• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you support gay marriage?

Do you support gay marriage?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 41 80.4%
  • No.

    Votes: 10 19.6%

  • Total voters
    51

Unveiled Artist

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

PLEASE read the point of my posts.

1. Humans are attracted to humans regardless of orientation

2. Humans have predominate attraction to X.
Some say their predominate attractions are polytheistic.
The mono-thing I read is more about reproduction.

3. I said heterosexuality and homosexuality, etc arent social constructs. It just tells us who one is attracted. Its a natural thing for many to divide people up.

People been trying to prove the gay-gene for ages. Its silly, really.

4. LGBQ can be seen as social constructs. If so, its based on history and how people are treated that they/we consider ourselves specific to our identity (LGBQ) and not our attraction (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc) In other words, identity is a social construct. Attraction (physiological and psychological) is not.

I guess that view depends on the person. Many anti-gays think we chose to like one sex over another. Some feel it is the product of our environment while others upbringing. I never heard of biological attraction being a product of ones environment. I mean, my environment promotes mono-attraction and orientation. Im realizing sexual orientation is on a sliding scale not mono-orientation hence why you got LGBTQSDSF etc.

But sexual orientation refers to who one is attracted to. It doesnt say you cant be attracted to other people; we are still human. It just says our predominate attraction.

Online is very bias on finding evidence that people can have a predominate attraction to X person and not to Y. I mean, we see it for reproduction, for example, but even that is up for debate.

You are making conclusions on points I never made.

That, and isolated words to convey an argument doesnt help with understanding my point first.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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?
I favor less regulation of the employer-employee relationship.
We employers shouldn't be their parents.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
The Court addressed that argument way back in Loving. Marriage is fundamental right, which is why in the absence of a compelling purpose it cannot be denied to persons who are otherwise qualified to marry.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
PLEASE read the point of my posts.

1. Humans are attracted to humans regardless of orientation

2. Humans have predominate attraction to X.
Those claims won't help you to establish that there is evidence that monosexual sexual orientations (as denoted by the terms "gay" and "straight") are immutable biological traits.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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?

Because I did not say they were. I said heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are inherit traits.

I said LGBTQ (identites) by definition are social constructs based on ones history, environment, and sene of self.

It was hard tof ind heterosexuality as a biological inherit trait because the sources lump human sexuality as a whole as inherit. Every time I look up human sexuality it goes to LGBTQ. So, unless you want links on human sexuality, you would mostly find studies on the division of sexual attraction.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
The Court addressed that argument way back in Loving. Marriage is fundamental right, which is why in the absence of a compelling purpose it cannot be denied to persons who are otherwise qualified to marry.

I'm for same-sex marriage in the state of Illinois where I'm from, but I don't think we should require states with a religious majority opposed to marriage between same sex persons to extend marriage benefits for those whom the majority of people see as unfit to be married.

Why can't we respect each state's will of the majority?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Those claims won't help you to establish that there is evidence that monosexual sexual orientations (as denoted by the terms "gay" and "straight") are immutable biological traits.

SHEESH

I will try to make it more elementary to my point.

I cannot give evidence for points I did not make. That is on you.

1. Human sexuality is not a social construct (HS-biological and psychological attraction to other humans)

2. Heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality, are just divisions of human sexuality.

3. Orientation refers to whom ones sexual HS is predominate. It does not exclude attraction to other people as humans.

4. LGBTQ are social constructs based on environment, sense of self, and ones identity. These are social constructs. (reread)

5. Humans are not mono-oriented. Like animals, we do have perdominate attractions. Hetero, Homo, Bisexual, etc just describes the nature of the orientation.

If you want evidence for human attraction, there are many studies but, like I said, online is highly bias and goes straight towards gays not humans in general.

If you are looking for evidence a straight persons being specifically attracted to only people of his opposite sex, there is none online I found. It goes straight to gays as if we have some special gene worth experimenting.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm for same-sex marriage in the state of Illinois where I'm from, but I don't think we should require states with a religious majority opposed to marriage between same sex persons to extend marriage benefits for those whom the majority of people see as unfit to be married.

Why can't we respect each state's will of the majority?
The majority of the Supreme Court and of the (so-called) "inferior" federal courts spoke, and did so eloquently, logically and consistently with precedent. Why don't you respect that?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'm just wondering about how many people here on RF do and don't support gay marriage.
I support equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for every citizen regardless of their ethnicity, gender identification, sexual habits, religious beliefs, political affiliations, educational level, physical anomalies, and moral proscriptions, so far as it is practical and reasonable.

Yes, I support anyone's right to engage in a same-sex marriage.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Prove it.

("Prove it" means state the proposition, cite the evidence to show that it is a true proposition, then state your deduction.)

Aka

Sexual arousal is not a social construct.

I'm not a doctor. So, I can't give you the details of how the male and female anatomy works in relation to sexual response to other humans. They do have a lot on it in medical books.

Online it goes straight to orientation and interpetation of sexuality. (If you read my links)

Again. That is not my point.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
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?
100% wrong. Go to the sites I referenced and click on the references to studies. If you're not prepared to do that minimal amount of work, spoon feeding references won't have any effect either.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I'm for same-sex marriage in the state of Illinois where I'm from, but I don't think we should require states with a religious majority opposed to marriage between same sex persons to extend marriage benefits for those whom the majority of people see as unfit to be married.

Why can't we respect each state's will of the majority?

As the majority often have highly subjective and nonsensical views of a great many things. Ergo they should never be in charge of dictating the lives of others. Tyranny of the majority is what you are advocating. Some of the social change such as views on interracial marriage were due to ignoring the majority's whims at the time.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
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?
I understand and even agree with your sentiment, but I can assure you that despite Utah's strong conservative leanings, Mormons are definitely NOT "fundamentalist Christians."
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
I understand and even agree with your sentiment, but I can assure you that despite Utah's strong conservative leanings, Mormons are definitely NOT "fundamentalist Christians."
Maybe not fundamentalist (although that's debatable), but Mormons as a whole are really conservative.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Maybe not fundamentalist (although that's debatable), but Mormons as a whole are really conservative.
Oh, I'm well aware of that and I'm considerably more liberal than most Mormons I know. The state of Utah is super conservative, but I'll bet you didn't know that Salt Lake City hasn't had a Republican mayor in over 40 years. Our current mayor is a Democratic lesbian woman with children who is married to her partner. It's just that when I hear the phrase "fundamentalist Christian," my mind goes immediately to Christians who take every word of the Bible literally and who label any self-professing Christian who disagrees with them as a non-Christian, who is more than likely destined to burn in hell forever. That doesn't even resemble the average Mormon.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
When crossing state lines, whether or not I might agree with their laws on the other side, I still do respect and follow the local customs and culture.

If most people someplace believe marriage is strictly between a man and woman, I'm not gonna tell them marriage is also a legal right for gays. I do believe there are some places where I'd likely get my Yankee *** kicked, if I preached their society should allow same-sex marriage. ....:D
You're just repeating yourself and not responding to what I'm saying. This is one country, not a bunch of different countries, so all citizens are entitled to the same rights and protection under the Constitution. The backwards areas of the country will have to get over it.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I'm against marriage as a legal status. Marriage is mostly a religious ceremony. The legal aspect is really a means of providing support for children IMO. Legally this should be an automatic requirement between adults who have kids.

No kids, no legal need for marriage is there?

Same sex couples who want to adopt kids should have the same legal requirement marriage or not.

Nothing stopping people from having a religious ceremony, that's between them and their belief. I just don't think a religious ceremony should have legal standing.

But not every couple will have children. And if marriage is merely to protect children, why not wait until there are children before you marry?

In actuality, the legal aspect of marriage is the most important. It sets out protections for both spouses, as well as other numerous legal nuances.

Some truth to religious ceremonies not having legal status, but that is why those ceremonois include filing legal documents as well. And what about commom law states?
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
You're just repeating yourself and not responding to what I'm saying. This is one country, not a bunch of different countries, so all citizens are entitled to the same rights and protection under the Constitution. The backwards areas of the country will have to get over it.

I'd prefer a Constitutional change for a confederation of the states where each state has its own government, sovereign of federalization; the role of the federal government would be limited to the common defense of all the confederate states and interstate commerce between the states. Imo, This is what the drafters of the U.S. Constitution would now have wanted.
 
Top