Gay Marriage - Page 2
Join Free Art WorkShopJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 209

Thread: Gay Marriage

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,164
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 2,338 Times in 1,203 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rem92 View Post
    Im against it, its entirely against nature, nuff said.
    So is your computer, your clothes, your house and your transportation but you sure as fuck don't complain about those. If you want to live in the nature you were "designed" for then get off the Internet, take your clothes off and start walking to Africa. Send us some smoke signals when you get back to your natural habitat, assuming it doesn't kill you before you figure out fire.

    The first world environment is made to exclude nature with extreme prejudice. We fucking hate nature because it's largely trying to kill us. You can't live in the first world and use love of nature to support anything without looking like a giant hypocrite.

    *** Sketchbook * Landscapes * Portfolio * Store***

    "There are two kinds of students: the self-taught and the hopeless."
    - Dr. Piotr Rudnicki
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to vineris For This Useful Post:


  3. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,002
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,010 Times in 539 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This is a sticky issue. Mainly because in all reality there should be no issue with religion and a union that gives benefits by law. Separation of church and state, and not in the sense of "you keep your government out of our church but we can have our church all up in your government".

    There shouldn't be benefits to some and not others based on a religious precedence.



    Then the only argument that prevents it literally the ridiculous "is it harmful" debate. Because we're in an age where you can't just say oh it's against religious beliefs therefore fuck you buddy! you have to add some stupid issue to block it. So then you have the propaganda of homosexual couples raising fucked up kids. Which imo is quite bullshit met many a child that has grown up in an environment with a gay couple setting even if not legally considered one and they were perfectly fine. The kids have about the same chance of being fucked up as any child does with a heterosexual parent. If not less, since I think a homosexual marriage would be a lot more appreciative of what they have when taking care of a kid they adopt or get through a surrogate etc since they clearly didn't get the child through an 'accident'

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,460
    Thanks
    6,454
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Some intersting points of view from the BBC website


    torranceguy
    10 Hours ago

    Like many Catholic priests I am appalled at this communique from the Archbishops. Gay people do not choose their sexual orientation, yet we 'punish' them as though they have made an immoral choice. It is about time we started to recognise that being gay is neither normal nor abnormal and then we might be less rash in our judgements.

    ---------


    Sleepy
    6 Hours ago

    I'm a gay man and I'm perfectly happy with Civil Partnership, my partner and I plan on getting 'married' in 2 years, we have been together 4 years this year. I do not see the point in changing the name to marriage, especially considering Civil Partnerships give exactly the same legal rights. I also think Civil Partnerships should be kept for gays and let us have our own institution.


    ------------

    Hugh Oxford
    14 Hours ago

    The Catholic Church is just the canary in the coalmine, warning us of disaster ahead if we continue on the path we have chosen. We are free to take heed, or ignore them.

    They've been warning us for decades, and we've ignored them, and now we have staggering rates of social dysfunction - family breakdown, abortion, fatherlessness, illegitimacy. The human suffering has been immeasurable

    ----------

    Mike
    14 Hours ago

    The Catholic Church in my view is a marginalised movement, who have lost credibility through gross bigotry covering up the actions of paedophile priests. Suggesting gay marriage is against natural order seems utterly facile when they require all priests to be celibate! And where women have no rights whatsoever! Is this the way of God? Their take on this marginalises the movement further.

    --------

    honestyproject
    12 Hours ago

    Hello? No one is suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church must marry gay people. The proposal is only for legal marriage. What each church or religion accepts remains its own business. Am I being thick? Or is the Cathloic church mistaking itself for the British government?

    --------

    BillyOS
    12 Hours ago

    As an ex-Catholic, I am disgusted and angry at the Archbishop's stand on this fundamental issue of human rights. Given the recent history of the Church, it does not have a moral leg to stand on. It is time for penitence, not accusation.

    ---------

    ferkel
    12 Hours ago

    Marriage "since time immemorial" has not been simply between a man and a woman. If Peter Smith reads his bible, he will find many brutal, non-consensual, and polygamous marriages. Slavery, oppression, and corruption are all markers of societies since time immemorial - does he and his church also support these?

    ----------

    tjb1965
    14 Hours ago

    As a practising Catholic, I am also a gay man. I am quickly realising that to be both is incompatible. The wrath of God on sodomites? What about the God and Lord (and their representatives on Earth) who are supposed to be all understanding and forgiving ? With such discussion, I have turned my back on the Catholic Church; so let the pack of "representatives" running the show get on with it.

    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Luleň, nothern Sweden
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 65 Times in 40 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The part of it being "unnatural" is just plain wrong. It common in nature and part of other species normal social structure.

    Same sex sexual behaviors and relationships is quite common in lots of other mammals and birds. There is obviously some eveultionary advantage gained from having that variation of behavior within the population. Even if contraception only happens with male/female vaginal intercourse.

    If we look even more closely to our closest genetic non-human relatives the predominate sexual behavior in bonobos occur between female of the same sex. Sex between females is even more numerous by far then sex between bonobos of diffrent sex, while sex between male coming in a close third.

    I have no intention of becoming a professional artist, I just aspire to become a really good amateur.

    Sketchbook: w176 love of the color dirt
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,460
    Thanks
    6,454
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    "Sex between females is even more numerous by far then sex between bonobos of diffrent sex."

    Thats a very interesting point that would also be very relevant in the thread about female sex drive

    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Caracas
    Posts
    734
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 293 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    How would you particularly even know if its unnatural or not, homosexuality its been with humans since waaaay back. Even way before those folks in the old testament even knew it was a thing.

    It gets pass as this modern phenomenon just recently invented as a conspiracy to bring a distopian future where people don┤t breed naturally anymore.

    Lets make masturbation unnatural too then, theres no female + male, just one and no breeding involved, what it┤ll be of the world with people masturbating? and condoms, birth control, all this things go to.

    Its bull, it haven┤t affected jack to anyone. What difference have on you who other people marry or not, your life is the exact same and waterfalls wont go upstream instead of down all of the sudden because same sex people are allowed to marry.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London, england
    Posts
    885
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 242 Times in 164 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Frankly I think its a fucking joke that gay marriage approval hasn't happened sooner.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Barefoot For This Useful Post:


  10. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    M÷lndal, Sweden
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks
    2,379
    Thanked 1,911 Times in 832 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    If it happens it's natural...

    "I've got ham, but I'm not a hamster"

    Sketchy Link

    Portfolio
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to tobbA For This Useful Post:


  12. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London, england
    Posts
    885
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 242 Times in 164 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDSart View Post
    How would you particularly even know if its unnatural or not, homosexuality its been with humans since waaaay back. Even way before those folks in the old testament even knew it was a thing.

    It gets pass as this modern phenomenon just recently invented as a conspiracy to bring a distopian future where people don┤t breed naturally anymore.

    Lets make masturbation unnatural too then, theres no female + male, just one and no breeding involved, what it┤ll be of the world with people masturbating? and condoms, birth control, all this things go to.

    Its bull, it haven┤t affected jack to anyone. What difference have on you who other people marry or not, your life is the exact same and waterfalls wont go upstream instead of down all of the sudden because same sex people are allowed to marry.
    Well catholics are against masturbation and condoms too, I don't know how any male could get through their teenage years without the former.
    Porn gets bad press too, but TBH its helpful as mental preparation, you don't want your first look at a vagina to be in real life with an expectant girl sat in front of you. You wouldn't have the faintest idea what to do with the situation, and quite honestly, they're fucking surprising (every man who reads this think back to the first time you saw one and tell me you didn't go "whaaat?!" at the time). Until I was mrrphrteen I couldn't even imagine what one might look like, because all you get told is "its a hole" before your teacher moves on from sex ed and onto less awkward long division.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    965
    Thanks
    651
    Thanked 478 Times in 314 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by w176 View Post
    The part of it being "unnatural" is just plain wrong. It common in nature and part of other species normal social structure.
    I would just like to explain why I used to find myself in conflict with this. I have gay friends and I have no problem whatsoever with their sexuality, but asked whether I would find it unnatural, I was always hesitant to admit that I thought it was.

    The reasoning was the following: because in order to reproduce, man and woman have to have sex. And as everyone learns in biology, survival of the fittest etc. etc., the gene pool adapts to the strongest possible, I just thought that just from that point of view it would hence be unfavorable for the gene pool not reproducing due to homosexuality.
    See it was a while ago but I still think it is a completely logical conclusion- I just didn't know how naturally occurring it was, and how it does not affect evolution.

    Regardless, I find the topic of homosexuality/LGBT you name it extremely politicized and it's a powderkeg to sit on. I think it is a major obstacle to dealing with the topic in public debates.

    I believe I am by far not the only person to have reached the conclusions I stated above. I like to question everything by nature and I couldn't accept the societal "must have" position of "of course homosexuality is ok" without having some idea where that comes from. It actually made me feel embarrassed to admit that and I am lucky to have gay friends who were happy to discuss the logic to the very end.

    To be honest, I think many people just talk and talk in favor of gay people, and find themselves disturbed once they meet someone gay and it would for the first time challenge their own insecurity of their own sexuality.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London, england
    Posts
    885
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 242 Times in 164 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LordLouis View Post
    I would just like to explain why I used to find myself in conflict with this. I have gay friends and I have no problem whatsoever with their sexuality, but asked whether I would find it unnatural, I was always hesitant to admit that I thought it was.

    The reasoning was the following: because in order to reproduce, man and woman have to have sex. And as everyone learns in biology, survival of the fittest etc. etc., the gene pool adapts to the strongest possible, I just thought that just from that point of view it would hence be unfavorable for the gene pool not reproducing due to homosexuality.
    See it was a while ago but I still think it is a completely logical conclusion- I just didn't know how naturally occurring it was, and how it does not affect evolution.

    Regardless, I find the topic of homosexuality/LGBT you name it extremely politicized and it's a powderkeg to sit on. I think it is a major obstacle to dealing with the topic in public debates.

    I believe I am by far not the only person to have reached the conclusions I stated above. I like to question everything by nature and I couldn't accept the societal "must have" position of "of course homosexuality is ok" without having some idea where that comes from. It actually made me feel embarrassed to admit that and I am lucky to have gay friends who were happy to discuss the logic to the very end.

    To be honest, I think many people just talk and talk in favor of gay people, and find themselves disturbed once they meet someone gay and it would for the first time challenge their own insecurity of their own sexuality.
    I see how you got to that conclusion, but to get there, you thought about survival of the fittest, which no longer applies to human beings. The rules of nature mean nothing to humans, we are above them.
    I don't understand how anyone gets uncomfortable around gay people either, it's not like they're going to pounce on you and force you to have sex with them.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,460
    Thanks
    6,454
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LordLouis View Post

    in order to reproduce, man and woman have to have sex. And as everyone learns in biology, survival of the fittest etc. etc., the gene pool adapts to the strongest possible, I just thought that just from that point of view it would hence be unfavorable for the gene pool not reproducing due to homosexuality.
    See it was a while ago but I still think it is a completely logical conclusion- I just didn't know how naturally occurring it was, and how it does not affect evolution

    Logical to you, but wrong. Good question though

    Here are some answers

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ation-homosexu

    "genes associated with homosexuality confer fitness benefits in their heterosexual carriers.
    If only a few of these alleles are inherited, a males' reproductive success is enhanced via
    the expression of attractive, albeit feminine traits, such as kindness, sensitivity, empathy,
    and tenderness. However, if many of these alleles are inherited, a "tipping point" is reached
    at which even mate preferences become "feminized," meaning males are attracted to other males.

    "Behavioral geneticists at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research lead by Brendan Zietsch
    (joined by sexual orientation expert Michael Bailey and evolutionary geneticist Matthew Keller)
    found that psychological femininity in heterosexual men elevated the number of opposite-sex sexual partners,
    suggesting that their femininity was often attractive to women (think Johnny Depp)"


    "The maintenance of homosexuality in the population is a 500-piece puzzle and we might have some of
    the borders in place: We're not sure what the picture fully looks like, but we're beginning to make out the parameters. "

    Last edited by Velocity Kendall; March 11th, 2012 at 05:12 PM.
    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Velocity Kendall For This Useful Post:


  17. #43
    Black Spot's Avatar
    Black Spot is online now Pew, Pew, Pew Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9,684
    Thanks
    3,224
    Thanked 5,367 Times in 3,590 Posts
    Follows
    1
    Following
    0
    Old people won't be having kids either - let's kill all of them. Well past their sell by date.

    Just because you don't have kids or can't doesn't mean you can't give something to society.


    I didn't think it was possible to be called an artist when you have nothing to say. It's like being a writer who publishes individual words as books and expects to be praised for it.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Black Spot For This Useful Post:


  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London, england
    Posts
    885
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 242 Times in 164 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Spot View Post
    Old people won't be having kids either - let's kill all of them. Well past their sell by date.

    Just because you don't have kids or can't doesn't mean you can't give something to society.
    my great aunt had a kid at 50, and its fine.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,460
    Thanks
    6,454
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Yeah, thats a good one too; why do humans survive past breeding age?

    Because maternal grandparents in particular are a goldmine during child rearing.

    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Luleň, nothern Sweden
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 65 Times in 40 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    LordLouis:

    I can accept that you and other people struggle with this concept emotionally but without tanking any stance (edit: ) in this argument on whatever homosexuality should be a accepted social choice in society, calling it "unnatural" is wrong.

    Not morally wrong. Just wrong, as in that "the statement is untrue".

    "Unnatural" is a concept in two parts. "Natural" that in common use refers to something that commonly occurs in nature, and isn't cause by human or something else that perceived outside nature. The other part "Un-" just means that it not natural.

    Same sexual behavior occurs in nature. it occurs naturally in nature. Perfectly fine healthy wild animals will unaffected by human society engage in homosexual behavior and pair bonding. Lion, giraffes, goats, swans, sheep, monkeys, dolphins, whales,,,, etc. In some species, like bonobonos it is the most common sexual behavior.

    It IS natural. By all definition of the word natural and how the word natural commonly is used.

    The homosexual behavior has been a constant factor in these species and throughout the natural history, and it hasn't died out. Either because the animals engaging in same sex sexual behaviors also engage in heterosexual behavior, or through kin selection. The genes associated with same sex sex sexual behavior stays in the gene pool, because for some reason, it is beneficial to the species.

    You can feel however you want about homosexuality.

    But calling it "unnatural" is wrong. You can perhaps say that "it feels unnatural" to you, if you want to, but it IS natural. Perhaps you could stretch it and say that "it is unnatural in humans" but then you have a huge bunch of sexologist telling you that you probably wrong.

    Last edited by w176; March 11th, 2012 at 05:17 PM.
    I have no intention of becoming a professional artist, I just aspire to become a really good amateur.

    Sketchbook: w176 love of the color dirt
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,460
    Thanks
    6,454
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    "without tanking any stance at all on whatever homosexuality should be a accepted social choice in society,"

    the only choice is whether to hid in the closet or not

    "when the kin selection hypothesis of homosexuality was tested by
    David Bobrow and Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and later
    by Qazi Rahman and Matthew Hull of the University of East London,
    it was not supported. Homosexuals did not provide more care and
    resources to family members than heterosexuals"

    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Luleň, nothern Sweden
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 65 Times in 40 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity Kendall View Post
    "without tanking any stance at all on whatever homosexuality should be a accepted social choice in society,"

    the only choice is whether to hid in the closet or not

    "when the kin selection hypothesis of homosexuality was tested by
    David Bobrow and Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and later
    by Qazi Rahman and Matthew Hull of the University of East London,
    it was not supported. Homosexuals did not provide more care and
    resources to family members than heterosexuals"

    Without geeking out to much into genetics, i just wanna mention kin selection can work by more ways then supporting care to relatives. Relatives with certain traits can provide a evolutionary advantage to an individual in other ways than that individual directly care for them.

    I have no intention of becoming a professional artist, I just aspire to become a really good amateur.

    Sketchbook: w176 love of the color dirt
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #49
    OmenSpirits's Avatar
    OmenSpirits is offline Commercial-Illustrator in-training, NOT an artist. Level 13 Gladiator: Retiarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Birth Place of the World, NYC
    Posts
    2,825
    Thanks
    2,621
    Thanked 1,042 Times in 680 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    What's the difference between humans and animals?

    Answer: We make shit more complicated than it has to be.

    You want to marry, go the hell ahead.

    There are more important things in life than being concerned with who marries who.

    If you're REALLY concerned with who marries outside their gender, you may need to re-examine your life, and the lack of one, that has less going on in it that gives you the free time to worry what the hell the Jones' are doing.

    People are way too involved with controlling a dictating each other's lives than is necessary to actually live it!

    "Everything must serve the idea. The means used to convey the idea should be the simplest and clear. Just what is required. No extra images. To me this is a universal principle of art. Saying as much as possible with a minimum of means."
    -John Huston, Director
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,921
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,265 Times in 736 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Spot View Post
    Quakers are okay with it and they're about the most peaceful Christians you can find. Of course you need to be a Quaker. If a quaint pious section like them can get their head round it, so should the rest.
    So are The Unitarians. The first to actually allow the ceremony to take place in a church in England (can't speak for the rest of the UK). Good for them! The Unitarians have always been pretty progressive. Whether they can actually call it 'marriage' or not... So much fuss over a word.

    Rev Barraclough said: "We note with sadness the history of homophobia in many faith traditions as well as the current hateful language from some faith leaders that has received so much coverage in the media.

    "But this is a time of great celebration for us, not sadness."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-17311555

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Aly Fell For This Useful Post:


  27. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Luleň, nothern Sweden
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 65 Times in 40 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity Kendall View Post
    "without tanking any stance at all on whatever homosexuality should be a accepted social choice in society,"

    the only choice is whether to hid in the closet or not
    Oh. I didn't mean that sexual ordination is a choice, I just meant sexual behavior. (I haven't mention orientation anywhere in my post since the concept of orientation is a such a complex issue by itself, while sexual behavior is easier to quantify.)

    I have no intention of becoming a professional artist, I just aspire to become a really good amateur.

    Sketchbook: w176 love of the color dirt
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,460
    Thanks
    6,454
    Thanked 4,517 Times in 2,458 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    W176"Without geeking out to much into genetics, i just wanna mention kin selection can work by more ways then
    supporting care to relatives. Relatives with certain traits can provide a evolutionary advantage to an
    individual in other ways than that individual directly care for them."


    Agreed:

    "genes associated with homosexuality confer fitness benefits in their heterosexual carriers.
    If only a few of these alleles are inherited, a males' reproductive success is enhanced via
    the expression of attractive, albeit feminine traits, such as kindness, sensitivity, empathy,
    and tenderness. "

    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #53
    Elwell's Avatar
    Elwell is offline Sticks Like Grim Death Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,666 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lhune View Post
    Not a bad idea either. It's expensive and unnecessary. Pairing for life is a decision that doesn't necessarily need to be made "official" (at least, from my point of view. Obviously for a religious person the reasoning will be rather different).
    That's a logically and ethically defensible position. The problem is that in most (all?) countries, even those with completely secular governmental systems, marriage confers various legal and financial benefits. So, should same-sex couples be denied those benefits if the only arguments against them are religious?


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  31. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    965
    Thanks
    651
    Thanked 478 Times in 314 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Barefoot View Post
    I see how you got to that conclusion, but to get there, you thought about survival of the fittest, which no longer applies to human beings. The rules of nature mean nothing to humans, we are above them.
    I don't understand how anyone gets uncomfortable around gay people either, it's not like they're going to pounce on you and force you to have sex with them.
    Funnily enough, that led me to think that homosexuality can ONLY occur when this rule is cancelled out- which would imply that it is *Idontknowwhattermwouldbepoliticallycorrectnow*.

    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity Kendall View Post
    Logical to you, but wrong. Good question though

    Here are some answers

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ation-homosexu

    "genes associated with homosexuality confer fitness benefits in their heterosexual carriers.
    If only a few of these alleles are inherited, a males' reproductive success is enhanced via
    the expression of attractive, albeit feminine traits, such as kindness, sensitivity, empathy,
    and tenderness. However, if many of these alleles are inherited, a "tipping point" is reached
    at which even mate preferences become "feminized," meaning males are attracted to other males.

    "Behavioral geneticists at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research lead by Brendan Zietsch
    (joined by sexual orientation expert Michael Bailey and evolutionary geneticist Matthew Keller)
    found that psychological femininity in heterosexual men elevated the number of opposite-sex sexual partners,
    suggesting that their femininity was often attractive to women (think Johnny Depp)"


    "The maintenance of homosexuality in the population is a 500-piece puzzle and we might have some of
    the borders in place: We're not sure what the picture fully looks like, but we're beginning to make out the parameters. "
    Thank you for the reply Velocity, I have stated though that it was what I used to think. I am slightly confused though by the "feminizing" of males, as I understood my homosexual friends to say that the old thinking of "one gay man is the female part, the other is the male part" is simply not true. Both men can be big, muscular, bearded.. you name the male stereotypes. One of my gay friends absolutely detests the street parades on Christopher Street day, because it portrays an image of ALL homosexuals being extremely feminine/transvestite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Spot View Post
    Just because you don't have kids or can't doesn't mean you can't give something to society.
    Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by w176 View Post
    LordLouis:

    I can accept that you and other people struggle with this concept emotionally but without tanking any stance (edit: ) in this argument on whatever homosexuality should be a accepted social choice in society, calling it "unnatural" is wrong.

    Not morally wrong. Just wrong, as in that "the statement is untrue".

    "Unnatural" is a concept in two parts. "Natural" that in common use refers to something that commonly occurs in nature, and isn't cause by human or something else that perceived outside nature. The other part "Un-" just means that it not natural.

    Same sexual behavior occurs in nature. it occurs naturally in nature. Perfectly fine healthy wild animals will unaffected by human society engage in homosexual behavior and pair bonding. Lion, giraffes, goats, swans, sheep, monkeys, dolphins, whales,,,, etc. In some species, like bonobonos it is the most common sexual behavior.

    It IS natural. By all definition of the word natural and how the word natural commonly is used.

    The homosexual behavior has been a constant factor in these species and throughout the natural history, and it hasn't died out. Either because the animals engaging in same sex sexual behaviors also engage in heterosexual behavior, or through kin selection. The genes associated with same sex sex sexual behavior stays in the gene pool, because for some reason, it is beneficial to the species.

    You can feel however you want about homosexuality.

    But calling it "unnatural" is wrong. You can perhaps say that "it feels unnatural" to you, if you want to, but it IS natural. Perhaps you could stretch it and say that "it is unnatural in humans" but then you have a huge bunch of sexologist telling you that you probably wrong.
    I apologize for use of inappropriate words, as I said I find it really tricky to state my former(!!!!!) thoughts without being labelled homophobic and whatnot.
    However, I did not know that it was a natural occurrence. I thought it only happened among humans, not animals. And that's when I thought- oh, it is un-natural then. I didn't have gay friends until the age of 18, for no specific reasons (but mostly because people didn't out themselves before that), and I did not learn that in school- call it ignorance, I call it illiteracy.
    Please rest assured that I did do my reading, I wanted to know more about the topic and have 'evolved' my conclusions- ha ha.


    Thank you very much anyways for taking my post seriously, I think it is important to highlight common misunderstandings such as the ones I encountered.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LordLouis For This Useful Post:


  33. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    canada, from russia
    Posts
    3,370
    Thanks
    791
    Thanked 443 Times in 357 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You know what I don't get?

    I am by no means familiar with religious literature but I thought that marriage is favoured by Christianity. So wouldn't they rather a group of people honoured monogamous marriage over promisciouity? Isn't commitment to marriage a step towards what religious people may consider to be divine?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    378
    Thanks
    673
    Thanked 456 Times in 142 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by w176 View Post
    ...Sex between females is even more numerous by far then sex between bonobos of diffrent sex...

    That's a very interesting point. I remember a long winded banter I had with two female friends that kind of drifted off into other areas, as conversations do, but I remember we were talking about mutual female attraction (human). By that I don't necessarily mean full on lesbian sexual attraction, but a kind of possibly kinship attraction (?) with some deeper base sexual feeling working underneath.

    From my own experiences/observations, from a male perspective, I've had the notion that many women (and more often young women) can quite easily find some form of mutual bonding or, I don't know... some moment where they can be very intimate with each other and be very down to earth about it afterwards. That sounds like something that happens at the average decent party, but I'm not talking about it in that context. It's hard for me to explain what I'm on about. I always thought of it as something to do with women - particularly young women going through that transitional stage - being more easily open to emotional connections. Maybe that's true to some degree in the animal kingdom too?

    Even the most abstract male will at some point observe that women tend to be naturally drawn to each others breasts, even if it's just to make a verbal note to their boyfriend "look at that woman's breasts!". I assume some of that interest is unfortunately down to modern social issues and media conformity bullshit (six pack/big tits), but the other side is possibly motherhood, child rearing etc...

    I guess I'm going off on a tangent here, but what I'm trying to explain (from my own experiences and observations at least) is that the fairer sex seems to be much more mutually accommodating (?) when it comes to exploring their sexuality, or possibly finding/acknowledging common deep rooted, primal threads. Sure, some may have a fondle and discover they are actually attracted more to other women than men, but there's a lot of middle play that goes on that seems to be more of a deeper emotional base connection than just a quick fondle and a kiss as part of some bigger game to draw the opposite sex. I haven't done any studies to back up my theories, but I would venture to say there are far more bisexual women than there are bisexual men. Maybe the same patterns are visible in the animal kingdom for similar reasons?

    My remarks are all theory and general observation, so...

    "You have a taste for drawing - I trust it will improve." - Melmoth, The Wanderer

    Sketchbook
    Blog
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    378
    Thanks
    673
    Thanked 456 Times in 142 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Pavel Sokov View Post
    Isn't commitment to marriage a step towards what religious people may consider to be divine?
    No, no. Altar boys are "divine". Marriage is just some shit you have to endure to maintain a veil of normality!

    Edit: *I did not just say that out loud. I did not just say tha...*

    "You have a taste for drawing - I trust it will improve." - Melmoth, The Wanderer

    Sketchbook
    Blog
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    452
    Thanks
    882
    Thanked 102 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rem92 View Post
    Im against it, its entirely against nature, nuff said.
    Says the guy from San Francisco.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. #59
    Elwell's Avatar
    Elwell is offline Sticks Like Grim Death Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,666 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Orunitier View Post
    Says the guy from San Francisco.
    To be fair, in,but not from.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  39. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    452
    Thanks
    882
    Thanked 102 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    True. It's still amusing though.

    But yeah, gay people should be able to get married. And if gayness isn't natural, then why did God make it?? Hmmm????

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •