Are You Homophobic?

Well, why do you think they would force themselves to have sex with someone they don't find attractive?

If a man finds other men attractive, but not women, but is constantly being told that his attraction to other men is wrong, and then seeks out help because his attraction to other men is socially ostracizing him within his family, community, and workplace, then he may seek to try a bury his orientation by marrying a woman and raising a family. It does not mean he finds the woman sexually attractive. There are stories written by such men who have tried this and realized it doesn't work-- it doesn't change their orientation.

I never said there is a gay gene. I never brought that up once. But just because it is not genetic does not mean it is not biological. There is a distinct difference between biological and genetic, and there is plenty of evidence that it is biological-- specifically, largely contributed by prenatal hormones. Like handedness (left, right, ambidextrous), sexuality is determined in the womb. If you would like me to back up this assertion with sources, I would be most happy to.

The thing about marriage is that the situation is complicated by the fact that marriage is, in the USA, a legal institution. That means that making a separate thing for same-sex couples-- i.e, civil unions-- is discriminatory and delegates them to second-class, particularly since every attempt made at civil unions have always fallen short of giving all the rights of marriage packaged in another, more neutral term. That also means that denying same-sex couples marriage is also discriminatory. If you wish to retain the term "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, which is a religious definition, my suggestion is to go to the deeper, underlying issue: make marriage a social institution rather than a legal one, and have the government merely hand out civil unions and the like to all people who want their union legally recognized. No church or synagogue is required to perform a marriage ceremony for any gay couple.

My point here is that I understand why you don't like the idea of gay marriage-- because it doesn't fit with your idea of marriage. But we need to be fair and as un-discriminatory as possible for everyone in regards to the law, and because marriage is a legal issue, that means that either the legal definition of marriage has to be changed (simplest option) or we need to get rid of marriage as a legal institution altogether and then start handing out civil unions and some-such things.

However, as for family, I would like to say that "family" has never been defined as being with opposite-sex parents. We have families where you have one parent and one child, and multiple parents and multiple children, and even ones where you have extended family in there as well. "Family" is simply defined already by how people related by blood and 'in-laws' structure themselves. I, for example, have a mother and two fathers, one of whom is my step-father, all of whom I love very much. I also have an older brother, two aunts, a step-aunt, a step-brother and step-sister, and one uncle. My mother and biological father are happily separated, and my ninety-five year old grandmother lives with us at my father's house. That is my family. It is not the conventional "one male parent, one female parent" family, but it is still family, and I would neither have it nor call it any other way.

If we're going to have a discussion, I would appreciate it if we could keep terms neutral. Saying "pervert marriage" is provocative and not at all conducive to a genuine discussion. And it is not just "some" people. Those people you're talking about are a part of America, and as nearly 50% of voters want to allow it, it is not just simply "some".

It is a matter of discrimination. The saying that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is as discriminatory as the anti-miscegenation laws we used to have. Homosexual couples are discriminated against because they cannot marry. Saying they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is useless because then, essentially, they are still prevented from marrying for the same purpose that the majority of American couples marry for today.

I don't see how wanting to devote and commit oneself to someone else makes marriage meaningless. The divorce rate among heterosexual couples frankly speaks for itself. I'm bisexual. I am sexually attracted to men and women, but I also believe in the importance of marriage. And in that, I believe that marriage is a commitment, an important vow. Just because I wish to make that vow to a woman instead of a man-- to get down on one knee, pledge my life, fidelity, and love to her-- and live as a married woman doesn't seem to make marriage meaningless. In fact, for me, it would make it more meaningful, because if I am allowed to marry the single person I love in the world, that means I would strive all the more to keep my vows and commitments. I don't see that as a mockery.

There is no constitutional definition of marriage. Those opposing same-sex marriage want to add a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman, but as of right now, there is not.

That is patently untrue. People have lived in same-sex pairs throughout many cultures, globally speaking, long before now-- and those unions were just as recognized as opposite-sex unions. The term "perversion", in this case, is an opinion and not a fact, and it really just demonstrates that you're unwilling to look at it from the other side's point of view. Until we can set aside ad hominem or provocative terms, this conversation is useless. I have not once called you a homophobe or a bigot simply because I disagree with you, but you have constantly thrown out the word "perversion" and "mockery".

Gays make up an estimated 3-5% of the American population, which is a significant amount of people. Not allowing them marriage is discrimination, no matter what the ratios are.

We have good, solid reasons for those things, none of which are even remotely likely to happen if you allow gay marriage. Children are not of the age of consent, and can therefore not give nor withdraw consent, making them ineligible for marriage. Children need to be protected from the advances of adults who might otherwise try to have sex with them, and not allowing them to marry is one way to do that. They are not consenting adults.

In the same way, animals are not consenting adults, which is why we don't allow that either. Animals are simply unable to give consent, are unable to comprehend the legalities of it, which is why we don't allow people to marry them either. Sexual activities with animals initiated by humans take advantage of the animal's inability to give or withdraw consent. Simply put, they too are not consenting adults.

Two men and two women who are consenting adults do not fall into the two above categories. It's about as absurd as suggesting that heterosexual marriage will lead to the above two as well, because adult men will want prepubescent children and because women will want to marry their dog. It's frankly just ridiculous.