Same sex marriage

Yeah, why not? As it turns out, the kids don't turn out any worse than kids raised by heterosexual parents. (Of course, I think a slightly higher percentage turn out gay in later life, probably because they haven't been told by their parents that it's an "affront to God" or some such bs.) Um, out of curiosity, just what do you think you can do if your gay neighbors decide to adopt? I don't know how Canadian law works, but in America, I don't have to get my community's permission to adopt. And you're not likely to convince a court to stop the adoption without some data that says that kids of gay couples turn out significantly worse. As far as I know, there isn't any.We're a long way from acceptance of gay marriage in America, but we're getting closer, mostly because almost everybody in my age cohort is in favor, but almost everybody in the few previous generations is opposed. As they die off, we get closer to gay marriage. I'm happy to think of it as only a matter of time.You say that gay adoption would bother you, even if you weren't Christian - what then, besides the (perhaps nonexistent) biblical condemnation, bothers you about it? For what secular reason do you oppose gay adoption or marriage?

I think that all depends where you live. In any case, don't you think that's a decision best left to the prospective parents?Are we not to allow white folk to adopt Chinese babies because of the spectre of racism, either?

Not quite right... they're actually just waiting for me.

Where is FunkMasterFreaky? Isn't this his topic? I for one want to know what secular reasoning he has against gay marriage and adoption.Was this just a drive-by troll?

Because sexuality isn't this simple. Homosexuality isn't a condition of having a female brain in a man's body (or vice-versa) - otherwise, don't you think all gay men would be cross-dressers? (They're not.)A gay man isn't a woman in a man's body, he's a man who is sexually attracted to men. The most interesting thing is, human sexuality is a continumm, not a bivalent quality. There's a range of states between full-on gay and religiously straight.I'm sure one of us here can reccomend a good book on human sexuality, or I could ask one of my gender-studies friends if you're really interested.

To the contrary; the studies show that most people inhabit somewhere within the two extremes - it's very rare for a person to be absolutely straight or absolutely gay. There's more in the middle than just bisexuality. For instance, heterosexual with incidental homosexual behavior. Or persons with a limited sexual attraction to the occasional person of opposite gender as they usually go for.Now, what we'll admit to being attracted to is a different matter. But behaviorally most people inhabit one end or the other of the gray area.

What's not to understand about gay people? Sexual preference is just that, a preference, like your favorite flavor of ice cream, for instance.I like mint ice cream. Gay men like penises. What's so complicated about that?

I guess I wasn't really referring to potential genetic influences on homosexuality when I compared it to ice cream - to my knowledge, there's no genetic factor linked to ice cream preference.I was just trying to make a point that, to other people, what sex you prefer should be no more noteworthy or significant than what flavor of ice cream you prefer. (If they're trying to date you, it may become a little more significant, but then, so would your ice cream flavor, I should think.)

You think there's evidence? Or there isevidence?There's a big difference, I hope you know.

Only in some states. In others they're becoming legal. And the Constitution has a clause that states have to accept the marriages (and other certifications) of other states.An increasing number - almost a majority - of Americans support same-sex civil unions that are the same as marriage. You're a little out of date. There is a gay bishop now. That happened. It's old news, now. Why? Why are gay people any worse than anybody else? We're all sinners, remember? Gay people don't sin any more than you or I. Or do you demand that your clergy be perfect? In your translation, maybe. Rrhain has made a pretty convincing case, however, that homosexuality is not mentioned in the oldest texts. Perhaps he'd be willing to make that case for you if you asked him.Certainly Jesus never mentions it, so it can hardly be a major issue for God, right? We're talking about 3 lines of the bible that, in modern translations, say that homosexuality is wrong in the context of ritualistic sex. But a same-sex unions is blessed in the bible, and the Catholic church has very old rites for same-sex marriage.So no, it's not "just wrong". It's inclusive, and progressive, and very, very much something Christianity has been needing to do for some time.

Unnatural? Why? Especially given that there's some 500 recorded instances of homosexual behavior in animals; and that the genetic basis of homosexuality is finally beginning to be uncovered, it seems to me that there's nothing unnatural at all about homosexuality, just as there's nothing unnatural about preferring mint ice cream to vanilla. But this is a problem with culture, not with gay adoption or marriage. And preventing gay adoption isn't going to promote the acceptance of gay adoption. What will promote it is more gay adoption - when gay adoption becomes so normal that nobody thinks twice about it, your problem goes away.I can appreciate that the last part of your post seems to be concilliatory. It seems pretty arrogant of you to suggest that you'll single out gay people to combat their adoptions while giving a pass to every other sinner.

Isn't that, frankly, a sexist stereotype? As though the only intimacy or relationship that could exist is the kind that women approve of?Men may be just as able to be intimate or form relationships. They just may not be the kind of intimacy or relationships that women know.And I don't see that men visit prostitutes - or strip bars - because they're looking for "pretend girlfriends". The way I see it they're looking for sex, because men seek out sex to a greater degree than women. And sex doesn't always have to be part of a deep, abiding intimacy. Sometimes it's just about deep biological directives. Just as eating isn't always about feasting with friends and family - sometimes it's about being hungry.

You're disturbed by the idea that sex is as natural a thing as eating or breathing? What strange ideas you have.

What industry is that? If you're referring to the sex industry, they don't provide intimacy or relationships. They provide boobies. But not all people who have sex pair-bond. On the other hand, everybody who eats gets less hungry. I'm inclined to see the association of sex with pair-bonded intimacy as cultural invention because not all cultures have that arrangement.And we pair-bond through food - breaking bread - as easily as we do with sex. So why is pair-bonding through food cultural invention, and pair-bonding through sex not? Seems like an inconsistent theory to me. I would agree that a man in a sexual relationship who seeks sexual release from someone else is indicative of a troubled relationship, generally. But what about men in no relationships? Not everyone is able to attract mates. What are they supposed to do? I guess that's what you think they're supposed to do.I've done both, in my time - jacked off, and had sex that was so without intimacy that it might as well have been mutual masturbation. The sex was still light-years better than jacking off. Maybe it's hard for women to imagine, or something. Sex motivates men because it feels much better than jacking off.

I don't want anyone to think that I openly support the state of the sex industry in this country. To the contrary I find it needlessly exploitative. For instance strippers actually have to pay the club in order to be "allowed" to strip there. Ludicrious!So long as it's an industry perched on the fringe of regulation and illegality, it will continue to exploit women. Once it becomes as accepted as waitstaffing in restaurants, though, regulation can ensure that women aren't exploited.