physical and mental traits.

And you haven't cited any evidence of the existence of such a trait. Right?

You are asking for evidence for a conclusion of a point I never mentioned.

There are thousands of people who say they are purely straight, gay, bisexual, etc not realizing that their predominate attraction is towards one or both sexes but they are still polytheistic in general.

The predominate attraction is in both humans and animals. Whether one is straight, LGB, just tells the orientation of that predominate attraction.

I mean, if you are married, are you sexually and mentally attracted to people (male and female) just as much as your husband or wife?

 

[Nous]

Huh..

I didn't say mono...people are attracted to other people regardless how many, who, and why. Once you understand biological attraction, everything else

If someone is male or female for example, is related to whom one is physically and emotionally aroused. Whether it's fifty or one isn't the point.

You need evidence of this?

Yes, it's the absence of evidence of and the existence of contradictory facts to the existence of monosexual sexual orientations (i.e., "gay," "straight") that lead to the conclusion that sexual orientation is a social construct. Among those facts contradicting the existence of monosexual sexual orientations are those cultures where all or most males (at least of a certain class) engaged in sexual relationships with both sexes (sometimes in different periods of their lives, and for different reasons). Those are among the facts that contradict the existence monosexual sexual orientation as an immutable biological or genetic trait. Similarly, we can observe, especially among our closest living hominid relatives, many individuals engaging in same-sex sexual activity, but not individuals who have sexual relationships with only others of a particular sex.

 

[Salvador]

Why the hell are you singling out Justice Ginsburg as being somehow instrumental to Obergefell? Justice Kennedy is the one who wrote it (as he wrote Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, Hurley v. GLIB). The Obergefell majority held civil marriage is a fundamental right, just it held in Loving v. Virginia, Turner v. Safley and Zablocki v. Redhail), and that therefore the laws denying equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and their children violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, due to such denial lacking any rational basis. You don't have any argument pertaining to the Court's rationale for the Obergefell holding, do you? I.e, you don't have any argument that civil marriage is not a fundamental right or that there is some compelling reason to deny same-sex couples and their children the plethora of rights that come with the couple being recognized as married, do you?

There are many in some places, for instance -Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians, who believe marriage is between a man and woman. Their rights to practice their deeply held religious faith based tenets are a basic human right. Who am I to force these people of faith to have their taxes fund abortions or pay clerks to issue marriage certificates for gay wannabe spouses?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, it's the absence of evidence of and the existence of contradictory facts to the existence of monosexual sexual orientations (i.e., "gay," "straight") that lead to the conclusion that sexual orientation is a social construct. Among those facts contradicting the existence of monosexual sexual orientations are those cultures where all or most males (at least of a certain class) engaged in sexual relationships with both sexes (sometimes in different periods of their lives, and for different reasons). Those are among the facts that contradict the existence monosexual sexual orientation as an immutable biological or genetic trait. Similarly, we can observe, especially among our closest living hominid relatives, many individuals engaging in same-sex sexual activity, but not individuals who have sexual relationships with only others of a particular sex.

My other posts addresses this. You drawn conclusions I didnt make.

 

[Nous]

How so? I never said humans are only specifically attracted to one gender or have a monosexual orientation. Where did you get that???

Gee whiz!!! The terms "gay" and "straight" denote monosexual sexual orientation.

 

[Nous]

There are many in some places, for instance -Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians, who believe marriage is between a man and woman. Their rights to practice their deeply held religious faith based tenets are a basic human right. Who am I to force these people of faith to have their taxes fund abortions or pay clerks to issue marriage certificates for gay wannabe spouses?

No one's right to exercise their religion is infringed by paying taxes. If that were the case, then everyone's religious liberties would be infringed in some way.

Do you think there might be a good reason why no one tried to argue in court that paying taxes constitutes a compelling reason to deny same-sex couples and their children the rights and responsibilities that come with the couple's recognition as being married?

 

[Nous]

My other posts addresses this. You drawn conclusions I didnt make.

I only asked for evidence by which to conclude that sexual orientations such as denoted by the terms "gay" and "straight" are immutable biological traits. You haven't cited any such evidence. Right?

 

[Revoltingest]

There are many in some places, for instance -Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians, who believe marriage is between a man and woman. Their rights to practice their deeply held religious faith based tenets are a basic human right. Who am I to force these people of faith to have their taxes fund abortions or pay clerks to issue marriage certificates for gay wannabe spouses?

I don't want to force anyone to pay taxes supporting causes one opposes.
Ideally, the cost of abortions & marriage certificates would be borne solely
by those using the service. It would be great if I didn't have to provide free
police & fire services to churches too But our country is diverse & provides
such services, so things just don't work that way. It's all about fighting over
& eventually agreeing to uneasty compromises.

 

[Salvador]

No one's right to exercise their religion is infringed by paying taxes. If that were the case, then everyone's religious liberties would be infringed in some way.

Do you think there might be a good reason why no one tried to argue to paying taxes constitutes a compelling reason to deny same-sex couples and their children the rights and responsibilities that come with the couple's recognition as being married?

Married couples do often get tax breaks over singles....Right? What if a conservative state with a fundamentalist Christian majority, like Utah, doesn't want to extend these benefits to people whom they see unfit to be married. Should we outsiders from other states tell the Mormons how to run their state's businesses and state government?

 

[Salvador]

I don't want to force anyone to pay taxes supporting causes one opposes.
Ideally, the cost of abortions & marriage certificates would be borne solely
by those using the service. It would be great if I didn't have to provide free
police & fire services to churches too But our country is diverse & provides
such services, so things just don't work that way. It's all about fighting over
& eventually agreeing to uneasty compromises.

Likewise, what about corporate/small business work benefits? Should an owner of a business be forced to provide marriage benefits to people whom he/she sees as unfit to be married. Same sex-marriage may encourage some employers to not even hire gays at all, if their businesses must provide their gay employee's wannabe spouses with family insurance benefits. Right?