General Question

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

Your local government has decided to legalize either gay marriage or marijuana. Which would you choose?

Asked by The_Compassionate_Heretic (14596points) May 27th, 2009

For the sake of argument, it’s only one or the other.
“Both” or “neither” are not options.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

130 Answers

Jeruba's avatar

That’s easy. Gay marriage. It isn’t harming anyone.

crisw's avatar

Gay marriage. It’s a lot harder to get married illegally than to get weed illegaly.

alive's avatar

GAYS all the way. because either have it legal for everyone or illegal for everyone. (that goes for marriage and drugs! ha)

timeand_distance's avatar

Marriage, totes.
You can always hide your ganja.

Tink's avatar

I would legalize gay marriage even if i’m not gay or lesbian. I’m straight

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

Devil’s advocate speaking: No gay people are in jail for wanting to get married.

timeand_distance's avatar

No one is in jail for just WANTING to get high, either. :)

dalepetrie's avatar

Clearly, agree with the collective. Even while weed is illegal, it is an optional activity, not a biological derivative, and though I think having one’s civil rights taken away for MJ possession is an affront to humanity, clearly denying one group of people the same legal status as another group of people is downright barbaric.

augustlan's avatar

Gay marriage any day of the week. It’s a matter of equal rights. We can tackle pot later.

Macaulay's avatar

Tough question, while I do support gay marriage, I would vote for the legalization of marijuana seeing how that directly affects me. I suppose the gays would rightly vote for the legalization of gay marriage. Can’t please everyone, ya know.

arturodiaz's avatar

Marihuana. I dont really see the point on marriage. If marriage stopped gay people from having sex or something then I would go with gay marriage. But, at least here in mexico 60% of income to drug traffickers come from marihuana bought in the US. So making marihuana legal will be a huge blow economically for them. Maybe peace in street will be restored slowly :). And gays can also keep having sex and getting high legally :D. Everybody is happy that way :P

timeand_distance's avatar

being married gets you a lot of stuff, actually.
next of kin status at hospital visits, joint filing on taxes, domestic abuse protection stuffs.

link to a full-ish list of rights gay couples dont have that married couples do

dalepetrie's avatar

@arturodiaz – the big deal about marriage equality has nothing to do with the ability to have sex with whomever you please. Legally, marriage is a contract between two people to share finances, parenting rights, rights of survivorship, etc. A gay couple could have sex all they wanted, be deeply in love, spend every day of their lives together for 20 years, they could raise a child which is biologically the child of one partner, and the other could be the guardian. But let’s say the biological parent gets cancer. Well, their lifelong partner, with whom they share a home, if someone else in the family wants to step in, they could say “family only”, then the love of that person’s life, their partner, couldn’t even visit them in the hospital. Then let’s say this kid is 8 years old, the sick one dies, the partner, even though they’ve raised that child for the full 8 years, has NO parental rights. And again, someone in the family of the deceased who may have never even met the child could force the courts to give THEM parental rights. And then what if the couple owned a house, and it was in the dead one’s name? The family can take that, or a business, or anything. Some people have been in a loving committed relationship for decades and lost everything to a greedy sixth cousin who comes out of the woodwork. It’s a lot more than “letting them have sex”.

arturodiaz's avatar

@timeand_distance Ive heard in the US they give a lot of rights to married people. There are even some threads about that. But here in Mexico there are other ways to get those benefits such as declaring yourself concubine, free union and other stuff. Besides law about marriage here in Mexico is more about protecting the women than about economic/social benefits. For example if a man attacks her wife and she denounce it they will come for the guy and put it jail without any investigation. Jail first, questions later.

arturodiaz's avatar

@dalepetrie ok, you got a point

dalepetrie's avatar

Yes, in the US it is a big deal. The big problem is “marriage” means two things. To religion, it means an institution that has been around for 5,000 years and means a union by God between a man and a woman. Legally it means a set of contracts which are legally binding. Legal marriage should have NEVER been called marriage in the FIRST place. Problem is, if you create a separate class of union which is equal to marriage, such as a civil union, you are creating “separate but equal.” Well that didn’t work well when blacks and whites were “separate but equal”. The problem is there are still plenty of people who think homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, and if there is a separate legal status for “gay marriage”, that is not called marriage, then it is not legally bound to “legal marriage” for straight people, and when the fundamentalists go after it, they are only going after one, not the other. They change it, the two legal statuses are no longer equal. One is weakened continually until we’re back to where we were in the first place. All legal marriages should be offered in every state to any two people over the age of consent, and they should all be called the same thing, whether that be “marriage”, “legal marriage”, “civil unions”, or “braunschweiger”. To do anything less is barbaric.

Grisaille's avatar

I wish I wasn’t so sleepy D:

I’d love to participate, but I physically cannot. G’night

dalepetrie's avatar

@Grisaille – there’s always tomorrow.

arturodiaz's avatar

@dalepetrie I havent thought about that way but you are absolutely right. One think is a legal union between two people and another is marriage.

Facade's avatar


wildpotato's avatar

Marijuana, because it would allow many non-violent offenders a way out of jail and back to constructive work, ease the desperately overcrowded prison system, and free up a lot of funds that could be put to use doing more important things than keeping these people in jail.

alive's avatar

how can people get caught and put in jail for weed. you smoke it in the privacy of your own home and if you are in an apt you should take the proper precautions (we all know the towel under the door “trick”

when you are caught with a small amount it is a misdemeanor, the more you have the more trouble you get in. and most people are not in jail for a first offence marijuana conviction. the first conviction is generally community service and a fine. not jail.

if you get caught with weed or smoking weed you were probably doin some other shit that you also shouldn’t have been doin.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

@wildpotato Good answer. Legalizing marijuana also enables the plant to be used for textile purposes. It is one of the world’s most renewable resources.

augustlan's avatar

Could we, like, legalize gay marriage today and pot tomorrow? I mean, I think they’re both quite important, but equality has to take the edge, for me.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


The “separate but equal” premise failed because it was a race issue. Homosexuality is not a race, it is a sexuality issue. Separate but equal works with sexuality issues. There is no outcry for unisex public restrooms.

As Colin Powell stated “Comparing Homosexuality to Race is a convenient but invalid argument”.

We know why people are black, white, red. We don’t know why people are homosexual.

If everyone were blue, we would all be fine. If everyone were homosexual, we would not be here. The Gay Marriage debate is a leapfrog over the real issue at hand. Homosexuality cannot validate itself on its own merit, so it seeks the validation from a long standing historical institution of marriage. If homosexuality can achieve validation from the institution of marriage, then no one will be able to question the reasons behind homosexuality ever again.

There is still great debate over why homosexuality occurs. Choice alone may or may not be the reason. But choice alone is not reason enough to negate the responsibility of that choice. If it is a choice, then choices have consequences. We don’t give a drivers license to a person who chooses to show up intoxicated. They must be sober to take the test and receive the license.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ll note that as a vote for marijuana.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I think all drugs should be legal. I think all people should be able to choose their path in life. I think all choices have consequences that cannot be denied.

wildpotato's avatar

@alive Generally speaking you are right, but people can still go for 180 or more for a misdemeanor. And most people who are in jail for mj are in because they have been caught a second or third time. Remember the “Three Strikes Law”? A lot of states have adopted that.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

@wildpotato Doesn’t three strikes apply only to violent felonies?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


When did homosexuality become a “biological derivative”?

wildpotato's avatar

@The_Compassionate_Heretic I had to Wikipedia to be sure: not in all states, but it seems that you are right that this is the case in most. California is the notable exception -all 3 offenses can be of a “serious” and not a “violent” nature for the enhanced sentence to apply. Also, a strike can come even from a sealed juvenile offense :( I guess they had a vote to change this in 2004 but the voters wanted the system to stay for some reason…California, you confuse me.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

@wildpotato Funny thing about California… it has a reputation for being extremely liberal but that only in the most populated areas such as SF and LA. Outside of the major metropolitan areas, which is most of the state, it is very conservative which includes our state capital of Sacramento. California has sent people to prison for life with the 3rd strike being the theft of a pizza as an example.

dalepetrie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – first off, homosexuality doesn’t need to validate itself, and it is NOT different from race, in that it is something that is NOT VOLUNTARY. People are who they are….just like I didn’t check a box somewhere that says I want to be attracted to women (or prefer brunettes for that matter), homosexuals also don’t have a choice. Who cares what Colin Powell says, btw? Just because he’s black, that makes him an expert? And comparing separate but equal as it relates to race to separate but equal as it relates to anything else is not the same as comparing race to something else. The apples to apples is “separate but equal”. It doesn’t work, because once they are separate, enemies can divide and conquer.

And homosexuality did not “become” a “biological derivative”, sexuality of ANY kind is, has always been and will always be, homosexuality being one type of sexuality. You are making the same narrow minded divide and conquer type argument that screws people over. You don’t have to understand it, you don’t even have to like it, but if two people are in love, they don’t NEED your approval, they should be able to enter into a legal agreement just like any other group of people, PERIOD.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I wasn’t aware they found the gay gene.

dalepetrie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I don’t recall saying there even was a “gay gene” much less “they’ve found it”, what a silly argument, what is your point exactly? Sounds like the same type of jumping to conclusions that leads people to think that if we allow gay marriage, next thing you know people will want to marry their pets and end tables.

Since when do we have to know WHY people have the characteristics they do in order to validate them? My point is, people are who they are, who are YOU to tell them to be someone else? Or even to tell them they can be themselves, but if they do, they can’t have the same rights as you or I? Sounds like bigotry to me.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


“biological derivative” does suggest some form of biology involved. I only ask you to support your statement. If not genetic, then what biology do your refer to?

As to “why”? Humans ask why on practically everything. That’s how cures are found and bridges are built. Homosexuality is not above the “why” question. In our pursuit of that question, many answers have presented themselves. None of them are genetic to my knowledge.

There are many people who don’t have the same rights as I do. It’s usually because of the choices they have made. Besides, I never said the homosexual couldn’t be homosexual. I don’t tell anyone not to be who they are.

dalepetrie's avatar

Sex, the need to copulate is a biological derivative…with whom you choose to copulate is a) a preference, just like any other sexual preference…everyone prefers a particular hair color, eye color, body type…these are attributes that make us want to have sex. The urge to have sex is the urge to have sex…it’s not as if everyone has the urge to have sex with the opposite sex of person, and some just prefer the same sex, it’s that for whatever reason, some people prefer ONLY what you do not. Hey, I like tacos, I don’t like pork, does that mean that because a pork chop is better for you than a taco, and has fewer ingredients and is therefore a more natural and nutritious choice, that we need to know WHY I prefer tacos before I can eat them?

And I have no PROBLEM with asking why, the point is by what reason or logic do we need to know “why” before we accept that something is valid? We don’t apply that standard to anything else. We may seek to understand it, but we don’t demonize it up until the point that we DO understand it…or at least in cases where we HAVE done so, history has proven that we were WRONG in doing so (again, race comes to mind).

I’m willing to say that I don’t believe homosexuality is genetic, and I don’t think it has to be genetic in order for people who have that preference to be treated with equal rights. I do know it’s not a “choice”, any more than it’s a choice for me to find some women attractive and not others. Human sexual response is not fully understood, but much of it is, enough to know that people who are attracted to those of the opposite sex don’t just wake up one day and choose to be gay…doesn’t work like that, we KNOW it doesn’t, and if you believe otherwise, show me a single shred of evidence to support your belief and I’ll respect that your intentions are not to be bigoted against something you don’t understand.

The BIGGEST problem I have is you’re pretty much saying, if the characteristic can’t be “handed down” aka through our genes, then it MUST be a choice, and therefore we should be able to apply a different standard to people who make different choices. Well, gender is not hereditary, so by your logic, we should be able to apply different standards to males and females….well, actually we do, women make 70 cents on the dollar for what men make doing the same job…by your logic, that’s AOK.

And lest I misunderstand you, what rights do people not have that you do, because of choices they’ve made? I don’t want to think you’re a prejudiced, ignorant bigot, but you’re making it hard for me not to when you refer to homosexuality as invalid based on it having no genetic fingerprint, ergo it must be a (bad) choice.

dalepetrie's avatar

Bottom line to me is that the kind of rights bestowed upon people when they get married are basic human and civil rights. No human should be denied these rights, not for genetic reasons, not for non-genetic reasons. I find the very notion that because homosexuals can’t reproduce they must justify their need for basic human rights to be barbaric.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Prisoners don’t have the same rights that I do because of the choices they have made. Neither does the person who gives up their citizenship in favor of another country. The guy who joined Bally’s does not share the privileges that I do at the YMCA… because of the choice he made. The mother who drives her children to school drunk will soon not share the same rights that I do because of the choice she made.

What does sex have to do with marriage?

How are the unmarried banned from love?

There are many married who don’t have sex or love one another. There are many who love one another and have sex without being married. One does not automatically guarantee or constitute the other.

There are many urges that should be avoided for the safety of society and the self. Urges alone do not guarantee validation.

There are many who do “just wake up one day and choose to be gay”.

There are many who also voluntarily remove themselves from homosexuality.

Some situations are based upon choice and curiosity alone. The choices that people make have consequences. The most prevalent evidence for homosexuality is the lack of a strong male figure in the early years of childhood upbringing. Homosexuality may very well be an imprint of sorts, but not all childhood imprints are considered beneficial to society as a whole.

The institution of marriage is established. Homosexuals are free to establish their own institution with even more rights and privileges than marriage provides. Your concern for rights is a non issue.

But in truth, the underlying principle to homosexual marriage is not one of rights. It is one of validation. It is the ultimate answer to anyone who claims that there is something wrong with the homosexual.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


If it is a sex issue, then how is that comparable to a race issue? As well, procreation is not a factor when discussing marriage. Procreation is a matter for families. Marriage is not a requirement for family.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

Yet according to your previous statement, drug addicts deserve the rights they don’t currently have. Intriguing.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Are you speaking to me? If so, what “previous statement”?

Addicts should be allowed to be addicts if they so choose. The cigarette industry depends upon this. But they are not allowed to pursue their addiction in an established institution that choses not to allow it. If I want to smoke, I have limited choices for where I can do that.

jackfright's avatar

that way BOTH gay and straight people get something out of it.

prince's avatar

I enjoy how @realize subtly equates gays with criminals and smokers. Because, y’know, if it weren’t for these darn gays being gay in public places, I never would have gotten the big C from secondhand gayness!

And if by enjoy, I mean am unimpressed.

alive's avatar


when you read this you will most likely try to prove this comment wrong BUT im going to mention it anyways…. race is a perfect parallel to gay rights. we do not KNOW why people are a certain race. those “reasons” are often attributed to environmental factors i.e. living near the equator makes your skin darker. but why does dark skin make your hair curly? and once people move away from the equator and go to let’s say, cloudy england, why don’t they adapt to the new climate w/lighter skin? it is not only environment then, it is both environment and biology.

the same is true about homosexuality, that it is environmental and biological factors. so we have 2 factors total. biology and environment. choice is not a possible factor in someone’s sexuality. no one chooses their sexuality straight or gay. and no one can control their sexuality (whom they are attracted to). just like no one choses their personality. they have a personality. everyone has got one, and everyone’s is different based on a combination of their biology and environment.

anyways, race isn’t even real. BUT the fact is we discriminated against certain people for “being” a certain way,for reasons that are beyond their control. discrimination is illegal. therefore it ought to be corrected by the law. either make marriage legal for everyone or illegal for everyone. same for drugs, make them legal or illegal no matter who you are if you are a citizen of a country then everyone should have the same rights and protection under law.

not allowing gays to marry is a violation of equality. i think letting pot heads (no offense pot heads!) smoke weed is a LITTLE less important than 10% of the population being treated as less than equal.

what if 10% of the population couldn’t vote? would you help them get a vote and equal rights, or would you spend your time trying to get a drug that makes people stupid and hungry legalized? (sorry to use such strong language, i really don’t hate weed)

Jack79's avatar

I am neither gay nor do I smoke marijuana, so I don’t care (btw where I am gay marriages are legal, marijuana is not).

I could say marijuana, since I might decide to pick it up at some point in the future, whereas I cannot see myself re-marrying a woman, let alone a man!

Or I could say “let all them gays marry each other so there’s more women left for the rest of us”! But it would mainly be lesbians anyway, wouldn’t it?

I think both should be legal, but I don’t have a preference as to which should come first.

casheroo's avatar

My first instinct was to say gay marriage, but the thought of how much legalizing marijuana might help the country (financially) makes me want to say pot.
Hmm, I’ll go with gay marriage.

nysmith9's avatar

I will go with weed, I don’t hate gays in any way and do believe they deserve the same treatment with benifits, job promotion among other things. And I really hope the government would stop lumping those things together with the marriage issue. Because at the end of the day we are all human, with that I wouldn’t legalize gay marriage because strip religion from that and you still have a science issue there is a reason we have the parts we do, they match up for a reason, reproduction. If we were all gay the human race would not exsist therefore it is not natural. Add religion to that and morally it is not right, why do people think these days it’s such a bad thing to think men and women should be together? And whenever someone speaks about it people go off . And stop comparing years of slavery and oppression and laws keeping one race for living normal is the same as the gay cause it’s really not. Millions of people have been killed around the world due to race.Ex: the holocaust,I just believe if u let people do whatever they want they will do it. But pot on relaxs u I know people who deal with extreme pain and pot helps them, pot also can stimulate the economy . The media makes weed what it is, and stop calling it a gateway drug it’s not weed it’s the person consuming it. There a gate way not the weed

cak's avatar

Gay marriage. We’re talking about equal rights for a group of people that so far, it’s be green-lighted by the country to discriminate against. That’s more important that being able to legally get high, in my opinion. I am a bit shocked that some people would go for pot before equal rights.

What if the choice would have been legalize pot or give African Americans rights? Or The Vote for Women. It’s the same thing…geez people!

nysmith9's avatar

Stop comparing gay rights to slavery or laws keeping you from marrying a white women or going to a store or a certain part of town or for crying out loud going to school. It’s absolutely insane to compare the 2

cak's avatar

@nysmith9 – It’s insane to bring up the fact that it’s another fight for equal rights? Oh, okay. eye roll

nysmith9's avatar

Eye roll? Ge’ez listen I think gay people should get the same rights we do with benifits but I already listed all the reasons in my first post not to legalize it, but comparing gay rights to slavery is wrong , it’s it own issue

Jack79's avatar

I think gay people should be forced to smoke pot, then they’d be too stoned to think about marriage.

In fact, I think straight marriage should be outlawed. Then we’d all have equal rights and homosexuals would not feel “left out” of the wonderful benefits of snoring husbands, nagging wives, abusive spouces and intrusive in-laws.

cak's avatar

@nysmith9 – I don’t agree with your reasons. I don’t agree that just because if you strip away the religious side of it, then it’s down to the science side and if we were all gay…well you know, it was your statement. I believe that government should be out of the marriage business, but until it is, they need to make it equal, across the board. Gay marriage should be legal, and now. It is important, it is something that can be compared to other fights (rights) because as it stands right now, it’s legal discrimination.

If we had a true separation of church and state, maybe this wouldn’t be such an issue, or maybe there would still be enough people willing to discriminate against a group of people, to prevent their legal union.

You don’t think that gays have suffered? You don’t think that they’ve had to live their life in the shadows to attain the smallest of rights? You clearly have followed some of their suffering. Hate crimes? Not being treated fairly in the workplace, healthcare issues. What about what gay people are going through isn’t a fight for equal rights, just like other groups before them? We’ve just allowed this to last longer. Because religion is too intermingled in government. Because some people find it repulsive, because some people are too ignorant to see that just because two men love each other or two women love each other, it’s not going to change then into a homosexual. People are so backwards in their thoughts on this. It amazes me that people don’t see the underlining issue that it’s still a fight for rights. It’s no less than any other fight.

I simply disagree with you.

nysmith9's avatar

You are right about one thing the legal rights should be seperate but I don’t agree with gay marriage so I won’t vote for it I have gay freinds and tell. Them to there face I don’t agree but there human and if there good people I will love them anyway and they know that. But your opinion is just as right as mine because it’s only an opinion we can battle all day you make good points and so do I. Cheers! And ps: no more eye rolls. ;)

cak's avatar

@nysmith9 – Okay, I’ll lay off the eye rolling – well, for now! ;) Thanks for hearing my point of view.

PandoraBoxx's avatar

You should be able to negotiate a marriage contract with whomever you want. Given that the heterosexual divorce rate is 50%, I would have to say that the traditional model does not have much to recommend itself in terms of a track record. Biblically, a marriage was a contract (before lawyers) sealed with the exchange of goods, camels, whatever. It should still be a contractural arrangement.

I would have to go with civil unions for all; religions can do what they want with who can/can’t have a religious ceremony.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


If my comments are subtle, then yours have made it obvious through the usage of sarcasm. The words, “darn gays” and “second hand gayness” are from your lips, not mine.

You neglect to mention that my illustrations were directed at the consequences that ride along with each and every choice that humans make, and not specified for homosexuality alone. My illustrations also included fitness and citizenship.

But thank you for opening the door wider for more consideration about choice and consequence.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


My comments have nothing to do with proof. Science does not set out to prove something wrong, and neither do I. Good science pays homage to the reality at hand, and it quickly refutes notions based upon erroneous claims. I will do the same.

We do “KNOW” why people are a certain race. There are specific genetic markers, both phenotype and genotype that determine these things. The phenotype can change based upon immediate environmental pressures. The genotype can change with natural selection. This of course is a dramatic oversimplification, and science is not completely unified on the subject. But nothing to do with race can change through counseling or choice. People can “choose” to manually override their phenotype if they wish through sunbathing, hair coloring, lip implants, contact lenses, makeup, wigs and fingernail polish…

Homosexuality has been shown to consistently change through both counseling and choice. Homosexuality has never been linked to any type of genetic marker. But in all fairness, bi-sexuality has been linked to brain shape. This is an interesting, yet inconclusive development, and one that surprises me that homosexuals don’t regularly promote in support of their cause.

If sexual preference is to be considered as biological trait, and one that should never be questioned, then bestiality and pedophilia have gained momentum for their cause as well. Both bestiality and pedophilia have been proven to change through counseling and choice, just like homosexuality. Homosexuality has not shown itself to be an identity like male and female, black, white, red, or yellow. Homosexuality consistently shows itself to be more akin to choice or behavioral conditioning.

Our society consistently discriminates against all sorts of people for “being” a certain way. It is not illegal at all. Child molesters are not allowed to work in day care centers. Obese people are not allowed to become astronauts. Terrorists are not allowed to join the US Air force. Religious fanatics “should not be” allowed to run the Government. The impoverished are not allowed to join the country club. The wealthy are not allowed to get food stamps. Women are not allowed to join the NFL. Jews are not allowed to join the KKK. Men are not allowed to play on the Women’s basketball team either.

Separate but Equal is an issue of race, and gender. It is not designed for issues of sexual preference or behavior imprinting. I’m not here to prove or disprove anything, but I will accept the evidence for what it actually is and not try to conflate egotistical opinion into reality. Homosexuality attempts to validate itself on the track record of the long standing institution of marriage. It does this because it cannot validate itself through its own merit. If everyone were Asian, society would flourish. If everyone were homosexual, we would quickly become extinct.

I do not suppose to deny anyone from chosing their sexual preference. I will not show intollerance to someone who has endured a questionable childhood imprint of any kind. I will not allow false associations to be made when evidence speaks clearly to the contrary. I will not force an established institution to change its foundational principles just so someone else can feel good about themselves.

Homosexuals are free to establish their own institution and attain through merit more rights than any group ever has in history. Women are free to establish their own athletic organizations and Jews are free to create their own groups as well. No one should stop anyone from doing anything as long as it does not infringe upon the established protocols of another.

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

I’m a supporter of homosexual marriage but would probably vote to legalize marijuana because:
Our local govt. could tax it, reduce the violent criminal element and taxpayer expense currently attached to it and new business/production could be built on products from weed which would bolster our local economy.

tinyfaery's avatar

Since you said my local government, I’d say legalize mary jane. First of all, even in CA did allow gay marriage, my rights in the country and the state will not change. At this point, marriage in CA would be in name only. I’d still only have the rights afforded to me by my domestic partnership: the benifits only apply in CA, I cannot file taxes with my wife, I cannot collect her social security, etc. Legalizing mary jane would have great benefit to all the people in my state.

If you had said federally, I’d say legalize gay marriage. People are always more important than money.

dalepetrie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – You’ve managed to equate homosexuality to beastiality, pedophilia, and people in prison for committing crimes, and you’ve expressed a concrete belief that you can actually change a person’s sexuality. WOW. I really don’t have the will to argue with ignorance like that. Just the fact that you actually believe there are people who “do just wake up one day and decide to be gay” completely undermines your credibility among those people who don’t hate, judge and fear that which we don’t understand. I won’t even ask you what evidence or example of such a situation you have to support that, because I know plenty of gay people, and I know that is a myth, people are who they are, and people like you create a problem out of it when it’s not at all problematic for the people who live it.

I have only one other comment, and you can respond if you want, but I’m not even going to read your quips any more because they make me violently ill to see someone actively trying to defend their appalling intolerance with circular logic. The idea that you can “change” a gay person and turn them straight is perhaps the worst myth ever perpetrated by religious whack jobs and other hatemongers. Homosexuality does not have a biological marker because it is a PERSONALITY trait. Do you know why I’m an Accountant, but others in my family are mechanics, artists, military people, engineers, nurses, waitresses, secretaries and so on and so forth? We all think differently, we all have things which make us drawn to specific types of work, because my mind works in a very systematic, mathematical way, so I’m drawn to a career working with numbers, whereas some people, even one’s I’m closely related to, couldn’t do math to save their lives…these things aren’t genetic…my mind works nothing like my parents’ minds just is what it is, and why? I don’t know, doesn’t mean it’s not true. But by your logic, we should take me and put me in art instructions schools, and I could “learn” how to make art…I’d learn the mechanics of it, but you know what, I still wouldn’t have that thing inside me that made me passionate about it, that made me good at it…it wouldn’t be me, any more than if you took my aunt who likes to paint and make pottery and put her in college to get an Accounting degree….she would never be an accountant, just not going to happen.

My point is, what you are suggesting is we should “make” homosexuals deny their true nature, their true personalities in order for them to be allowed equal human rights. sure, you can train a person to feel really, really bad about themselves when their natural urges tell them they want to do something that you don’t think is acceptable, and you can train them to channel their desires so that they can mentally force themselves to perform in a situation which is unnatural to them. But that’s is completely vile, inhumane and sick.

You disgust and sicken me, and though I think you’re entitled to your opinions no matter how wrong, cruel and vile they may be, but I am not going to read them anymore, I know where you and people who think like you stand, and all I have to say to you is, it’s coming sooner or later and you’re going to have to deal with it, because it’s reached the point now where gays are no longer shoved in a closet where we don’t have to deal with them, and they are, as PEOPLE are wont to do, demanding the same rights as every other human being. It’s not a sex issue, it’s not a crime issue, it’s not a perversion issue, and no one gives a flying fuck if you think it’s “icky”....humans deserve human rights, period and no amount of parsing words, justifications or obfuscations regarding scientific knowledge will change that simple fact. They’re queer, they’re here and they’re sick of being treated like second class citizens because people like YOU have a problem with it, so get USED TO IT, because marriage equality is only a matter of time.

adreamofautumn's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies and that is just one of many. Google “ex-gay” and “suicide rates”. The suicide rates jump up quite a bit among “ex-gays”. Prominent “ex-gays” have noted that they still repress same sex feelings, etc.
Sorry for jumping into the conversation here, but I thought I should point out that there is definitely an argument AGAINST your argument that changing ones sexual orientation is possible.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Yes thank you for that information. There are always many considerations for sensitive issues.

EmpressPixie's avatar

Gay marriage. Not even a question for me. Equality for all.

Re: biological proof, if you look at the way the brain develops for a homosexual man and a hetersexual man, there are certain, developmental differences. Neither brain is better or worse, simply structured slightly differently. Homosexual brains, to be blunt, are structured more like the brain of the opposite sex. So yes, there is something fundamentally, biologically different between sexualities.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Yes there are many sources of information to confirm your comments. But few of them go into the details of why. Does homosexuality cause the brain to change, or do the brain differences cause homosexuality? This paper examines the research rather than repeat the ad-hoc.

dalepetrie's avatar

Don’t know why I do this to myself, ‘cept to say that I wasn’t going to read any more of RealEyes’ hateful rhetoric, and I guess I can exempt links. So, what exactly however do the links prove that I did not already say? They show 3 examples of people being “converted” to heterosexuality BY THE FUCKING CHURCH!!!!!

I’ll tell you what. I’ll scare the ever living fuck out of you, tell you that something you enjoy as part of your very personality is going to cause you to spend an eternity of torment in HELL, and damn right you’ll try to do it MY WAY.

It’s still a barbaric practice…it’s still convincing people that there’s something innately wrong with the way they are, even if they didn’t choose to be that way, and therefore they must change it or suffer the consequences.

Wanna know the aftermath of trying to overcome your sexuality. Two words…Ted Haggard. I rest my case, and now lest I be tempted again, I’m going to stop following this thread…a shame because there are actually some really interesting people who have things of value to add to it.

I hope everyone else stops feeding the troll as well.

Peace out.

Since010501's avatar

There is no hesitation as for my choice—gay marriage should be legal. Love is love—-

Since010501's avatar

Also-even though it is only locally legalized…that is one step closer to gay marriage being federally legalized.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: Actually, if you pick up an Intro to Psych textbook these days, they’ve got it all laid out nicely with pretty, pretty pictures, theories and other useful information that you should be able to understand.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Any recommendations? I’ve often found that pretty, pretty pictures are used to sway opinions, avoiding the real essence of the research. But information is always appreciated. I’m much more concerned with factual data than opinions, insults, sarcasm and accusations… as the reference I provided you with clearly does not take a side on the matter. In fact, if you would have read it, you’d find it leans more towards the homosexual cause, and provides other support from other sciences.

alive's avatar

off the topic of gay marriage, but on the topic of homosexuality, which seems to be where this is going right now…

Historically it IS a civil rights issue; blacks won their civil rights and gays did not. ever hear of stonewall? – google it.

gays have been having this fight for as long as anyone else.

also gays all around the US and all around the world are beaten and killed for being gay.

“Homosexuality has not shown itself to be an identity like male and female, black, white, red, or yellow. Homosexuality consistently shows itself to be more akin to choice or behavioral conditioning.”

gay is an identity, just like anything else is an identity. (there is no way to refute this)
sexuality cannot be changed. people’s actions can change, but no person has control over their sexuality. (it may evolve depending on the person’s life and experiences, but it cannot change on demand.).

and almost all the research on this subject is done on men, gay men. not women. because society is deathly afraid of gay men, but lesbians, “oh thats hot!”. so most scientific reaseach about “gayness” is bias. very very bias.

also i would like to note that there is really no such thing as “straight” and “gay” those are just boxes that we use to describe very general things. the kinsey scale concept is widely accepted by anyone who has ever studied sexuality.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

Gay marriage. Legalizing marijuana is insignificant when comparing it to something that would bring more, much needed, equality to the world.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Every argument used here to defend homosexuality could also be used to defend someone’s preference or inclination towards a particular flavor of ice cream, bestiality, health club, incest, automobile, pedophilia, eating habits, Tourette syndrome, or diabetes.

They presume that all choices are equal or that all human conditions are beneficial. Not one person has even attempted to illustrate a single difference between these things and homosexuality. Preferring instead to claim that I am simply hateful and intolerant. I seem to be quite “disgusting” & “vile” to some here. Yet my words have only been avoided, not addressed. Those who attack my words have clearly become a parody of the hateful religious fanatics that they mock.

Answer my statements with crass if you will. It only further demonstrates the similarities between you and the addict who manipulates reality through boisterous anger to defend themselves. My questions have remained unanswered.

What does sex have to do with marriage?

How are the unmarried banned from love?

How is sexual preference comparable to race?

Are all choices or human conditions equal and able to validate themselves by their own merit?

How does homosexuality validate itself under its own merit whether it be choice driven, or even some form of “biological derivative”?

I accept that homosexuality is a reality every bit as much as anorexia, alcoholism or impotence. No one has provided a distinction otherwise. No one can claim that people are inherently bad because of it either.

Bulimics have no right to change the foundational principles of Dietary Reference Intakes. But if they could, it would validate their life without the need to explore their condition fully. Shall we hear their hateful cry of intolerance and abandon reason?

Smokers have no right to change the policies of a non smoking restaurant. But if they could, it would validate their life without the need to explore their condition fully. Shall we hear their hateful cry of intolerance and abandon reason?

Homosexuality has no right to change a centuries old institution that has safely guided our humanity into the flourishing diversity it currently benefits from. They are free to establish their own institution, with more rights than marriage, claiming their own heritage, by their own merit. Shall we hear or fear their hateful cry of intolerance and abandon reason?

Religion has done you wrong. I’m so sorry for that. Religion can be a scourge, and you have suffered unjustly at the hands of it’s self righteous judgment. I cannot begin to know your pain, but I will do what is possible to not let religion hurt you any longer. I’m so sorry for you. Yet I cannot allow your sorrow to blind society into believing that changing marriage is equal to justice. It is not.

Your justice, like all justice, shall ultimately come through the merit of your own historical institution, seen as equal in the eyes of all people. I will fight for your right to have that. I would fight to keep others from changing it as well.

MacBean's avatar

Damn, that’s a lot of ignorance all in one place.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@MacBean @tinyfaery

You can judge the comment, or address the comment. Only one will prove my ignorance.

MacBean's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You prove your ignorance all by yourself. You don’t need anybody’s help. I don’t have the time, patience, or energy to point out all of the things you’ve said that I find personally offensive, and there are about twice as many things that I find generally offensive. When people have genuine questions, I’m happy to discuss things with them. But you’ve shown time and time again in more threads than this one that you have some pretty backward-ass opinions that you will argue no matter what kind of reason is shown to you, so I feel it’s absolutely pointless for me to do anything other than say “Wow” and go back to the intelligent corner where people listen to sense and follow Earth logic.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Offending you is a none issue, personally or generally. Either mock my comments or address them directly. Only one will prove my ignorance. The other proves yours.

Teach me about Earth logic please.

MacBean's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Like I said, your comments prove your ignorance without any outside help. And I don’t have the patience for people who I think are willful idiots.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Insults betray the one who lacks reason. A lack of patience is a sign of weakness.

MacBean's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies When it comes to stuff like this, I fully admit to weaknesses in discussion. It’s why I don’t engage in debate unless the other person has shown certain levels of intelligence, tolerance and genuine curiosity and willingness to listen. Because the ignorance and bigotry and idiocy overwhelm me and I lose my cool and don’t do such a great job expressing things. In your case, not only do I not think you would be willing to honestly listen to anything I had to say, I don’t think I’d be able to keep a civil tongue enough to properly say what I mean.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Understood. You know very well, that until the passion leaves the issue, then no resolve will ever be found. This thread could easily be used as a platform for open discussion. My comments could be viewed as an opportunity to address the underlying rejection of so many people when it comes to Gay Marriage.

Use this as a tool to benefit your cause. Digest my words and discuss the issues with those with like thinking of your own. Answering with discussion rather than insults is the best way to promote your cause. The Homosexual community should know this better than anyone, as it has been victimized by the terrible insults of others for far too long.

Rise above the passion, and know that the concerns I have presented are real. They will not disappear with the wave of a hand. The Homosexual mindset has produced countless benefits to this world. But it will need more than that to peacefully and genuinely overcome longstanding tradition. Even if Gay Marriage was universally accepted, there would still be many who present the same issues that I have. Consider them deeply please. That’s the only way to give a considerate answer to them.

EmpressPixie's avatar

You likened homosexuality to:
1. Anorexia. Why this is an unreasonable comparison: All evidence shows that anorexia is a societal disorder—which is to say a mental illness that has no origin in biology, but every origin in [Western] society and pressures from society. Whereas homosexuality is a development of sexuality that is found in all forms of human society, indicating it is more likely to be a part of nature.
2. Addiction. While it is possible for homosexuals or heterosexual to form addictions to sex, just as it is possible for someone to form an addiction to alcohol, the comparison is not apt because it deals with different functions of the brain. Also because when comparing sexuality to addiction, you cannot separate any sexuality—homosexuality may be seen as an addiction to the same sex, but then heterosexuality must also been seen as an addiction to the opposite sex.
3. Impotence. This is an invalid comparison because it is meaningless in this context. You can be impotent for many reasons from a medicine you are currently taking to a psychological problem (depression is most common) to a genetic disorder to trying to any number of other things. It is a symptom, usually of a greater problem.

Re: inclination towards a particular flavor of ice cream, bestiality, health club, incest, automobile, pedophilia, eating habits, Tourette syndrome, or diabetes.

Personal preferences that speak to personality (ice cream, health club, auto, eating habits): There are many factors that go into developing your personality such that you will choose, say, a safe auto over a flashy one or health food over McDonald’s. If you believe that heterosexuality is a choice, then you will see no difference. However, you are also demonstrably wrong.

Biological issues: Diabetes and Tourette’s. These are large, spanning categories. Do you mean childhood diabetes? Diabetes A? B? Mild Tourette’s? Using massive, spanning categories to try and compare heterosexuality to a disorder is rude because I can’t actually say anything about it. It’s like if you compared energy to sexuality. While I can explain why electricity is different and wind energy is different and water energy is different and oil drilling is different, etc. the effort involved is bizarre and unreasonable. Use specific examples if you want to know why X is not like Y. In very, very general terms I will say this much: It is true that, like Tourettes and diabetes, sexuality has an influence on how you live your life. You must make certain accomodations for it. As a heterosexual, you probably have to buy birth control of some sort. As a diabetic you have to watch sugar intake. As someone with Tourettes you have to go to counseling. However, any comparison beyond that is bizarre beyond belief for the above mentioned reasons.

Sexual interests: Okay, I know this one is really, really hard to grasp, but here goes:
When it comes to sexual interests, as an enlightened society we generally have one rule: both sides must be capable of consenting to the action. Anything else is rape. An animal is not capable of consenting. Neither is a child. In both cases, we say this is because they do not fully understand the implications (physical and psychological) nor are they able to voice an informed opinion. Ergo to have sex with them is rape. This is also why it is rape to have sex with someone who is drunk.

When we talk about homosexuality or heterosexuality as sexualities, we are talking about adults capable of consent. Ergo, the comparison is not apt. It is merely offensive.

What does sex have to do with marriage?
It doesn’t have to have anything to do with marriage. It is the legal and financial combining of two lives. Anyone who says differently is obscuring the issue. Marriage, in the United States, is a legal institution that affords couples approximately 1400 rights and privileges. It is impossible to attain all of these rights and privileges without being legally married. It is simply, literally, not possible. It is possible to attempt to approximate them but it is exceedingly expensive to do so. Gay couples who live in states that do not provide for gay marriage must pay what is often referred to as “the gay tax”. This is a 50% tax—the average rate higher than heterosexuals that they must pay—to achieve some semblance of what two drunk and rowdy college kids can get in Vegas.

How are the unmarried banned from love?
They aren’t, they are banned from the rights and privileges of heterosexual love. I can marry my boyfriend. I can. And once I do, if I die, he will get my stuff. Tax free. I can create a number of documents that approximate marriage to my girlfriend. And when I die, she’ll pay huge taxes on her inheritance from me. If I fall in and go to the hospital, my husband can see me on my death bed. My girlfriend, despite having power of attorney and the ability to make all legal and medical decisions should I be incapable of doing so, can still be banned from my deathbed because she is not legally family.

How is sexual preference comparable to race?
You’re using the word preference here to annoy me. How is sexuality comparable to race? Well, you can’t change either. It is something you are born with. You can be discriminated against because of it. Many people have been killed for being the wrong one. It can put you in a minority. And it used to be that race could legally prevent you from getting married to the person of your choice. Now sex can.

Are all choices or human conditions equal and able to validate themselves by their own merit?

Your long standing position here is that homosexuality is a choice. It isn’t. But to answer this question, we’ve decided—as a society—that as long as you are not a danger to yourself or others, then yes—your choices and conditions are valid by their own merit and we will not and cannot interfere.

How does homosexuality validate itself under its own merit whether it be choice driven, or even some form of “biological derivative”?

It doesn’t have to validate itself. Homosexuality on its own does not hurt anyone, ergo as a society we’ve decided it is fine.

Bulimics have no right to change the foundational principles of Dietary Reference Intakes.
Bulimia is a disease that kills. It harms those who have it, often irreparably. If they do not get treatment or overcome the disease, they die. Sexuality does not kill.

Smokers have no right to change the policies of a non smoking restaurant.
Read the comment about bulimia.

Homosexuality has no right to change a centuries old institution that has safely guided our humanity into the flourishing diversity it currently benefits from. They are free to establish their own institution, with more rights than marriage, claiming their own heritage, by their own merit. Shall we hear or fear their hateful cry of intolerance and abandon reason?

Marriage has changed over the years. It is certainly no longer what it was 1,000 or even 100 years ago. Women have changed it, to give themselves the rights they deserve. This change is no different. It is meant to include those who are currently cheated and excluded. Marriage, in the sense that it is talked about in the United States in this debate is not a religious argument. Those who try to claim it is, or that it is centuries old, are obscuring the true argument for their own purposes. It is a legal and financial arrangement between two people. Homosexuals are already happily religiously married (or not, their choice) in places where they cannot be legally married. It happens all the time.

Thus, this is purely a discussion about the legal institution in the United States. Because it is in the US, it cannot be more than a few centuries old. And in that time we have already modified it drastically to restrict age, to give women rights, to make it possible for more people to marry. This is no different. Saying it is—or that it is more than 2.5 centuries old—or saying it is a religious issue—or anything else of that nature, is attempting to obscure the issue so that it cannot be properly debated.

Now, having said all of that, your comparisons in your piece were all complete inept and poorly made. Your ignorance was startlingly clear. @MacBean was probably entirely correct in not even attempting to educate you because I’m not sure it is possible. People cling to their illogical, uneducated beliefs when they want to, and it is clear from everything you’ve said, that you want to. Thus I expect that if you read this, you will choose to ignore it’s heart and attack perceived weaknesses that are not, actually weak at all. Though I highly doubt you will both to read it, content in your ignorance.

These “concerns” are not real, and have been talking about and dismissed as true concerns just about everywhere. Yet you continue to bring them up. Thus, your bigotry is revealed.

Qingu's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? I don’t remember ever “choosing” to be attracted to the ladies. Perhaps you’re projecting your bisexuality?

Also, are you saying the institution of marriage hasn’t changed before? Great! Do you have a virgin daughter? According to the Bible (Deuteronomy 22:28), I can rape her and then get to marry her after paying you the brideprice. People used to think of women as property of men, so, “you break it, you buy it.” Since the institution of marriage has never changed, I’m assuming you’re okay with this?

augustlan's avatar

@EmpressPixie Bravo. I wish I could lurve you a thousand times for that.

cak's avatar

@EmpressPixie – That has got to be one of the best responses, ever. Great job.

PandoraBoxx's avatar

Apparently Pat Robertson said that “legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing sex with ducks”?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I don’t recall choosing to have this penis of mine. But I will accept it and acknowledge the gender that I am because of it. Perhaps you are correct though, and I am projecting my bisexuality. I’ll keep an eye out for it. Thanks for the tip!

As to marriage changing… see below (around paragraph 40)

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Your thoughtful comments are welcomed, deserving extreme consideration and close attention. What in the world makes you think I wouldn’t read them?

I take issue with a number of your conclusions, but I’m very grateful to receive your rebuttal to my comments. Open dialogue is good enough for me, and that’s all I really wanted here. It is gracious for you to have taken the time to express your position clearly. I am a better person for hearing you. This topic has much to consider for everyone concerned, and only through open discussion can everyone be truly heard. Thank you very, very much.

Anorexia, as you note, “is a societal disorder”. I used it as a simple example of such. Though that particular one may be mostly limited to Western culture, , by no means is it incapable of spreading worldwide through a refusal to acknowledge it as a disorder.

“Social Networking and eating disorders combine to produce a worldwide audience.”

So lets address Social Disorders in general. You said:
“…homosexuality is a development of sexuality…”

No doubt this is a possibility. And if it is true, my question is “why” it develops. Similar to a good researcher asking “why” any SD should develop. If however, as you say, it is “a part of nature”, then shall we compare it with the other 4,000 known birth defects?


I see no reason to firmly state that Homosexuality is a Social Disorder, nor a natural birth defect. Both claims are inconclusive, and both present a need for further research. There are plenty of things that are perfectly natural, that are not considered beneficial to society at large. And Anorexia can spread throughout the planet if it is not acknowledged as an SD. As the article above illustrates, banning it does nothing, and those who refuse to acknowledge the issue only serve to spread it by openly celebrating it as beneficial… very similar to Homosexuality.

I suspect, personally, that Homosexuality is something entirely different that an SD or natural birth defect. But the similarities are there nonetheless.

We agree that Homosexuality is not an addiction either. But it is common practice for the addict to avoid facing up to their affliction, violently insulting all who would question their behavior. That’s a dead giveaway to something being really wrong. This current thread has embraced a few insults in order to avoid answering questions. But thanks to you, we can actually discuss the topic rather than dodge insults.

As well, Crack babies are born addicts, and obviously not by choice. This is not a natural birth defect either. It is induced. Being born a certain way does not guarantee that it is beneficial to anyone. No one encourages the Crack baby to continue with the addiction through maturity, as it is detrimental for the person and society at large. Point being, regardless of choice, or birth disorder, not all choices or conditions are considered beneficial, hence not all should be blindly accepted without a great deal of consideration into the matter.

Not having determined a cause for homosexuality, if there even is one, does give credence to those who would question its authority to change an established institution. You may not agree with this, but surely you understand why the opposition shows caution.

Having said that, I must reinforce that the Church has historically and blatantly gone beyond the realm of caution, and entertained the notions of judgmental persecution at great lengths. This is completely unacceptable, another disgusting blight upon humanity. I hope it will end with more discussions like this.

Thanks for distinguishing homosexuality from impotence. I suppose a comparison was inferred, but not directly intended beyond the fact of accepting that both homosexuality and impotence existed. Meaning, not to deny homosexuality is real, that’s all. I apologies for the unintended inferential comparison.

I’m unaware of a genetic disorder for either one. But since you mentioned impotence as possibly a “psychological… symptom… of a greater problem”, you must see the valid comparison to homosexuality. There is no lack of study to determine a monumental link between homosexuality, and a lacking gender model in the early years of childhood development. This easily satisfies a comparison between the two as possibly a “psychological… symptom… of a greater problem”.

I really don’t understand your comment. Did you mean to say:
“If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then you will see no difference.”…?

Please advise…

If you perceive this as “massive, spanning categories”, then my point was missed, and rudeness unintended. Your point is taken about “certain accommodations”, and we completely agree they “influence on how you live…”. But my point was missed.

Point being, another example of a “biological issue” that we must all accept as real, yet society is not expected to completely reengineer itself in order to accommodate for every single biological issue/disorder… no matter what phase it is currently in, A, B, or mild.

My dissertation addresses both the possibilities of “choice” and the “biology” of homosexuality, consistently illustrating that neither one automatically constitutes restructuring of societal institutions without a very deep look into the why and how of it all.

I’m sure it is offensive. I’m sorry for that, truly I am. As you say, “this one is really, really hard to grasp”, and thus it is easy to be offended when none was intended. With the most delicate choice of words, I will attempt to explain.

There are those, fewer and fewer thankfully, who do presume to base their sexuality purely on choice. This offensiveness can go both ways, especially when considering the charter of organizations like The Man Boy Society. Just as vile are many Catholic priests, and we all shared convulsions upon the latest news from the Irish Orphanages.

May we agree that “choice” alone is unsuitable to base sexual preferences upon? If so, how does that speak to the teenager who makes a choice to experiment? Perhaps with no homosexual tendencies at all, boredom, confusion, and peer pressure will lead many youth down the wrong path during a very sensitive and questioning time. Homo/Hetero right or wrong, the wrong choice can have dire consequences.

This is indeed a matter of life and death. New studies show there is no greater rate of suicide for homosexuals than for heterosexuals, and possibly never has been. The homosexual community has been accused of conflating the data to rally support for sexual tolerance while the Church has also used the very same data to undermine the validity of homosexual lifestyle. Beyond the lies of each camp, could any of those suicides be at the hands of shame? Shame of having made the wrong choice and not being able to face it…

As to Bestiality and Pedophiles, “I just am this way” is a common excuse. Correctional facilities are filled with offenders who make it their choice to rape their very own children. One client I know believes it is perfectly natural, recommends the practice, and is oblivious as to why society doesn’t agree with him. His IQ is 175.

We agree that consent is paramount, but there is more to it than that. Consensual Polygamy and Incest are common. Will you then allow them to compare to Homosexuality? Let’s go further and consider Consensual Homosexual Incest. What harm could come from that? No children are born into deformity.

If this comparison is “offensive”, then we must discover why. I propose it stems from the unspoken understanding that, if left to themselves, none of these practices are capable of properly supporting life on our planet. The best argument could only be made for Polygamy, and not without numerous truancies.

No offense intended. Only genuine concerns.

Again, if everyone were Homosexual, then we would not be here very much longer. Homosexuality cannot stand on its own merit, and thus it seeks to attain marriage as a point of validation. This is the best course to halting all efforts of determining its causes.

We agree in part, that marriage is “the legal and financial combining of two lives”. But there is more to it than that.

Courtesy of the United Nations
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Paragraph (1) does not mention Homosexuality in the company of Race, Nationality or Religion. I cannot find Homosexuality anywhere in the document. I presume Homosexuals and many others are included when the document refers to “everyone”.

I have addressed all concerns for rights and property numerous times in this thread. Homosexuals should be entitled to all the benefits of everyone. To do less would be to judge them as inferior. This is unacceptable. I pledge my support to assist in attaining those rights, even if they become greater than those reserved for Heterosexual marriage. But I will not force marriage to change. It may evolve on its own. If Homosexuality can demonstrate how the Institution of Marriage would benefit from allowing it, then I would support that as well.

Wait a second… Hetero Love is not dependent upon marriage. And your concern for “rights and privileges” is addressed completely in the above paragraph.

I have no intentions of “annoying” you. But annoyance can easily arise from continually comparing “sexuality” to “race”. Let’s put our “annoyance” aside and consider the evidence.

I did not develop the programs that consistently, successfully redirect Homosexuals to Heterosexuality. But I will not deny the testimonials of those who have proven the platform.

“Well, you can’t change either.”

Perhaps I cannot, but there are those who have successfully achieved that task would disagree with your statement. I defer your argument to them, as I have no reason to question their statements. Speaking of course to Homosexuality, not Race.

“It is something you are born with”.

Can you support that statement with conclusive scientific evidence? The one who does would surely win the Nobel Prize. The brain shape studies are inconclusive, and not capable of determining if Homosexuality causes the brain to change, or the brain causes Homosexuality. Inconclusive and does not warrant your bold statement as reliable.

Your other comparisons of persecution and discrimination are valid, but they must also include religious affiliation, as well as physical and mental afflictions to be completely accurate.

“Now sex can”… Are you suggesting that Homosexuality is its own gender? If this be the case, then we are due for a complete rehab of our public restroom facilities.

You said:
“Your long standing position here is that homosexuality is a choice”.

Not at all, I have consistently addressed all facets of Homosexuality where “choice” has been but one suggested aspect. “It isn’t” is not a universal given.

As to your thoughtful reply, we agree completely that choices are validated by their own merit, and have no authority to harm or hinder another human being.

You said:
“Homosexuality on its own does not hurt anyone…”

If Homosexuality was on its own, we wouldn’t be here, ergo as a society, we have not universally decided it is “fine”. Hurting would be the last of our worries. Homosexuality cannot be on its own, it requires Heterosexuality to even exist.

If it could stand on its own, then it would validate itself by its own merit, choice or not.

As well, hurt comes in many forms. It is not always apparent during the process of simple physical sexual contact. Images and desires can form in the mind, offering false comfort. Society as a whole is often the unintended victim of what at first seems to be beneficial. There are many examples of this as I’m sure you are quite aware.

Point taken. But your comment “It harms those who have it, often irreparably.”… is often pointed towards the Homosexual as well. I will not go there personally. Although there may be some truth in doing so… emphasis might… I feel it is unproductive to the greater issue. Harm comes in many forms.

Certainly you speak the truth. Yes it has changed countless times over the centuries. But that change has always come from those who are within the institution of marriage, as all institutions are changed from within. Changes that come from outside the institution are called hostile takeover.

If the Heterosexual community wants to change the institution of marriage from within, allowing Homosexuals entry, then so be it. But it will come from the thoughtful consideration of those within, and not from the cry of those outside. Especially when those outside can readily establish their own institution.

As a side note, to address your statement that Homosexuals are regularly married through religious sanction… You well know that there is no religious doctrine that supports those marriage arrangements. This only happens when a Church specifically denies the teachings of its sacred foundations, begging the question… what real religion?

Not by the charter of the United Nations. But you are very correct that not all nations attend to that facility as they claim to. Personally, I’m not one to abide by or reference laws of other nations for the courts in this country. I know that many believe we should though.

Qingu's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, I don’t think you understood what my point was.

Correct, you did not choose to have a penis. Neither did I. I also didn’t choose to like girls. I also didn’t choose to like chocolate ice cream more than peanut butter ice cream. Preferences and instincts are not choices—even if they are not genetic in nature. It simply makes no sense to say that they are.

As for institutions having to “change from within,” I assume you would be equally critical of women’s suffrage? Voting had traditionally been a male-only institution—were women who were trying to get the right to vote engaging in hostile takeover? What about blacks and the civil rights movement? If I understand your argument, you would have preferred women and blacks to shut up and wait for white males to change their institutions from the inside, yes?

Qingu's avatar

Also, comparing consenting homosexual sex to bestiality or pedophelia is simply dishonest. EP made it clear that adult consent was her yardstick for whether sex is moral.

(The problem with incest is that it is difficult to determine the validity of consent when we are talking about family dynamics from a young age. Polygamy, as traditionally practiced, often disenfranchises women in the relationship—again, consent issues. That said, I have no problem with equitable polyandry.)

You need to stop making dishonest arguments if you want people to take anything you say seriously.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Those who were in control allowed women and blacks to participate. They were not forced, so no, it was not a hostile takeover. It was decided by congress through the majority will of the people, not forced upon anyone by the courts.

You should read the rest of my comment where I agreed that consent was paramount.

Qingu's avatar

See my edit. And again, just to be clear, are you indeed saying that women and blacks should not have actively tried to change the institution to gain rights “from the outside”?

Qingu's avatar

And if “consent is paramount” then what on earth is your problem with gay marriage? Reading your post more closely, you seem to have some paranoid delusions about how the existence of homosexuals will lead to the demise of the human race (“If Homosexuality was on its own, we wouldn’t be here…). Again, I think this may simply be you projecting, since only a fraction of humans (and other animals) freely engage in homosexuality. Most of us are heterosexuals.

Qingu's avatar

I also think it’s funny that you claimed any church that married gays would be contradicting their “sacred foundations.” Are you referring to the sacred foundations that allow me to rape your virgin daughter in exchange for marriage and a brideprice?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I don’t recall saying that, so no. Everyone has the right to sway the popular vote. I have no problem with that at all. But every sway has a rebuttal. In this case, I’m grateful that our democracy allows mine to be heard. I’m grateful that all sides can be heard. This allows the popular vote to be swayed through education, and not by passions of the moment.

Sure, those sacred foundations of the “brideprice”. Yes those. The very same ones that were changed from within, and do not apply currently. I wonder if they’ll ever go back?

BTW… Try and list all of your addresses at once so that I may give thoughtful consideration to your words. I really can’t go tit’ for tat’ with you right now.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Off to walk the dog Qingu. I’ll catch you later… I promise.

Qingu's avatar

You’re contradicting yourself. First you said people on the outside of an “institution” shouldn’t try to change it. Now you’re saying they can by swaying the popular vote? Make up your mind.

And quit with the martyr complex. I’m well aware that you have the right to express your opinion.

And again, just to clarify, you’re fine with marriage via raping virgins and paying their dads a brideprice after the deed is done, because it’s based on the Bible… but you’re against gay marriage because you think, for some unsupported reason, that it would harm society? This is your position, yes?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


You are fun. Put words in my mouth and then accuse me of contradiction. Top it all off with a subtle insult for good measure. Cleverness is a talent most delicate. Impressive Qingu. But thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position again.

I cannot seem to find the quote you attribute to me. But it was fun searching…

I never said anything about what anyone should or “shouldn’t” do, or say or “try” or not or nothing of the sort. I truly believe that anyone should be allowed to attempt anything they wish. I certainly never suggested that Homosexuals should stop trying to change marriage… It’s none of my business what anyone chooses to do.

I am master of no one except myself.

How is this contradiction?

I said they had no right to change it, specifically for attaining validation of the Homosexual lifestyle, when it is not at all clear what the reasons behind that lifestyle are. Nor do they have the right to foist it upon society through the enforcement of a court order that clearly goes against the will of the majority. Especially when they are free to establish their own institution with more rights than anyone has ever known.

I will not be able to communicate with you if you attempt to put words in my mouth or set me up for some logic trap… Sorry, just can’t play games with you here. Please don’t misrepresent my comments.

And maybe you missed my ending comments about the brideprice as well. One more time just for you… but this time with a qualifier.

I repeat “The very same ones that were changed from within, and do not apply currently”. Do you remember me saying that?

We are not judges of history Qingu. We are the inheritors of it. The world does not need another judge, especially one who would pull two thousand year notions into the present and hold them accountable to the standards of modernity. The public mindset of today cannot associate with the mindset of long ago. None of us would last a week in that harsh environment, where bloodlines were binding contracts, and your brother valued the crown on your head more than the heart in your chest.

They did what they had to do, every culture, every religion, every backward law that came together to assure your existence in the present. We have no logic or reason nor standard to judge any past civilization by. We can only accept that it happened, learn from the history, and direct our current lives in the best way that we are capable of doing, given the circumstances that face us at this moment. Not one of us has a completely innocent bloodline.

Christianity is a nice big fluffy target, and it moves slowly making good sport for clumsy marksmen. Shall we deny it from being a stanchion for the civil rights movement? What of the comfort that so many have found in their religion throughout every struggle in history? Lets not forget the other major players, there is more than one God to strike down in this world.

Newsflash… I’ve already lost the popularity contest here friend, and been called every name in the book on this forum. There is no Martyr left for Martyrdom… It’s just me, and you can talk to me like a human if you wish.

Qingu's avatar

You said: all institutions are changed from within. Changes that come from outside the institution are called hostile takeover.

I said: are you indeed saying that women and blacks should not have actively tried to change the institution to gain rights “from the outside”?

You replied: I don’t recall saying that, so no. Everyone has the right to sway the popular vote. I have no problem with that at all.

You contradicted yourself. It’s not okay for people outside of an institution to try to change it (gays re: marriage.) Unless it is (women and blacks re: voting).

You contradict yourself again in your most recent post:

• _“I truly believe that anyone should be allowed to attempt anything they wish. I certainly never suggested that Homosexuals should stop trying to change marriage.“_

“I said they had no right to change it, specifically for attaining validation of the Homosexual lifestyle, when it is not at all clear what the reasons behind that lifestyle are.”

They shouldn’t stop trying to change it, and can do what they wish… but they have no right to change it? Once again: make up your mind. The basis of your argument against homosexual marriage seems to be that marriage can only change in certain ways, and yet you don’t seem to have any coherent rationale behind how exactly it can change.

As for “validating the homosexual lifestyle,” you have yet to show that their lifestyle isn’t valid. You’re simply asserting that it isn’t over and over again.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


The distinction is clear. I see that trying to do something and having the right to make it effective are two different things. Whether they should make the effort or not is their business. Gays are free to try, not just women or racial minorities. But ultimately, it is only those who actually control the institution that will change their position, allowing that institution to change.

Women certainly did not get the vote because they were able to vote as a majority. They did not have the right at that point. The male dominated institution allowed the change… they certainly did not have to, no matter how desperately women wanted it.

The same can be said for civil rights.

I would suggest that the Homosexual community do what it can to endear themselves to the Hetero dominated institution of marriage. This will happen by addressing all concerns and not lashing out at those who put the “why” question to their situation.

I don’t care if they try or not. I have no business telling them what they should and should not do. But the right to make it actually change resides currently in the hands of someone else.

The KKK doesn’t have the right to change Jewish Law. They can try all they want. They have the right to try. But it will not happen unless Jews allowed them to make policy… but then it wouldn’t be Jewish Law any longer.

Qingu's avatar

You’re confusing “rights” with “power.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I don’t believe that might makes right. I intentionally refuse to associate the two.

Qingu's avatar

Okay. But you confused the two concepts in your post.

Women, alone, did not have the power to gain voting rights. They needed to join up with the male power structure in America to achieve their goal.

Saying that women didn’t have the right to gain voting rights doesn’t make sense. Since you presumably think they deserved to eventually get voting rights. Yes?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I wasn’t confused, and had no intentions of confusing you. But I certainly do understand how it could be confusing. Your attentive concern has given me much to consider with the words I use. You have my apology.

I will reexamine my stance.

Qingu's avatar

Just to be clear: gays don’t have the power, alone as a group, to attain equal marriage rights. They’re going to need some help, from straight people like myself and EP, in order to attain that goal.

This in no way means that they don’t have the right to achieve that goal. Would you agree with this?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I’m not at all convinced of that whatsoever. Consideration and respect for existing establishment must be part of the equation.

Rights and/or Power aside, I can’t just walk into your home and rearrange the furniture without being considerate and respectful to your heritage. I should weigh that against building my own home.

Qingu's avatar

I don’t see what your response has to do with my question.

The existing voting establishment was limited to white males (actually, property-owners). Are you saying that women did not have the right to change that establishment, because of concerns with “consideration and respect for heritage”?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


It would never have taken place if the establishment thought otherwise.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I must go to bed. The night is yours. It’s been a pleasure.

Qingu's avatar

Again, your response has nothing to do with my question.

Let me try to make this clear. You are, apparently, saying that gays do not have the right to change the institution of marriage so as to include them.

Are you also saying that women during the 1920’s did not have the right to change the institution of democratic voting so as to include them?

Again, I understand that these minority groups did not have the power to change these institutions. Women needed to convince men in the “establishment” that they deserved voting rights. Gays needed to convince straights, such as myself (and everyone I know personally) that they deserved marriage rights. That’s how you gain power to secure rights in a democracy—by forging coalitions. But you’re apparently saying something different. You’re saying that not only do gays and women not have the power to forge such coalitions, they don’t even have the right.

I’m sure there were many people like yourself who saw woman suffrage as disrespectful of the male-only heritage of democracy, dating all the way back to ancient Athens. How dare those suffragists come into men’s houses and rearrange their furniture instead of building their own voting-system houses!

I look forward to you supporting your claim that homosexuality is not a valid lifestyle.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Oh boy what a difference a good sleep makes. I made a mistake last night, and would never have noticed if I hadn’t left the conversation. After a long day and an 8 page reply to EP, I should never have indulged you last night. I told you from the beginning that I didn’t have time to go tit’ for tat’… but politeness begged me to stay with you and get caught up in the swarm.

I should have known by your quick response that no effort was put into understanding my reply to EP. You may have skimmed over it, but the misrepresentation of my comments and early correction of my stance, along with the shallow comment about the brideprice with no insight to put it into context of the age should have clued me in that you had come to do battle.

I owe it to my family not to sit here and hover over this thread forever. Everything you requested was made available in earlier comments. I cannot fight the swarm and this will last an eternity unless I walk away. There would always be someone else asking me to clarify what has already been said a dozen times already.

To answer your questions, and to repeat what has already been stated numerous times, I offer my final reply. After that the floor is permanently yours.

You asked:
“I look forward to you supporting your claim that homosexuality is not a valid lifestyle.”

Again, and for the last time, I quote myself:
“…if everyone were Homosexual, then we would not be here very much longer. Homosexuality cannot stand on its own merit, and thus it seeks to attain marriage as a point of validation. This is the best course to halting all efforts of determining its causes.”

“We agree that consent is paramount, but there is more to it than that. Consensual Polygamy and Incest are common. Will you then allow them to compare to Homosexuality? Let’s go further and consider Consensual Homosexual Incest. What harm could come from that?”

“If this comparison is “offensive”, then we must discover why. I propose it stems from the unspoken understanding that, if left to themselves, none of these practices are capable of properly supporting life on our planet. The best argument could only be made for Polygamy, and not without numerous truancies.”

And much earlier…

“If everyone were blue, we would all be fine. If everyone were homosexual, we would not be here. The Gay Marriage debate is a leapfrog over the real issue at hand. Homosexuality cannot validate itself on its own merit, so it seeks the validation from a long standing historical institution of marriage. If homosexuality can achieve validation from the institution of marriage, then no one will be able to question the reasons behind homosexuality ever again.

There is still great debate over why homosexuality occurs.”

As to race and gender comparisons:

Last night I made the common mistake that most people fall into. I allowed you to lure me into a conversation which by its essence required a valid comparison between gender, race, and sexuality. Again, they are incomparable…

Quoted previously:
““Comparing Homosexuality to Race is a convenient but invalid argument”.
Collin Powell

Being a woman validates itself upon its own merit because if there were no women, we would not be here. We need women to survive. It has been linked to genetic markers. Homosexuality has not.

Race validates itself upon its own merit because entire nations are born upon one single race. Our planet could survive with one single race. It has been linked to genetic markers.

“Homosexuality has been shown to consistently change through both counseling and choice.” Race and Gender have not. Argue with the testimonials of the links I provided earlier if you wish. They would disagree with those who say its impossible.

As to rights and privileges, firstly, I do not see this as a power struggle, and thus refuse to use the word “power” when discussing this issue. And there is no “power” that prevents Homosexuals from creating their own institution where they might enjoy more rights and privileges than anyone.

Any group who desires a reengineering of society must be capable of demonstrating their validity upon their own merit, and not on the back of an already established institution. Race can do that. Gender can do that. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Homosexuality can do that.

The floor is yours… I will check back from time to time, but here I must walk away lest I be tempted to repeat myself again.


Qingu's avatar

…if everyone were Homosexual, then we would not be here very much longer. Homosexuality cannot stand on its own merit, and thus it seeks to attain marriage as a point of validation.

I responded to this. The fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce does not make their lifestyle “invalid” anymore than it makes a the lifestyle of two straight people who cannot have children. Or a couple who choose not to have children.

Hell, if everyone decided to be computer scientists, the human race wouldn’t survive. No farmers. By your logic, I guess being a computer scientist is an “invalid lifestyle.”

Trying to define a behavior’s “validity” by “does this behavior lead to reproduction” is absurd. Genetics is a side issue.

Sorry if I’m harping on this, but it’s important that you understand why this is a stupid argument. In fact, it’s such a stupid argument that one is tempted to assume that you’re simply fishing for excuses to justify some deeper resentment—which may explain why a lot of people here have been hostile to you. Do you understand now why your argument makes no sense? I’m here to help.

As for the rights/power issue, you’re repeating yourself, and not responding to my post. Why should women have the “right” to change a male-only institution (voting), while homosexuals should not have the “right” to change a straight-only institution (marriage)? I appreciate that you want to differentiate rights from power, but you have yet to give me a straight answer.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I enjoy the hostility and insults. They accurately expose the weaker argument and tell me a great deal about who I’m speaking with. And my stupidity is smart enough to see this discussion as circular.

Homosexuality is not a job… at least not in my state. A convenient but invalid comparison to “computer scientists” and “farmers” unless you would like to return Homosexuality to being a choice. I thought we moved past that. Career “choices” are a matter of “choice”. Not all choices are equal and thus not all choices can validate themselves for the greater good of society.

Life and lifestyle are two different things. No one need validate their life, except to themselves personally. But everyone does need to validate their lifestyle to society as a whole. Infertility is not a lifestyle and no one claims it as a separate gender or sexual category. Infertility is not a behavior. Those who can reproduce, but choose not to, they can validate their choice based upon their opinions of world population or current life situations. They can also change their choice whenever they see fit because it is never something they are locked into.

The argument regarding women vs homosexual is “invalid” and will not be considered by me for the reasons I have already established.

“Any group who desires a reengineering of society must be capable of demonstrating their validity upon their own merit, and not on the back of an already established institution. Race can do that. Gender can do that. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Homosexuality can do that.”

That’s as straight an answer as you will get from me on this. I will not be lured into comparing Homosexuality to matters of Race and Gender. A convenient but invalid argument.

saraaaaaa's avatar

Gay marriage, and anyone who has answered differently is being ridiculous.
People will always find a way to smoke weed if they chose to, regardless of its legality.

jerrytown's avatar

I would vote for marijuana, its crazy how many lives have been ruined for pot charges.

alive's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies i don’t know why you are saying that homosexuality needs to “validate itself”
please explain. that doesn’t make any sense. do heterosexuals need to validate themselves through marriage??

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


Hey sorry, I cannot let myself go on for eternity with this thread. If you are really concerned with getting an answer, then read through my comments thoroughly as I’ve made that point numerous times already.

tiffyandthewall's avatar

gay marriage, absolutely! it’s much much easier to get weed than to get a marriage license. besides, i’d rather have all of those couples in love be recognized than my someone’s love for weed.
love > drugs
not that one can’t be in love without a marriage license, but the fact that people are denied marriage just because of gender? i think it would be a much bigger step to change that than to let everyone toke up.

WiseOldUnicorn's avatar

Marijuana. I’m all for gay marriage, but not having it isn’t destroying anyone’s lives. Weed being illegal, on the other hand, has ruined tons of lives and even resulted in completely innocent people being killed.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@WiseOldUnicorn: What about people who go heavily into debt because their long-time partner has died but because they are not married they must pay taxes on the inheritance of the alleged value of their partner’s estate. This is not a hypothetical situation.

WiseOldUnicorn's avatar

@EmpressPixie That’s a good point, I didn’t think about that. I would still choose marijuana, though, mostly because of stories like this.

wildpotato's avatar

@WiseOldUnicorn Oh my god! My eyes just kept getting wider as I read.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther