Poll: Gay Marriage

[Ninja_X]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

 

[Thaius]

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

I must admit, I have never seen the "gay gene" spoken against from an evolutionary standpoint: you are absolutely right about that. Bravo.

And Ninja, evolution never would have developed the "gay gene" in the first place. For some reason, evolution says that we went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction (which seems less efficient to me, but whatever), which would have been heterosexual, of course. A "gay gene" would never have been developed in the first place.

 

[Semitendon]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

 

[megapenguinx]

I've actually given speeches on why it should be legal. Those speeches were in high school, granted, but still, my position is clear and adamant.

I live in California.

Irony is a *****. A stupid *****.

Worse, I live in San Francisco and there were quite a few anti-gay rights people protesting.
I'm for gay marriage just because if heterosexuals have to suffer through marriage, so should homosexuals (megapenguinx is an advocate of equal suffering rights for all).

 

[Thaius]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Not a religious thing. Potentially, considering religion does have stuff about marriage, but it is a legal state of being intended to provide the family unit upon which society is largely based.

 

[lenin_117]

The simple truth is- homosexuality is born not chosen.

Arguable. Some would say it about the environment they grew up in etc etc. That homosexuality is born is not a simple truth or self-evident.

its legal in Denmark, so i dont see whats wrong with it.

The fact that "its legal in Denmark" proves something as a good idea or not is laughable, and not just because its Denmark. Why do you think that Denmark has the ultimate legal system / infallible laws?

 

[Agema]

You know their name escapes me right now, but there was an army of homosexuals so powerful even Rome was afraid of them.

I'll go look that up.

I don't think there was.

Probably the only notable explicitly homosexual elite unit was the Sacred Band of Thebes, around 400-350BC, who were instrumental in destroying Sparta as the most powerful nation in Greece. There were, however, only about 200 of them and they were all killed when the Macedonians (Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great) defeated Thebes a few decades later.

The ancient Greeks had a system whereby young men would often form a pupil-mentor relationship with an older man, which frequently involved sexual activity, so your average Greek army would probably have a large number of bisexuals.

 

[Ninja_X]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

1st of all even people who are not religious can get married in a non religious ceremony. It isn't strictly religious, it never has been.

2nd gay women can reproduce.

 

[Semitendon]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Not a religious thing. Potentially, considering religion does have stuff about marriage, but it is a legal state of being intended to provide the family unit upon which society is largely based.

Okay, I see your point, but riddle me this. It's a legal institution only because of the religious influence at the time it was added to the government, particularly in America, where most of founding fathers were Puritans, or some such religious group, and had probably not considered the idea of "gay" marriage, or any other marriage besides a church orchestrated one.

 

[The Commissar]

Marriage shouldn't be a legal entity, why does the government have to make a relationship complete? But, if one set of people have it, then everybody should.

What's more... KILL ALL PEOPLE WHO AREN'T TOLERANT!!! Yeah, that'll solve all our problems...

 

[bluepilot]

I think that there should be a legal form of marriage that gives same-sex couples the same rights and legal entitlements as traditional marriage.

However, I also think that the church has a right to refuse to allow homosexual couples to have a Christian wedding because the Christian church believes that same-sex marriage is wrong.

All are entitled to their own beliefs

 

[Semitendon]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

1st of all even people who are not religious can get married in a non religious ceremony. It isn't strictly religious, it never has been.

2nd gay women can reproduce.

I didn't say it was "strictly" a religious thing. I said it's associated so strongly with the church that it's considered church property. Imagine the word marriage, what do you think of? A church, a white gown, a guy in a tux, wedding bells. I am not saying that the churches claim is justified, but once you give something (almost exclusively) to a group of people, you're going to have a fight on your hands to get it back.

Gay women can reproduce, but only in recent times. With the evolution concept I am refering mostly to prehistoric people who would have been slaves to their baser instincts, and would not have simply slept with a man just to continue on their species, I don't think they would have been able to grasp that concept.

 

[Segadroid]

I'll be honest; I'm not a big fan of gay marriage. Why? I feel compelled to say(as a straight man) 'that it just doesn't feel right', but I'll ban that out of my head and come with a more civilized answer.
Being straight, it's just odd for me to see 2 men being married. It's against my nature that tells me how it's supposed to be. 2 men kissing? "Wrong," says my human nature. "it should be something else. This is not right."

I mostly try to be polite against gay people, but if they ever, ever try to flirt with me, I'm gone.

 

[Deralix]

if people limit other peoples rights based simply on the fact that they love the same sex, and use the bible or religion as the foundation of their argument, they deserve to be faced with the same discrimination they would force on said person.

i've had many gay and lesbian friends, and i've even been hit on by a couple guys, but what is so wrong about same sex marriage?

if you can answer that question without using anything related to religion, your point would either just be discriminatory, or outright ignorant.

Hrmm....funnily enough sodomy is illegal in the UK. But back on topic: I'm a Liberal Democrat supporter myself over here in the UK and I can sympathise. But on the flipside the proper deffinition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman (Not that I agree with this. It's just how it is). I suppose in theory one could get around this by setting up some kind of gay church, or infact creating an entirely different system of matrimonial union. Gayiage anyone?

 

[Thaius]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Not a religious thing. Potentially, considering religion does have stuff about marriage, but it is a legal state of being intended to provide the family unit upon which society is largely based.

Okay, I see your point, but riddle me this. It's a legal institution only because of the religious influence at the time it was added to the government, particularly in America, where most of founding fathers were Puritans, or some such religious group, and had probably not considered the idea of "gay" marriage, or any other marriage besides a church orchestrated one.

Marriage is absolutely essential to the sociological structure, that's why. Take a sociology class and you'l learn that. Marriage is the base of the family unit, which is a way to raise children in a controlled environment and teach them what must be taught. Without marriage (and consequentially the family), society would either fall apart or we would have to adopt government institutions that raised our kids from birth until adulthood: when that happens, our country is even more screwed than it already is.

 

[Ninja_X]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

1st of all even people who are not religious can get married in a non religious ceremony. It isn't strictly religious, it never has been.

2nd gay women can reproduce.

I didn't say it was "strictly" a religious thing. I said it's associated so strongly with the church that it's considered church property. Imagine the word marriage, what do you think of? A church, a white gown, a guy in a tux, wedding bells. I am not saying that the churches claim is justified, but once you give something (almost exclusively) to a group of people, you're going to have a fight on your hands to get it back.

Gay women can reproduce, but only in recent times. With the evolution concept I am refering mostly to prehistoric people who would have been slaves to their baser instincts, and would not have simply slept with a man just to continue on their species, I don't think they would have been able to grasp that concept.

I know that in this country it is seen as a religious thing because there are allot of Christians here. But the FACT is marriage ISN'T religious property. I have every right to marry outside the church. The Church has no right to claim marriage as theirs. The right to bond together as a loving couple is something I hold dear to me. Something allot of people regardless of faith hold dear to them. Your faith does NOT determine your right to be happy. That bond is for any loving couple.

Gonna just let the evolution thing go, as I don't care either way.

 

[delet]

Man, if only more people had the same logic you have. Maybe then I could have more friends and less idiots telling me to shut up...

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

On a personal level, I don't really see the point of marriage. The whole concept of one little ceremony making such a big change in a relationship doesn't make sense to me. I do however belive that if it is important to a couple, and both are old enough and sane enough to give their consent to it (and do), then neither the government nor any religious body has any right to say otherwise.
I also believe that religious bodies should be kept as far as possible from law and government. Religion should be what an individual believes, not what a state believes.

 

[Semitendon]

I think that all current marriages should be reduced to civil unions. All the same tax benefits apply, then the church decides who get's married or not. I say this because marriage is largly a religious idea. As such, automatically throwing homosexuals into a religious idea is bound to stir up trouble since almost all religions have anti-homosexual doctrine somewhere in their belief system and texts.

I have one thing which I am confused about, How is someone "born" gay??

If memory serves there is no way this is at all possible. If you believe in evolution, then it is survival of the fittest. Any genetic gene inspiring homosexuality would be fazed out immediately, due to the fact that a creature which cannot reproduce is automatically resigned to extinction. And since evolution takes millions of years to accomplish, then it is logical to assume that there were cavemen and cavewomen with the gay gene. Since they relied mostly on instinct they would have followed on their sexual urges, and promptly caused their own extinction. Some would say " but Semi, we have proof that animals follow homosexual urges" I just don't see the connection there. My dog will hump anything, even a human leg, it's not so much a matter of reproduction as it is a matter of brain power. Humans can immediately identify another human they want to have sex with, animals seem to hump anything they can mount.

And if you go for the church view, God hasn't created any homosexuals.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a matter of environment rather than being "born that way" We know that certain people raised in a certain environment will be drawn to certain things. Often these people may not like what they are drawn to, and desire to change the patterns in their life, but it never seems to work. i.e. the woman continually attracted to abusive males. I think homosexuality is like that, not a conscious choice, and an all together natural urge feeling, but is not actually developed at birth.

1st of all, marriage is NOT a religious thing.

2nd, evolution takes time to remove unwanted traits. Not saying weather or not I think they are born gay or not, just pointing out the flaw in your argument there.XD

How is marriage not a "religious thing"? Most marriage cermonies take place in churches, and have taken place in churches for thousands of years. Maybe other civilization's have come up with the idea of marriage all on their own, but for most of recorded, modern, history marriage has been resigned to the church.

As to the evolution timeline, I would agree with you there, except that when talking about the inability to reproduce, it takes exactly one generation to cause extinction, so evolution wouldn't have it's normal timeline to faze things out.

1st of all even people who are not religious can get married in a non religious ceremony. It isn't strictly religious, it never has been.

2nd gay women can reproduce.

I didn't say it was "strictly" a religious thing. I said it's associated so strongly with the church that it's considered church property. Imagine the word marriage, what do you think of? A church, a white gown, a guy in a tux, wedding bells. I am not saying that the churches claim is justified, but once you give something (almost exclusively) to a group of people, you're going to have a fight on your hands to get it back.

Gay women can reproduce, but only in recent times. With the evolution concept I am refering mostly to prehistoric people who would have been slaves to their baser instincts, and would not have simply slept with a man just to continue on their species, I don't think they would have been able to grasp that concept.

I know that in this country it is seen as a religious thing because there are allot of Christians here. But the FACT is marriage ISN'T religious property. I have every right to marry outside the church. The Church has no right to claim marriage as theirs. The right to bond together as a loving couple is something I hold dear to me. Something allot of people regardless of faith hold dear to them. Your faith does NOT determine your right to be happy. That bond is for any loving couple.

Gonna just let the evolution thing go, as I don't care either way.

I think we both have roughly the same idea. I didn't defend the church's claim to marriage, I only said it would be hard to get them to let go of it, after their longstanding history with the word "marriage" If you refer back to my original post I suggest the legal removal of the word marriage because it's not worth the fight with religious people. Instead, civil unions are put in place to give all people the same "rights". If that were to happen, how long would it be before churches allowed gay people to get "married". Not long I should think, given that there are already churches which do that very thing. I guess my point is, why get into a fistfight with the church, when you can get everything you want,and without everyone getting blood on their shirt.