Might as well dig into the rest of this one.
Lightknight said:
I would disagree with your statement of choice. Twin studies have shown a higher prevalence amongst identical twins both being gay if one is. It also showed non-identical twins as being higher than non-twin siblings but lower than identical twins. The result of the study indicates that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to homosexuality.
It's quite likely there is no genetic link to homosexuality, however. Environmental factors, yes. But there's no documented evidence of homosexuals being more likely to have gay kids, for example. There are very likely other issues at play. Hormone fluccuations in the uterus, for example.
Please bear in mind, environmental factors do not mean "choice" per se nor does it wave away the apparent influence of genes. We are every bit a product of our environment as we are a product of our genes and things are socially encoded into us in a way that we can't overcome. A person who is terrified of spiders due to a traumatic experience in their youth is no more able to dismiss that fear than a person born with a lisp.
I would be careful with that. Phobias, even severe ones, can be cured. To equate the two is to indicate homosexuality can be cured, despite all evidence to the contrary. Generally speaking, gays don't become gay because of experiential factors.
You should consider homosexuality to be a trait in this regard. Not a choice. I'm actually a little surprised that Christian's don't view it as a natural trait as well. Do Christians not consider a sin nature to be a natural conclusion of the fall? As such, they should see people who deal with being naturally one way or the other to be the same as someone being born blind. I've never understood the insistance that homosexuality cannot be inherent.
Christians do not have a unifying doctrine. Some even debate the nature of Christ Himself. Some believe we're all sinners and some believe that we choose to sin and some believe that something external makes us sin. There's no unified theory on sin. So even if we take the position that homosexuality is a sin (which a good chunk of Christianity does, without any real support), the nature of that sin and what should be done about it varies from Church to Church (not even from sect to sect).
The insistence that homosexuality is genetic largely comes down to the fact that it's okay to discriminate against choice and action, whereas we consider inborn traits to be a rather monstrous thing to discriminate against. It's a relatively new concept.
What you should probably take away from this above all else is that the poster in question thinks he had to choose to be straight. He (or she) is tacitly admitting to like members of the same sex. This is weirdly a position taken by a lot of Christians, that if not for it being a sin they'd be all over hot guy on guy action (or girl on girl, no need to exclude). When homophobic ministers who get caught will say they gave in to temptation, or they slipped up. That means, on some level, they really want those guys.
I don't think this is the normal state for a heterosexual. I mean, I can't talk experientially. I am a "anything that can consent sexual," so that's right out. However, I know tons of straight people who are involved in alliance programs and march with the gays in pride parades and have no problem with people calling them fags or assuming they're gay, and I've never once come across one of them that said "you know what? I really want some (insert same-sex genitals here) right now." At most, a large swathe of heterosexuals seem to be curious.
This mindset of repression, apart from being unhealthy, is something to consider when talking to people. Both because it's an insight into their own interests and because it's very likely instilled by fear itself. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone who says it is gay, but they certainly have a low opinion of their own sexuality. Because if you can choose to be straight, you can just as easily choose to be gay. Somehow, of the people who have insisted to me they choose to be straight, none have been willing to prove it by duding up.
I would even posit from an evolutionary perspective that we are genetically predisposed to make close friendships with other males to help unify communities that may otherwise have been stuck in war. The men who were able to befriend other males easily were made stronger from it. Homosexuality may merely be this otherwise beneficial trait overriding heterosexual attraction in a maladaptive way (maladaptive purely due to hinderance in imposes on passing along genes, not any moral statement here).
Homosexuality may also be nature's way of providing foster care.
That's not forcing acceptance so much as disassociation with the religious institution.
Since non-religious marriage came first, and even the term itself derives from a contractual relationship (not a spiritual or religious one), shouldn't they be the ones distancing themselves from the institution? Since Marriage has repeatedly been defined by the courts as a right, shouldn't they be the ones distancing themselves from the institution?
But most importantly, since change thing name has never stopped complaints and backlash from religious bodies, isn't the concept of changing the name a spurious conception with no depth or practical change? The religious right in this country gets just as butthurt by civil unions and domestic partnerships.
No one loses here, everyone gains. The religious minded can be free of feeling like their religion is under attack/oppressed by the government.
Except that's not true. Have you looked at the claims of religious persecution in this country?
Well, I suppose it's technically true. They CAN, they just WONT.
There is a legitimate fear that the association of the two practices may bleed over in future legislation that may actually make pastors/priests perform the religious ceremony or face significant impunity.
That's not a "legitimate fear." It's paranoia.
Additionally, wedding vendors already legally have to perform services for wedding ceremonies (religious ceremonies) they don't agree with. Several have faced fines and lost law suits for failing to do so on the basis of religious convictions.
To my knowledge, no such case has actually been on the religious end of things. It's been people trying not to perform their CIVIL duties to CIVIL marriage.
For example:
I live in Vermont. We had civil unions, now we have gay marriage. It's perfectly legal here for a church or religious body not to marry people, but not for a Justice of the Peace to do so. And why shouldn't it be that way? If you don't want to perform the job, don't take it. If you take the job, you perform the job as-is. It's the "Amish Bus Driver" principle. a JP is a civil servant doing a government job of officiating civil marriage.
Where's the problem?
So their fears are not entirely unwarranted.
[citation needed]
Seriously. Evidence plz.
Lightknight said:
In the US, until the mid-19th century (civil war/freedom of the slaves), common law marriages were the norm and entirely valid/recognized. Marriage licenses were implemented to prohibit whites "from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos". By the 1920's, 38 states were using it for those reasons.
Except that only tells half the story, so it doesn't really properly address anything.
It was used to prevent churches from marrying those people and was entirely race based to begin with.
Kind of illogical, as religious ceremonies were unnecessary. I mean, it doesn't pass the smell test, but who am I to argue with a two paragraph blurb on the site that locked a page insisting the Lakota Sioux had withdrawn from the US even as the Sioux themselves said it was false?
I'm sure you have more than that to back it up, right?
Edit: Hell, if we're using Wikipedia, there's no problem with marriage as-is.
In some countries ? notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain ? both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) ? the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage ceremony is not recognized as a marriage by government under the law.
As Jacques Clousseau would say, ze problem is sol-ved.
