Do you support gay marriage.

[Eran of Arcadia]

Or anything else they view as 'taboo', which I think is the real cause here.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

As is so often said in this forum 'correlation does not equal causation'. There could very well be other factors at work in that study aside from attraction.

Or, it could simply be that they are gay, but belong to a religion that condemns homosexuality as sin ("god hates fags"), and won't let them be themselves out in the open. When exposed to gay porn their natural body reactions in the form of an erection are stimulated by what they find as sexually attractive, but are too intimidated to publicly admit.

You still haven't told us how this issue in any way relates to the legality of whether same-sex marriages should or should not be allowed.

Face the question. No more hiding behind irrelevant B.S.

Tell us all the real reason why you object.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I really think that it is unlikely that a majority of such individuals are repressed homosexuals - probably no more than the roughly 5% like the rest of the population.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I really think that it is unlikely that a majority of such individuals are repressed homosexuals - probably no more than the roughly 5% like the rest of the population.

Do you think that being a member of a religion that sees your sexual attraction as a sin would encourage people to stay in the closet about their homosexuality vs. come forward as who they truly are?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am quite sure they would stay in the closet, but in the general population only about 3-10% (the numbers being, of course, highly disputed) are homosexual, so I can safely assume that the numbers within such groups are not likely to be significantly higher.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I am quite sure they would stay in the closet, but in the general population only about 3-10% (the numbers being, of course, highly disputed) are homosexual, so I can safely assume that the numbers within such groups are not likely to be significantly higher.

I agree and suspect the same with regard to the general population at large. My point is that setting up a system that scorns people for being who they really are will only encourage repression and lead to an abnormally high number of members of that system staying in the closet.

Ask yourself, why was Ted Haggard in the closet? Because his church wouldn't allow him to come out and still maintain his standing in the church. Even today, isn't he off somewhere in hiding while they try to rid him of his homosexuality?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Sure but it wasn't his religion that made him that way, and neither is it for anyone else. it is almost certain that there will be a higher percentage of such individuals in the closet, but not a higher total homosexual percentage.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Sure but it wasn't his religion that made him that way, and neither is it for anyone else. it is almost certain that there will be a higher percentage of such individuals in the closet, but not a higher total homosexual percentage.

We are in complete agreement.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Uh oh, that's a bad sign . . .

Seriously though, as I have agreed at some points and disagreed at others with pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread, we are about par for the course . . .

 

[Pokurcz]

I have also heard about that 3-10% that are supposed Homosexual, and wondered about the accuracy of the estimate.

Does the figure only count complete homosexuals or a large/small part of the spectrum towards bisexuality?

If it only counts those people that are complete homosexuals then there should be a large number of bisexuals, even those leaning towards heterosexuality, that would find samesex porn arousing.

Maybe that is as much as 33%, or more, I have no idea; but it would give a large enough part of the population to get aroused as it says in the study for the numbers in the study to be plausible.

 

[MobBoss]

Or, it could simply be that they are gay, but belong to a religion that condemns homosexuality as sin ("god hates fags"), and won't let them be themselves out in the open. When exposed to gay porn their natural body reactions in the form of an erection are stimulated by what they find as sexually attractive, but are too intimidated to publicly admit.

To big an assumption to really give any credance to it. Perhaps they are straight and just dont like gays? /shrug. I find that a more likely and far more simple answer than to the cliche of hating gays because they are one.

I wonder what those guys reactions would have been if they were also shown lesbians or maybe animals doing it? And how would those findings be explained?

It could be that more than a few people are just turned on by sex in general, no matter who is doing it. I find that as plausible an assumption as any.

You still haven't told us how this issue in any way relates to the legality of whether same-sex marriages should or should not be allowed.

The legality of it is that the SCOTUS has indeed confirmed that the individual states of the United States have the right to define marriage and how they recognize it. And to date, about 30 states have chosen to define it as it is traditionally seen. Thats just the facts, whether you like it or not.

Tell us all the real reason why you object.

Ah...so there is the not-so-veiled allegation that I am a self-hating homosexual since I am against SSM. Nice try, but .....nope.

Also, you keep bringing up Ted Haggard and his 'homosexuality'. Sorry, but if you ask me, that has not been proven to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt....unless of course you are in the habit of believing the word of drug dealing homosexuals with no other proof to be found. One man denies homosexual sex, the other claims it happened. /shrug.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Uh oh, that's a bad sign . . .

Is it the fourth sign of the apocalypse or the fifth? Either way it sure can't be good...

Seriously though, as I have agreed at some points and disagreed at others with pretty much everyone who has posted in this thread, we are about par for the course . . .

For some reason I take great pride in vehemently disagreeing with someone in one thread while simultaneously ardently supporting them in a different thread. I even agree with MobBoss sometimes (when he's correct of course ).

 

[Sahkuhnder]

The legality of it is that the SCOTUS has indeed confirmed that the individual states of the United States have the right to define marriage and how they recognize it. And to date, about 30 states have chosen to define it as it is traditionally seen. Thats just the facts, whether you like it or not.

Another evasion of the question. The question is why do you oppose same-sex marriage?

Ah...so there is the not-so-veiled allegation that I am a self-hating homosexual since I am against SSM. Nice try, but .....nope.

Nah, I really don't think you're gay. But your continued failure to state why you don't want two consenting adult homosexuals to be able to enter into the contract of marriage does make me suspect bigotry. Prove me wrong and give us an open-minded, logical reason for your opposition to this issue.

 

[ironduck]

Um, I don't think any studies have been done, but . . . a lot of fantasies depend on an element of something unpleasant (ie people are aroused by danger) - I can imagine people being aroused by sin, as they see it, as a concept more than the specific act.

I don't think it's an element of something unpleasant to the people who are aroused by it. If someone is aroused by danger they find danger itself arousing or partially arousing in a context, not because it's unpleasant but because it triggers a pleasant reaction in their body (releasing chemicals for instance).

I really haven't heard of people being aroused by something because it's unpleasant. So though I can follow your line of thought some of the way (it's exciting because it's forbidden), the conclusion is lacking. For instance, it's also sinful/forbidden to kill someone, but I somehow doubt that those who are most opposed to killing are more likely to be aroused by watching it on video compared to the average person.

I doubt "most" are really that way - just because the percentage of homosexuals would be much higher if it were true. Some are, no doubt.

How many people do you know who are homophobic? Most people aren't in my experience, so the percentages don't stand out to me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Some people are aroused by the prospect that something is dangerous, I think some are aroused by the prospect that something is wicked.

This is something on which research probably needs to be done, though.

 

[JollyRoger]

Also, you keep bringing up Ted Haggard and his 'homosexuality'. Sorry, but if you ask me, that has not been proven to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt....unless of course you are in the habit of believing the word of drug dealing homosexuals with no other proof to be found. One man denies homosexual sex, the other claims it happened. /shrug.

One man stepped down after the allegation without putting up a fight. The perponderance of evidence is on the side of the accuser unless you are in the habit of believing those that hang around with drug dealing homosexuals and have a demonstrated history of living a lie. Haggard is so gay that even James Dobson gave up on curing him.

 

[GenMarshall]

I dont agree with same-gender marriage and I am not a homophobe nor a self hating closeted homosexual . (BTW, I am a heterosexual mind you)

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Also, you keep bringing up Ted Haggard and his 'homosexuality'. Sorry, but if you ask me, that has not been proven to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt....unless of course you are in the habit of believing the word of drug dealing homosexuals with no other proof to be found. One man denies homosexual sex, the other claims it happened. /shrug.

CNN: Evangelical confesses to 'sexual immorality' in letter


Quote: "...the Rev. Ted Haggard confessed Sunday to "sexual immorality" and called himself "a deceiver and a liar."


He spent years paying for the services of a male homosexual prostitute and didn't deny a single claim made against him.



And back on topic, please allow me to help you get over your fear of giving a straight answer to a simple question:

I, MobBoss, am personally opposed to two consenting adults, who are homosexual, from entering into a contract of marriage with each other because ________________.



EDIT - CG, the same applies to you. Please tell us if you would why you personally oppose allowing two consenting adults who are homosexual to enter into marriage to each other.

 

[MobBoss]

Another evasion of the question. The question is why do you oppose same-sex marriage?

Me? While I have been over it time and time again in detail, I will paraphrase it here. Mostly for religious reasons, but also because I do not think it is a lifestyle alternative that the government should endorse by including it into marriage. I tend to believe that if the gov recognizes and legitimizes such relationships that more people will experiment with the lifestyle to their detriment. I also am against it as I think SSM will increase the spread of STDs like AIDs as opposed to decreasing it because of the nature of the demograph here in the USA.

All of which are my opinions.

Nah, I really don't think you're gay. But your continued failure to state why you don't want two consenting adult homosexuals to be able to enter into the contract of marriage does make me suspect bigotry.

Nope, not a bigot. You wont find me protesting it on some street corner, or saying something like 'God hates fags' because that is not the truth. God loves them just like he loves me, but in turn he hates the sin that we all do. I just dont think we should glamorize or endorse sin - that in of itself is not bigotry.

Prove me wrong and give us an open-minded, logical reason for your opposition to this issue.

Open minded and logical? What I consider open-minded and logical you wouldnt because we dont have the same belief systems. Are you open-minded to how I feel? Hardly.

 

[GenMarshall]

And back on topic, please allow me to help you get over your fear of giving a straight answer to a simple question:

I, MobBoss, am personally opposed to two consenting adults, who are homosexual, from entering into a contract of marriage with each other because ________________.

I do hope you dont mind that I fill in the answer to this simple question . However my answer is far more complex than the simple "because it's icky" or "because I dont like gays (THIS IS AN EXAMPLE!)".

I am personally opposed to two consenting adults, whom are homosexual, from entering into a contract of marriage with each other because the government should not be involved of the affairs between two consenting adults of any sexual orientation as well as telling other people what the definition of marriage should be. Marrage should be a tradition between two adults and should not be governed by any local, state, or federal government. The only responsibilities the Government should have would be in terms of "uniting people" is to only offer a General Civil Union benifits (I am calling it a "General Civil Union" because it should encompass all people, heterosexual and homosexual). My general feeling onto this issue is that the government should drop the termonology of Marriage and replace it with Civil Unions and extend that benifit to all. The government should let the individuals themselves call it eather a union or marriage and should stay at the individual level. I see homosexual sex acts as a sin, but I am not going to let my religion interfear with the rights for certan people to obtain life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness.

And thats why, when presented with a "Yes/No" question of "Do you support Gay Marriages" with no wiggle room to explain my views, is why I would say No. However if the same question was asked, but with more options, I would vote whatever is closest to what I have explained above. If I step outside my religious view points, my actual political compass (as well as my Moral Politics stats) would shift more socialy liberal (but remain still in the conservative/Republican/Republic Social Republicanism sector)