I would much rather see government regulation of marriage struck down. Big Brother has no right to be part of our marriages. I know government has been involved in marriage for centuries, if not more, around the world. Time for that to stop.

+1

...if I ever should (unlikely) have children they won't be brought up thinking that being gay is "normal"..............

+1 as well.  I, too, will be holding back my true opinions about all of this.  Because I like WTA, and I don't want to be banned.  The one thing I will say, is that the government must treat all of its citizens equally - whether I like them or not.  If the government is going to license marriage for some of us, it must also license it for the others

I'm sure as soon as marriage is declared a "right" some more radical person in the gay rights movement will try to sue some church for refusing their civil rights.

You can sue anyone for anything at any time... but as long as a church is not the only place people can marry... as long as there is a courthouse that they can go to...  I can't see any such lawsuit prevailing.



Kaso

My personal view is that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but I fully realize others have different views.  Marriage should be defined by persons according to their beliefs, not by the government.  The government should be completely out of the business of defining what marriage is -- as long as there are some protections for minors.

One thing that is a big deal is that the Supreme Court ruling pretty much negates the "direct democracy" that has until this point existed in some states.  Now I am not really a fan of direct democracy anyway so this doesn't bother me much, but it is nevertheless a significant event in that regard.

I have an acquaintance who lives with his wife and girlfriend (no, he is NOT Mormon nor an offshoot) and the government could care less but let him try to marry the gf too and he's done for. He said he'd marry the gf too as soon as its legal. IMO I'd okay everything between consenting adults but incest and bestiality and even that is between them and God.

I agree that government should have little to no hand in marriages but until that day, as a practical matter, we as a civilization have to decide how much discrimination we are willing to accept. Right now it looks like the Fedgov offers benefits to married couples but leaves the details of what is and is not a "marriage" to the individual states. If that is the case then I'd argue that federal benefits must be available to any couple (or group if you're in Utah  ) who meets the definition in his and/or her state of residence. States should be free to decide on their own benefits.

Ideally there would be no special benefits from any government for marriage but those are even less likely than licenses to disappear anytime soon. Separating the the mess that we call "Social Security" from legal definitions of marriage is a task which makes unraveling the Gordian knot look easy.

See, I could get myself SOOOOO banned for responding to that like I want to 

  That kind of thing is quite annoying. I haven't been here long, are you sure that the mod team would ban someone over one opinion and not the opposite?
 

^^ Jesse isn't alone.  The rest of the moderation staff has the same outlook.


-T.

Homosexuality has been observed occurring for centuries, and has been observed in multiple species outside of the human race. Calling it 'unnatural' is... well... kidding yourself, at best.

Possibly raising a child to deny a very fundamental part of it's identity is incredibly harmful.

The best thing you can do is to raise a child to be happy in it's own skin.

Biologically I would assume most people are more on a scale of sexuality. There should be a nice bell curve in there with most towards the "normal" and descending numbers towards each extreme end. Although to assume any human is "normal" would likely be approaching folly. We are likely a variable mix of nature, nurture and individual experience.

P.S.  I have found the mods to be open as long as you are not being a douche. Personally I am a godless heathen and they seem to not censor much. Unless I start making fun of the flying spaghetti monsters and what not.

I am personally of the opinion that a baby is a blank slate, and that nobody is pre-wired for a sexual preference, gay or straight.

I do believe that human beings are pre-wired for procreation.  But how that impulse is interpreted in a given person can be varied.  In this day and age of adoption, artificial insemination, surrogates, and what have you, there are now any number of options for satisfying the genetic urge to produce offspring.


It's been a long time since I read it, but I believe that there is a chapter or two in The Forever War that touches on this.


-T.

I am personally of the opinion that a baby is a blank slate, and that nobody is pre-wired for a sexual preference, gay or straight.

I do believe that human beings are pre-wired for procreation.  But how that impulse is interpreted in a given person can be varied.  In this day and age of adoption, artificial insemination, surrogates, and what have you, there are now any number of options for satisfying the genetic urge to produce offspring.


It's been a long time since I read it, but I believe that there is a chapter or two in The Forever War that touches on this.


-T.

Yeah. You are rolling onto the "soft" sciences there. I tend to just avoid "soft" sciences. If at all possible that is.

Okay:  To keep it clear and non-ban-worthy: I call bull to SOME of it....yes, some people have that thought to begin with.  Another percentage may/might turn to it because it is "accepted". And the more "accepted" it becomes the more normal it seems.      A baby is born "blank" and it is "filled" as it grows up.    And at an early age, that "acceptance" might make them more likely to turn to being homosexual.   

And yes.....I would be very opposed to that.     I get along rather well with differing opinions.......However it doesn't change my opinion OF whatever they're doing.   

I have read no reports or studies that support anything like this. They may hide being outside of social norms, or if it is accepted in their culture they may embrace it.

The being "accepted" by society likely means you have false flags of more people outside the social norms. There would likely be just as many in both groups, but the "unaccepted" outside of social norms are likely just hiding so they cannot be counted.

I would assume in a totally open society. That didn't repress being outside of the norms(pure made up utopia here folks). Many folks would "experiment" with all types of sexual contact.

Arktos pointed to the Kinsey reports which showed even in our modern society. Normal is hard to pin down.

My opinion is my own. Therefore I deal with this reality.
My belief is that people will do what they desire to do.
Drugs.
Violence.
Money.
Lying.
Food.
Alchohol.
Sex.
It's up to the individual person.
Good or bad.
If it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg what is it to me.
They must live by their choices.
No one else should be responsible.
This is the Libertarian in me.
However.
I believe deeply that GOD is right and everyone else is wrong. Whether you believe in GOD or not that is your choice. I accept that.
How you live your life or satisfy your appetites is also your choice.
I also accept this.
In all of this there is one caveat.Harm an innocent...all bets are off.
Otherwise...live, love, die well.





Sent from my LG-LS855 using Tapatalk 2

Okay:  To keep it clear and non-ban-worthy: I call bull to SOME of it....yes, some people have that thought to begin with.  Another percentage may/might turn to it because it is "accepted". And the more "accepted" it becomes the more normal it seems.      A baby is born "blank" and it is "filled" as it grows up.    And at an early age, that "acceptance" might make them more likely to turn to being homosexual.   

Ehhh... *waggles hand* A more widespread acceptance of homosexuality would lead to less people hiding in the closet due to not being afraid of persecution, but it won't make someone who identifies straight switch teams.

  "Consenting adults" is the term to remember. As long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I could care less. GLBT have just as much right to a happy marriage or messy divorce as the rest of us.
  So that brings us to Polygamy...... should that be legalized too? Eh hell, Consenting adults, right? While it's nothing I would participate in, I could care less. So long as children aren't being harmed and all parties are consenting adults, go for it. Everything has it's rewards and/or consequences and we all have to live with our own choices, good or bad.