The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

How can people think homosexuality is a choice?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DYKWIA
I mean left wing and they certainly don't agree with freedom. Do liberals want economic freedom? No, they want socialism and economic shackles - well, look how that works for north korea or eastern europe.



No, people just try and present biased 'facts' about such topics as homosexuality when the reality is we know very little.


i am not talking about homosexuality in the second paragraph, i am talking in general in most of the debates you get involved with that i have seen.
Reply 261
Original post by LordJenkins
Ive watched documentries about guys like this. Usually they suffer from a type of schizophrenia. Totaly irrational and deluded. There are camps run in the US by guys like DKWIA which parents send their gay children too. Can you imagine it? The horror stories.


I had a friend who went to a christian vacation home one over a summer to help with his sexuality problems and he said it worked for him. I think it largely depends on the person as to whether a person can change their sexual feelings. I mean think about those people who decided later on in life to be gay. Why are you so against letting people change their sexuality? It seems to me you want to forcefully make sure gay people stay gay, even if they don't wanna be.
I think its pointless arguing really... I mean people are bullied for all kind of things they cant help, tall people, short people, black people, asian people, buck teeth, 'nerdy' voice, too skinny, too fat, ageism etc.... I could go on but its too depressing.

Its a disgrace.
Original post by LordJenkins
Ive watched documentries about guys like this. Usually they suffer from a type of schizophrenia. Totaly irrational and deluded. There are camps run in the US by guys like DKWIA which parents send their gay children too. Can you imagine it? The horror stories.


these camps are disgusting... people commit suicide because of conditioning coming from people such as DICKWA or whatever his name is because they feel as if something is wrong with them, because they can't change who they are, their attraction. they have people around them telling them it's wrong and disgusting, family that would abandon them, people saying that it's a choice and that they can be straight if they really want to be... that therapy or a "simple" choice not to be attracted to who they are attracted to will work.....and when they CAN'T make themselves straight (because newsflash, being gay in no more a choice than being straight) they think they are wrong and that they will never be happy and they are inferior and no one will love them. no one should feel like that, but it's even worse when other people cause someone to feel that way.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by DYKWIA
I had a friend who went to a christian vacation home one over a summer to help with his sexuality problems and he said it worked for him. I think it largely depends on the person as to whether a person can change their sexual feelings. I mean think about those people who decided later on in life to be gay. Why are you so against letting people change their sexuality? It seems to me you want to forcefully make sure gay people stay gay, even if they don't wanna be.


Now in the video below, heres a guy who knows what he's talking about. Oh and people dont just choose to be gay in the future. I think the word you were looking for what closeted homosexuals. It isnt uncommon for closeted homosexuals to get married have children, and come out to their wife ten years down the line because they're so unhappy... Did you choose to be straight?

(edited 12 years ago)
I think that the issues of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, whether or not one is born homosexual, and whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable are all too often confused with each other, and mistaken for one another.
Reply 266
I'd like to think I'm actually a pretty good programmer actually. Besides, I have to pay that money back.

And you're not worried about the health of homosexuals. If that were the case, then you would want homosexual marriages, as the rate of monogamy would likely increase - which would see the rate of HIV infection go down.


I care about gay diseases as much as I care about the health of our general population.

Denying people rights isn't morally right. I don't know what planet you're on, but you're morally wrong. And what can entitle me to say that? Well, myself, as well as the greatest ethicists alive today, all agree - you're morally wrong. And I don't think you're in any position to disagree; considering you don't even know ethics since you haven't ever studied it. Let alone studied under the people I have.


You're arrogant. You can't just say that you are right because certain people agree with you. There are plenty of people, including politicians (heck, even Bush agrees with me), scientists etc who agree with my views. You're suggesting that because I haven't studied ethics I somehow aren't entitled to hold an opinion. Do you think i shoudn't be allowed to vote because i never studied politics? Well, I've decided since you have never taken an introductory programming class you aren't allowed to use a computer. Stupid comments you are making here.

Not really, no.

Sex refers to my reproductive parts.

Gender refers to what clothes I wear, if I feel feminine or masculine, etc.


And? Most girls wear girls clothes and most guys wear guys clothes. In the majority of cases gender and sex align.

Well, what does that tell us? It tells us that other people are allowed to accept different moral opinions AND because you've accepted the relativity of rights, you cannot, by intrinsic properties of your belief system, disagree with them. I.e. you HAVE to accept Hitler was not morally wrong, because he didn't think everyone deserved the same rights. Welcome the moral relativity. It's a very lovely view to have, isn't it? You get to say horrible mass murdering dictators were morally rights. And no, you cannot disagree with any of this because it all logically follows. Moral relativism simply just forces you to accept these things; the only way around it is to accept some things are objective moral truths - which you don't.


Maybe we can't easily define what is morally right, although i'd think that the point where you are harming others qualifies as 'wrong' although I don't believe my views do that.

At the end of the day, since you're in no position to judge the morality of other people, your opinions on the topic are utterly useless (like I said). Since, according to your own moral belief system, rights are relative depending on who's assigning them. Which in turn means that your input on this thread is, by your own views, useless - since no one is more right than anyone else. That's the fun of moral relativism.

Like I said, check mate. Your own moral belief system makes your opinion worthless and useless to everyone else - since we can all arbitrarily assign our own rights and you're in no position to judge :colondollar:

In case I didn't make myself clear, moral relativists aren't allowed to say something is "wrong" or "bad" - they're allowed to say "X is morally wrong in my opinion ". Since your morals are opinion-based, everyone else can and will disagree with you AND you're not right and neither are they.

Which, in turn, means your thoughts, opinions, etc. are (1) utterly useless and (2) self-contradictory.

Please go actually read ethics, as you're ethical views are all messed up and contradictory :s-smilie:

So how are you defining your own views to be 'right'?
Original post by DYKWIA
I had a friend who went to a christian vacation home one over a summer to help with his sexuality problems and he said it worked for him. I think it largely depends on the person as to whether a person can change their sexual feelings. I mean think about those people who decided later on in life to be gay. Why are you so against letting people change their sexuality? It seems to me you want to forcefully make sure gay people stay gay, even if they don't wanna be.


yes, because he's going to come back to his gay hating friend (and most likely family) saying "i'm still as gay as a sunflower and you might as well have flushed the money my family/i spent on sending me to this crappy camp full of people spouting garbage down the toilet" :rolleyes:

the only reason they don't want to be gay is because of conditioning and pressure from people like you. do you think straight people cry themselves to sleep and contemplate killing themselves because they are straight? do you think they spend sleepless nights wishing they were gay because then their family and friends would love them and wouldn't abandon them and chuck them out? the only reason people fear coming out is because of other peoples views. if this negative and damaging pressure from homophobes wasn't around, then they probably wouldn't even think about wishing they were straight... i mean why would YOU personally look at a naked woman and think "oh she's really hot and i'd love to have sex with her... but i wish i felt this way about men because it would make my life SO much easier" when naked women give you pleasure?

there is nothing inherantly wrong about being gay, there is no inherant guilt and hatred of yourself and your sexuality UNLESS the people around you or society in general puts a stigma on it.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Ptolemy001
I honestly do believe that it's nurture. The whole 'gays in the middle east' argument isn't valid, imo, because nobody can account for what tv shows they watch, how they think etc. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with homosexual/transsexual people but I can't see what else it could be. I don't think it's a 'choice' though-if that makes any sense at all :biggrin:


I really don't see how such a level of conviction can be justified. A basic understanding of biology will reveal that the principle tenet of all biology is variation. Literally any property of an organism could potentially vary in its progeny, and I don't see why sexuality (which quite plainly has a physical, biological basis and function) should be exempt. Perhaps sexuality is determined by a module of the brain which is in early stages of development very susceptible to a structural change which would manifest itself as a non-heterosexual orientation. Just an idea, but it's an example of a possible explanation for a nature-based model.
Reply 269
Original post by Bellissima
yes, because he's going to come back to his gay hating friend (and most likely family) saying "i'm still as gay as a sunflower and you might as well have flushed the money my family/i spent on sending me to this crappy camp full of people spouting garbage down the toilet" :rolleyes:


It wasn't a 'straight camp'. It was a religious place where he could reflect quietly and talk to people like him and with people who could help him transition. If someone doesn't want to be gay and wants to become straight, what right do you have to stop them. Heck, this kid now agrees with me that gay marriage isn't necessarily a good thing. He became straight and if people want to do that there is nothing wrong with it.

the only reason they don't want to be gay is because of conditioning and pressure from people like you. do you think straight people cry themselves to sleep and contemplate killing themselves because they are straight? do you think they spend sleepless nights wishing they were gay because then their family and friends would love them and wouldn't abandon them and chuck them out? the only reason people fear coming out is because of other peoples views. if this negative and damaging pressure from homophobes wasn't around, then they probably wouldn't even think about wishing they were straight... i mean why would YOU personally look at a naked woman and think "oh she's really hot and i'd love to have sex with her... but i wish i felt this way about men because it would make my life SO much easier" when naked women give you pleasure?


I agree, we shouldn't force people to be straight, but equally we shouldn't force gay marriage on those who don't want it.

there is nothing inherantly wrong about being gay, there is no inherant guilt and hatred of yourself and your sexuality UNLESS the people around you or society in general puts a stigma on it.


But you're hypocritical when you think it's okay to do the same to pedophiles or to polygamous marriage supporters. Fundamentalist Mormons believe in polygamy, but I guess they should be treated differently from gays, in your eyes.
Original post by DYKWIA
It wasn't a 'straight camp'. It was a religious place where he could reflect quietly and talk to people like him and with people who could help him transition. If someone doesn't want to be gay and wants to become straight, what right do you have to stop them. Heck, this kid now agrees with me that gay marriage isn't necessarily a good thing. He became straight and if people want to do that there is nothing wrong with it.



I agree, we shouldn't force people to be straight, but equally we shouldn't force gay marriage on those who don't want it.



But you're hypocritical when you think it's okay to do the same to pedophiles or to polygamous marriage supporters. Fundamentalist Mormons believe in polygamy, but I guess they should be treated differently from gays, in your eyes.


1) again you completely ignored what you didn't want to read. the only reason a gay person wouldn't want to be gay is because of society around them telling them how "bad" it is. i am not going to repeat myself so i suggest you start reading things properly.

2) how is allowing those who want to marry forcing it on those who don't want it? if you mean straight people who believe it's wrong, it affects them in absolutely no way and is NONE of their business. it has 0 to do with them... if they don't like it then tough sh*t.... i mean if you met the girl of your dreams and wanted to marry her, but some person across the street who you didn't know opposed the marriage because she had black skin... would you let that affect you? should that stop you getting married? no.

3) wtf? firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
secondly... comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homosexuality does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 271
At some point I do have to take these sorts of classes! As for you not seeing me as a 'good citizen', right back at you. I find your economic views gross.

HIV isn't a gay disease. It's just a disease. But again, HIV has nothing to do with ethics or rights.


It's a disease that affects gay people a lot more than straight people.

It's just just 'certain people', it's some of the greatest ethicist to ever live - and you haven't seen their arguments, but, for the record, I'll tell you that - no one has tried to disagree with them on any substantial level.


If they are pro-gay marriage then I disagree with them right there, before we even get that deep.

Bush? Really? Politicians? Really? These people aren't experts in ethics. I don't care what politicians says. They've never actually studied anything relevant, written any relevant papers, etc.


They are normally well educated and have had good liberal arts educations.

You can hold an opinion. However, the problem right now is that because you aren't educated in ethics you try to assert ethical truths that just simply aren't true. Your own ethical views are all messed up and contradictory. You accept moral relativism and then try to use ethical arguments to support yourself - you can't do that; it's not logically consistent or possible.


Yeah, they're messed up because I don't agree with you. You've decided that you are right and I am wrong. I'm no longer surprised by your arrogance.

I never said that, but, yes, I think you should have to have political knowledge in order to vote.


I think that is horrible and it takes away our stability as a democracy. Why should people be forced to take a test to vote? To make sure you don't get 'disgusting' people like me voting? You'd ask questions like 'gay marriage should be legal. True or False?' Or are you suggesting we should take a test along the lines of 'what do republicans stand for?' or 'who was the 23rd president?' etc?

That's not logically congruous. My using a computer has nothing to do with knowing how to program it.


Exactly, so why is my holding an opinion on homosexuality any different? It's not directly related to ethics.

In the same manner, you shouldn't try to make ethical claims that you aren't educated on. I don't make computer programming statements, why do you make ethical ones?


I have my common sense and my intuition. That should be sufficient.

You may use ethics on daily basis to try to decide what seems to be right or wrong - but you shouldn't make claims on that which you don't actually possess any knowledge in - in the same fashion I'm not going to try to claim I know anything about computer programming.


But I do know basic stuff about ethics.

"girl clothes" refers to a set or type of clothes typical for the female gender, not any particular sex.
"guy clothes" refers to a set of type of clothes typical for the male gender, not any particular sex.

In fact, they don't align - ever. They mean completely different things.


Whatever, the point is that you try and use this to avoid countering my points. You cover up the difficult points I make.

No. Ethics isn't that easy. To harm someone isn't always "wrong", even if in most cases it is.

Not only that, psychologists have come out and said that calling gays inferior or undeserving of equal rights harms them. And, this isn't one of the cases wherein you can take harm to be at least not wrong.


I don't think that's true. I don't think my views harm gays.

Your standard rebuttal, of course, has been about HIV. But, again, HIV has nothing to do with what right I ought or ought not have. That's like saying "because you have cancer, you cannot get married because you may 'harm' others"; that's essentially what your argument boils down to; which is why I find is so frustrating. One ought have the same rights as someone else regardless of their health status - that's unfairly discriminatory - which, in turn, is morally wrong.


Yeah, people 'catch' cancer all the time. Careful of that guy sneezing next to you.

How are my views right? Well... I don't ascribe to any particular metaethical viewpoints, although I will tell you Peter Unger, Derek Parfit, Peter Singer, Jeff McMahan (all world renown ethicists and among the most intellectual people alive today, some of whom I've had the great pleasure and honor of spending many hours/weeks with) all ascribe to objective moral truths (moral realism).


It my opinion it is a moral truth that gay marriage should be kept banned.

We can, of course, skip metaethics in this case and simply rely on a singular point, as metaethics aren't useful and can often be left out: Equal rights, by definition, applies to all, universally. Which brings you back to my original question as to why is it morally right for you to deprive people of rights? You don't seem to think black people should have different rights than white people; nor do you seem to believe women ought have less rights than men; nor do you seem to think one should discriminate rights on any number of features - and you often believe that people shouldn't be oppressed, or deprived of rights in every case except homosexuals. Why is that a sexual orientation is less deserving of rights than any other group? This is where you reach a downfall and wherein I claim you're morally wrong (as would all of the aforementioned ethicists). Your view doesn't make logical sense; equal rights ought apply to everyone and not be discriminatory - in being discriminatory on illogical and thus unsound grounds, you're being morally wrong in that you're wrongly depriving people of rights which they ought to have based on your personal opinions and preconceived notions.


Hmm, so it's wrong of me to compare homosexuality to anything else, but you are totally free to compare me to a racist. They are completely different things.

See, in ethics, we don't care what your personal opinions or preconceived notions are - we're only concerned with what logic would tell us is morally right or wrong; granted we have to start somewhere, so we generally start with very basic moral intuitions.


Maybe our 'intuition' tells us different things?

All of this combined is why I take such issue with your views, because they aren't logically sound and are, in fact, quite arbitrary. If you actually took the time to consider your views from an ethical standpoint you would be quite surprised! After years of studying ethics, I'm a very different person than when I entered college. In fact, believe it or not, I used to be a republican, much like yourself (except of course I was gay). But, simply spending time actually studying logic and ethics made me arrive at very different conclusions - as I realized my preconceived notions and opinions were actually illogical.

And maybe you will one day grow up and realize that liberal policies are stupid, naive and oppressive. You want to restrict financial freedom as well as the rights of the majority.
Reply 272
Original post by Bellissima
1) again you completely ignored what you didn't want to read. the only reason a gay person wouldn't want to be gay is because of society around them telling them how "bad" it is. i am not going to repeat myself so i suggest you start reading things properly.


Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.

2) how is allowing those who want to marry forcing it on those who don't want it? if you mean straight people who believe it's wrong, it affects them in absolutely no way and is NONE of their business. it has 0 to do with them... if they don't like it then tough sh*t.... i mean if you met the girl of your dreams and wanted to marry her, but some person across the street who you didn't know opposed the marriage because she had black skin... would you let that affect you? should that stop you getting married? no.


No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).

3) wtf? firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
secondly... comparing homophobia to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homophobia does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.


Did you mean to say that? I think that homophobia is harmful (by homophobia I mean people who want gays dead or homosexuality to be illegal).
Reply 273
It's not a choice; nobody chooses what they find attractive - it's a subconscious part of our psychology.
Reply 274
And so DYKWIA continues masking his homophobia with 'factual opinion' for yet another day. *popcorn*
Original post by DYKWIA
Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.



No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).



Did you mean to say that? I think that homophobia is harmful (by homophobia I mean people who want gays dead or homosexuality to be illegal).


1) i don't know why i bother with you... again you completely ignore what i say and bring up reasons why gay people wouldn't want to be gay due to the people around them.

2) so... in your opinion, MLK was wrong to do what he did because he tried to force black civil rights and equality on a large majority who didn't want it? the surfragettes were wrong because they tried to force womens' vote on a large majority who didn't want it?
or do you think fighting for both of those rights were ok because you agree with them... but just because YOU happen to agree with discrimination against people who love others of the same sex.. it's ok to keep gay people unequal purely on the basis that a "large" minority want to keep it that way?

3) i meant homosexuality in the last para whenever i said homophobia... this is what i meant


firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
secondly... comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homosexuality does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.
Original post by DYKWIA
Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.


Do you mean people who used to be gay who do actually become straight or just gays who choose to remain celibate, because there's a difference.

No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).


You can't 'force' any sort of marriage on 'society', because marriage is a matter between the individuals getting married and a third party to administer a ceremony if the individuals in question wish it. 'Society' has no place in that, and so no right to have a say in it.

This problem has arisen because the state has decided to be involved where it really shouldn't be. Currently the state grants privilege and special rights to heterosexual marriage (which, to be fair, is better than it used to be when only religious marriages had this state-granted privilege).

The ideal situation is that the state wouldn't grant special rights or privileges to any sort of relationship, but while we're in a situation where it does to heterosexual marriage, why shouldn't gays have the same privileges?
Original post by DYKWIA

It's a disease that affects gay people a lot more than straight people.


And effects lesbians a lot less than straight people. Yet somehow I can guess you don't support lesbian marriage being legalised either.

This is something that really depends on the situation too - straight men who have sex a lot will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who don't have sex much, straight men who don't use condoms will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who do use condoms, etc.

the rights of the majority.


'The majority' has no rights. Only individuals have rights.
Original post by DYKWIA
Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.


I'm sure you have heard of John Smid. He was once a very active supporter of "gay therapy" and led one of these conversion facilites. He has now admitted that he himself is gay and that it is impossible to change sexual orientation - source


No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).


Just out of interest, would you support a civil partnership if it gave all the rights of marriage under an other name? (That it, right of kin, parental rights of child, status as significant other)
Reply 279
Original post by Bellissima
1) i don't know why i bother with you... again you completely ignore what i say and bring up reasons why gay people wouldn't want to be gay due to the people around them.

2) so... in your opinion, MLK was wrong to do what he did because he tried to force black civil rights and equality on a large majority who didn't want it? the surfragettes were wrong because they tried to force womens' vote on a large majority who didn't want it?


Those were different circumstances. Is there anything wrong with black people? Is there anything wrong with allowing interracial marriages? No. In fact, interracial marriages are generally a good thing since they break down racial barriers. Again, women's rights are fine. In fact, I'm even pro-choice to some extent.

or do you think fighting for both of those rights were ok because you agree with them... but just because YOU happen to agree with discrimination against people who love others of the same sex.. it's ok to keep gay people unequal purely on the basis that a "large" minority want to keep it that way?


It is a large minority, if not a majority, so don't put that in quotes. Those against gay marriage are around the 50% mark. And no, I don't believe in discrimination against gays, only a defense of marriage. I don't think allowing gay marriage is good for society, or safe.

firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
secondly... comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homosexuality does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.


Okay, I admit the comparison to pedophilia isn't perfect and was maybe crass. But you have no issue with comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement, which a ridiculous comparison to make. Are gays forced to sit in certain places on buses? Are gays discriminated against in terms of pay? No and no.

Original post by anarchism101
Do you mean people who used to be gay who do actually become straight or just gays who choose to remain celibate, because there's a difference.


Well yeah, they say they are straight and admit that gay marriage may not be a good thing.

You can't 'force' any sort of marriage on 'society', because marriage is a matter between the individuals getting married and a third party to administer a ceremony if the individuals in question wish it. 'Society' has no place in that, and so no right to have a say in it.


When you make it legal you are forcing us to accept it. And what about our children who will be raised in an environment that you didn't want? What happens when they are taught homosexual lies in schools?

This problem has arisen because the state has decided to be involved where it really shouldn't be. Currently the state grants privilege and special rights to heterosexual marriage (which, to be fair, is better than it used to be when only religious marriages had this state-granted privilege).

The ideal situation is that the state wouldn't grant special rights or privileges to any sort of relationship, but while we're in a situation where it does to heterosexual marriage, why shouldn't gays have the same privileges?


So in other words, because gays can't marry people of the same sex you want to take away everyone else's rights instead?

Original post by anarchism101
And effects lesbians a lot less than straight people. Yet somehow I can guess you don't support lesbian marriage being legalised either.

This is something that really depends on the situation too - straight men who have sex a lot will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who don't have sex much, straight men who don't use condoms will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who do use condoms, etc.


I was talking about men who have sex with men. tbh, I didn't really think about lesbian couples. I don't think they should be allowed to marry either. But HIV infection rates are only one reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Original post by Darrenh800
I'm sure you have heard of John Smid. He was once a very active supporter of "gay therapy" and led one of these conversion facilites. He has now admitted that he himself is gay and that it is impossible to change sexual orientation - source


No, i've not heard of him. I don't think that's right. There are plenty of people who say therapy has helped. Perhaps he was trying to force gays to turn straight, which wouldn't work. It's like how people can change their accents over time. It's not gonna happen overnight, and it won't happen if you're not willing, but you can do it. I know people who used to be gay and aren't any more. Heck, there are even people who have become gay and lesbian later in life.

Just out of interest, would you support a civil partnership if it gave all the rights of marriage under an other name? (That it, right of kin, parental rights of child, status as significant other)


I wouldn't want that ideally, no. However, if it was between that and full gay marriage, I'd support it if it got you off our backs.