Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we put all the homosexuals on an island - say Greenland - how long would it be before they were extinct as a population? Is that normal for humans?
Homosexuality wouldn't end. If you could collect all the gay people on earth - theoretically - you would still have successive generations producing homosexual offspring from heterosexual parents long after all the gays died on greenland. I'm not sure what genetic principle would be behind this but i'd bet my house, car and all worldly possessions that it is genetic and thus would have no impact on future generations - you are still going to get that genetic dispersal as you do throughtout the animal kingdom.
As a gay man, I like so many of my gay colleagues have grown up in oppressively straight societies but still exist. The reason to me is clear it is a biological imperative. The reason for that may seem abnormal to the majority, but the majority do not negate the reason, do not negate reality.
Canadian government does not bow down to interest groups or big business. American government is supplanted by both. In America, though we are the "United" States, the states have discretion on certain matters to call their own shots, because the Federal government does not have the teeth to enforce universal law except in a select number of instances (Selective Service, for example). Out here, we allow the states fairly broad discretion and self-leadership. California has chosen to put the burden on the voters for decisions such as this.
Unless you take the religious, the bigots, the zealots, the racists, the frightened and the elderly out of the voting pool...as E-40 once said, "some things will never change...that's just the way it is". History has indicated that when it came down to religion vs. government, government backs down in the majority of cases and this one is no different. Civil unions across the board? The logical solution. But as I said, you're still always going to have someone who's pissed off with the outcome.
I have faith in the younger generation sprouting up that change will happen - but aside from that everything you said resonates clearly to me - you will never meet everyones needs. I hope for the day in your country though, that equality is closer to the term equal
Homosexuality wouldn't end. If you could collect all the gay people on earth - theoretically - you would still have successive generations producing homosexual offspring from heterosexual parents long after all the gays died on greenland. I'm not sure what genetic principle would be behind this but i'd bet my house, car and all worldly possessions that it is genetic and thus would have no impact on future generations - you are still going to get that genetic dispersal as you do throughtout the animal kingdom.
As a gay man, I like so many of my gay colleagues have grown up in oppressively straight societies but still exist. The reason to me is clear it is a biological imperative. The reason for that may seem abnormal to the majority, but the majority do not negate the reason, do not negate reality.
Assuming it is genetic, I would agree with you. As for the population on Greenland, they would die off of course. Since there is not a species on earth whose mission is to NOT reproduce, we can assume that it is not natural in that sense of the word.
For the record, I am not against you getting hitched at the courthouse. I don't care about you wanting benefits and playing house with each other. I am opposed to gay marriage. There is a difference. Union > fine, marriage > not fine.
I live near Santa Fe. Lots of gays running around here. In true conservative fashion, to each his own as long as he or she is self-supporting and personally responsible. The attempt of gays to legislate marriage for gays is an affront to the Church. Their goal is to make it morally acceptable in God's eyes, and subsequently in society's eyes. In my view, it is not from a religious standpoint. What two adults do with each other is their business.
As a side, I have never once had a heterosexual person declare he or she is straight. The obsession that gays have with advertising their sexuality is weird.
Where did marriage start and is it between a man and a woman?
A true Christian KNOWS it's between a man and a woman.
God created the first (man) Adam and allowed him to live in the garden of Eden, after seeing that Adam was lonely God created a help-meet a (woman) to complete a covenant relationship between the two.
God can not and will not create sin or a sinful relationship.
Adam and Eve were in a covenant relationship ordained and approved by God and it was a marriage of one man and one woman.
The creator could NOT create another man for Adam because the natural, biological, and physiological nature would preclude the ability to procreate or even allow an intimate attraction to exist.
Marriage is a covenant between a Man, Woman, and God.
I realize there are those who will immediately start the attack on the bible, church, and God.
For those of us who truly believe we know that Matthew 16, verse 18 is true.
The marriage of Adam and Eve occur much, much earlier in history than any governmental granted wedding.
Assuming it is genetic, I would agree with you. As for the population on Greenland, they would die off of course. Since there is not a species on earth whose mission is to NOT reproduce, we can assume that it is not natural in that sense of the word.
For the record, I am not against you getting hitched at the courthouse. I don't care about you wanting benefits and playing house with each other. I am opposed to gay marriage. There is a difference. Union > fine, marriage > not fine.
I live near Santa Fe. Lots of gays running around here. In true conservative fashion, to each his own as long as he or she is self-supporting and personally responsible. The attempt of gays to legislate marriage for gays is an affront to the Church. Their goal is to make it morally acceptable in God's eyes, and subsequently in society's eyes. In my view, it is not from a religious standpoint. What two adults do with each other is their business.
As a side, I have never once had a heterosexual person declare he or she is straight. The obsession that gays have with advertising their sexuality is weird.
You are using your own religious viewpoint for your own goals which aren't promoting equality. If gays were running around asking for a special status marriage where they pay less taxes - i would be the first one to attack those that want to tip the scales of equality for personal gain!
As for you own views on the nature of homosexuality - god/mother nature has provided examples of homosexual behaviour in most species. Is it our job to question it.
Don't be quick to assume you are correct though - the desire is strongly inate - if it were as transient as some would have us believe - you could become a homosexual tomorrow.
Where did marriage start and is it between a man and a woman?
A true Christian KNOWS it's between a man and a woman.
God created the first (man) Adam and allowed him to live in the garden of Eden, after seeing that Adam was lonely God created a help-meet a (woman) to complete a covenant relationship between the two.
God can not and will not create sin or a sinful relationship.
Adam and Eve were in a covenant relationship ordained and approved by God and it was a marriage of one man and one woman.
The creator could NOT create another man for Adam because the natural, biological, and physiological nature would preclude the ability to procreate or even allow an intimate attraction to exist.
Marriage is a covenant between a Man, Woman, and God.
I realize there are those who will immediately start the attack on the bible, church, and God.
For those of us who truly believe we know that Matthew 16, verse 18 is true.
The marriage of Adam and Eve occur much, much earlier in history than any governmental granted wedding.
Who is attacking god? I'm an agnostic. Christianity has no ownership of religion or god even though you want it to. Your religious views you are free to hold, but they are your personal views - they have no place in legal policy.
Who is attacking god? I'm an agnostic. Christianity has no ownership of religion or god even though you want it to. Your religious views you are free to hold, but they are your personal views - they have no place in legal policy.
If you read a little more carefully, you will notice that your name is mentioned nowhere in my post!!
I stated that I was WAITING for the attacks to start.
My post speaks for itself and stands on it's on, and eventhough you may wish to dispute it, the very foundation, constitution, and laws of this country ALL have close ties with Christianity.
They very much have and continue to have a place in this country's very nature.
As far as the CA legal system is concerned, it is a right. Fundamental Human Right at that.
Geez, here we go again.
I've got homework for you. Point me to a piece of CA law that explicitly...read that again...explicitly says that "marriage is your right" or words to that effect. Not inferences. EXACT language.
If you read a little more carefully, you will notice that your name is mentioned nowhere in my post!!
I stated that I was WAITING for the attacks to start.
My post speaks for itself and stands on it's on, and eventhough you may wish to dispute it, the very foundation, constitution, and laws of this country ALL have close ties with Christianity.
They very much have and continue to have a place in this country's very nature.
I was making reference to the fact that you were speaking directly to me, I said i'm an agnostic in response to what you stated to underscore the fact that not all are Christian, not that you were directly speaking to me 0 so i'm not sure who's jumping to conclusions or being unkind if you will. What one also has to take into account is even those who are Christian don't take a literal translation of the bible and apply it to practical life. This happens with so much frequency.
The thing i find most interesting is the picking and choosing of script from the bible for personal reasons when making an argument. There are so many things in the book as a whole that would paralyze any society that transferred its script from bible to law. I also resent the inference on degree of sin..Is sin not sin....
You make the argument that the U.S is a nation founded by Christian values, what if the nation was founded more on Christians who just had values but not fundamentalists who lived their lives to the 9nth degree of biblical verse...I have read your Constitution in parts - and i find that it is not particularly biblical prose and I actually like it...but i think the connection you make to Christianity and your nation is more fundamental than it really is.
Last edited by mississauga75; 05-30-2009 at 09:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
