Anonymous Poll: Should homosexuals be allowed to get married?

[Rubicant]

Interesting question that came up much earlier.

Gay: Choice or the way you are?

I honestly don't know (not that it really matters).

I have identical twin relatives. One is gay, one is not.

Should this not rule out the argument that you are simply born that way?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

A. Marriage is not a right. It is a benefit afforded by the State because the State sees a benefit to the country in marriages occuring. Much like if you give money to certain organizations that fall under certain criteria set by the State you may recieve a portion of the money back at tax time. You can give to any organization you want but, the State only has an interest in giving you a tax credit for certain ones.

The real question is: Should the State see enough benefit in a same sex relationship to afford them that benefit? Another good question would be: What reason does the State have at all to benefit any particular relationship within society?

B. Your couple in the movie could have gotton power of attorney papers and wills drawn up. That is a good idea even for married couples. Also it is wise to put all property in both your names. People in common law relationships sometimes run into the same problems. We all are going to die. You would think we would be better prepared for the inevitable.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Frankster

"If you think you are not at risk, think again. What was once considered a "gay" disease affects people of any sex, of all ages and from all backgrounds. In fact, women and youth are two of the groups with the fastest growing rates of infection in Canada and around the world." www.aidscalgary.org

Also, for those who just don't understand why gays would want to marry, I encourage you to seek out the movie "If These Walls Could Talk 2". It features three stories about lesbian couples (sorry boys, no sex scenes). One of the stories features an older couple, one of whom dies quite suddenly and tragically. The treatment her partner received after losing the love of her life is also quite tragic. This story has been played out in real-life more than you can imagine.

As a married gay woman, I can tell you personally that separate is not equal.

To the folks that voted yes, thank you for your support. To those that voted no, I hope one day you can truly understand why it is so important that EVERYONE have the same rights.

I have an honest question for you. Why does the word marriage matter? It is the same question I ask those who oppose gay marriage. If it is just a word why does it matter and why wouldn't something conferring all of the same rights be just as good.

[First Lady]

Voted yes.

This has got to be one of the first times I'm in with the majority of CP.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by GGG

I have an honest question for you. Why does the word marriage matter? It is the same question I ask those who oppose gay marriage. If it is just a word why does it matter and why wouldn't something conferring all of the same rights be just as good.

A word is just a word, but if the state is going to be in the business of managing marriages, different is not the same. For those that want to bring a tax argument in, how about the added cost of managing both civil unions and marriages? Or wait, would those seeking civil unions be forced to pay more?

Marriage may "just be a word", but different is also different.

At the end of the day though, we currently have the right to legally marry, so this conversation doesn't matter.

Interesting side note for some of you...the first Marriage Commissioner we contacted would not marry us because it was against her beliefs. No one is being forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Frankster

At the end of the day though, we currently have the right to legally marry, so this conversation doesn't matter.

I'm really surprised by that statement, you don't care about the battle south of the border for even minuscule rights for gays? A western democracy which vilifies and battles hard to hold down the gay movement?

How about the rest of the world where you can be imprisoned for being gay or in some cases put to death.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'm really surprised by that statement, you don't care about the battle south of the border for even minuscule rights for gays? A western democracy which vilifies and battles hard to hold down the gay movement?

How about the rest of the world where you can be imprisoned for being gay or in some cases put to death.

I'm pretty sure she was just responding to the OP which was asking about the Canadian law specifically.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

Interesting question that came up much earlier.

Gay: Choice or the way you are?

I honestly don't know (not that it really matters).

I have identical twin relatives. One is gay, one is not.

Should this not rule out the argument that you are simply born that way?

Have you ever spoken to those twin relatives and asked the one who is gay?

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/comi...e/a/Causes.htm

Scientists have studied twins to try and learn if being gay is biologically determined. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation. If being gay were strictly genetic, then in identical twins, there would be a 100% concordance rate for sexual orientation. But one study in 1995 found a 52% correlation for male identical twins and 22% for male fraternal twins. A study on females came up with similar results. If one identical twin was a lesbian, in 48% of cases, the other twin was also a lesbian. For fraternal twins, the concordance was 16%. (source Simon LeVay

Here is your answer on the twin argument.

Try talking to some people who are gay - ultimately this is one of the things that led me away from religion. People like CB preaching their message of hatred and intolerance, calling it a choice.

One of my high school friends who didn't come out until he was 19 told me "I've tried dating women, looking at porn, doing anything I can to fit in. Why on earth would I choose this lifestyle - how many people choose to be social outcasts and hated by many people? I haven't even told my parents yet and I don't know if I can. They'll never accept me." That's what he said when I asked him about it when he came out to me.

He has since become more accepting of himself.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'm really surprised by that statement, you don't care about the battle south of the border for even minuscule rights for gays? A western democracy which vilifies and battles hard to hold down the gay movement?

How about the rest of the world where you can be imprisoned for being gay or in some cases put to death.

I was referring to the OP.

The debate about the gay marriage in the US is indeed a completely different argument. It does absolutely affect me in an indirect way. I will see many friends this week coming up from the states. Many of them are taking the "turtle" approach at the moment...slow and steady will win the race.

In the US (and other countries), centuries of intolerance are being challenged, which makes it a very different argument. One I don't have an answer for.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Frankster

A word is just a word, but if the state is going to be in the business of managing marriages, different is not the same. For those that want to bring a tax argument in, how about the added cost of managing both civil unions and marriages? Or wait, would those seeking civil unions be forced to pay more?

Marriage may "just be a word", but different is also different.

At the end of the day though, we currently have the right to legally marry, so this conversation doesn't matter.

Interesting side note for some of you...the first Marriage Commissioner we contacted would not marry us because it was against her beliefs. No one is being forced to marry anyone they don't want to.

I ask because I think the fight in the US is a lot different than the fight was in Canada. Church and State are far more separate in Canada and the Charter can't just be changed whenever a judicial ruling goes against a majority. Also in the states you have a much more politically active religious minority that holds a lot of power. My question really comes down to strategy of the movements in the south trying to get marriage legalized. Would it be more productive and more likely to succeed to gain the rights they are looking for first and then work on true equality.

My personal position is that marriage is one of those words that is uniquely defined by individuals so when the state defines it differently than the individual does it offends people even though it shouldn't. My thought would be for the state just to get out of the marriage business all together. Leave that word for individuals to define how they want to and just have the state give out civil unions for everyone (gay or straight). This way everyone gets to define their word the they want to. Would a simple find and replace on the laws solve this problem or at least get it passed a referendum on the ballot in the US.

I know in some of the republican states they specifically oppose granting rights so it wouldn't solve the problem immediately.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

Interesting question that came up much earlier.

Gay: Choice or the way you are?

I honestly don't know (not that it really matters).

I have identical twin relatives. One is gay, one is not.

Should this not rule out the argument that you are simply born that way?

I think it only proves that you lack the ability to do research.

[Azure]

If you think gay marriage is going to drag the world down, really, why do you care?

There are a lot worse things happening with a lot more serious consequences that will do a lot more to ruin mankind.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Interesting article from MSNBC today that talks about gay couples in the States and how they have to pay more to get some benefits, but actually end up with less in the end.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37786402...sonal_finance/

Also talks about inheritance tax...

"Same-sex couples are also disadvantaged when it comes to inheritance and estate taxes. Federal law generally allows married people to transfer an unlimited amount to their spouse at death without paying estate taxes — but not same-sex couples. That rule cost them about $3.3 million last year, according to The Williams Institute."

Could you imagine having your "spouse" pass away, then actually have to pay money to be able to keep the things (investments, etc) you worked together to get throughout your lives together. It's like twisting the knife after it's already been shoved in.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I think it only proves that you lack the ability to do research.

Look jackass, that was unnecessary.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

Look jackass, that was unnecessary.

Why? You did state something to be pretty much fact without doing any research, he just didn't mince words about it.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

I have identical twin relatives. One is gay, one is not.

Should this not rule out the argument that you are simply born that way?

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I think it only proves that you lack the ability to do research.

Originally Posted by Rubicant

Look jackass, that was unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Why? You did state something to be pretty much fact without doing any research, he just didn't mince words about it.

I don't see how this matters.

You have a choice to be a Christian/Buddhist/Secularist/Muslim or not. Should the state treat you differently depending on your decision? There are countries in this world where they do but I wouldn't want to live in them.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Have you ever spoken to those twin relatives and asked the one who is gay?

What, whether they chose it or not? No I haven't. Frankly it doesn't matter to me, that's the way they are and I accept them as they are.

Try talking to some people who are gay - ultimately this is one of the things that led me away from religion. People like CB preaching their message of hatred and intolerance, calling it a choice.

I'm not particularly fond of organized religions for many reasons. This would be one.

Scientists have studied twins to try and learn if being gay is biologically determined. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation. If being gay were strictly genetic, then in identical twins, there would be a 100% concordance rate for sexual orientation. But one study in 1995 found a 52% correlation for male identical twins and 22% for male fraternal twins. A study on females came up with similar results. If one identical twin was a lesbian, in 48% of cases, the other twin was also a lesbian. For fraternal twins, the concordance was 16%. (source Simon LeVay
These studies show that people with the same genetic make up (identical twins) are more likely to share sexual orientation than those with different genetic make up (fraternal twins.) Genetics alone cannot cause sexual orientation, but they do play a part.

That really doesn't do anything other than back up my initial statement. This is kind of what I was getting at in my original post. It isn't strictly the way you are born.

I believe that you are perhaps genetically predisposed towards being gay, much like being genetically predisposed towards heart problems or a multitude of other things. What could potentially trigger it? Is it a choice? Is it environmental factors? Are some people gay but either never recognize it or accept it? Who knows.

Anyways, to the original topic:

I have zero problem with gay unions - full rights and everything.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Why? You did state something to be pretty much fact without doing any research, he just didn't mince words about it.

I stated it as a question, not a fact. His statement was an extremely thinly veiled attack on my intelligence.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by fotze

I too have identical twin relatives, but they both are/were both gay. That unequivocally eliminates your argument.

*sigh*

Perhaps my first post was worded poorly. I was not trying to suggest that homosexuality is a choice and unrelated to genetics. I was trying to say that it is not as simple as you are born genetically gay, or genetically straight.

The study that was brought to my attention in this thread showed that if one identical twin is gay, the other has a 50% chance of also being gay. Even though you were trying to be clever, it seems our scenarios mirror this study - even on a very small sample size If this were a 100% correlation, it would be genetics, plain and simple. The fact that the incidence of two identical twins being gay is higher than fraternal twins being gay certainly suggests that there is some genetic aspect to it, as I thought.

[Russic]

In many nature/nurture scenarios it is often not a 100% one way or the other. I hate to rip on Texas here, but for this example they're an easy target. If you have somebody born in California and somebody born in texas that are both gay, the way those kids are raised could have a large impact on how they express their sexuality. Many gay people lead completely heterosexual lifestyles based on what they've been taught or how they feel they'll be perceived. My argument is that many (but not all) people might not be necessarily choosing to be gay or straight, but rather they are choosing how they identify themselves publicly.

Because 100% of identical twins aren't gay like their sibling means that there is something else in play, however the crazy high rate of gay people who have gay twins is impossible to ignore. There is surely a genetic factor and it's been recognized in the scientific community (the REAL scientific community) for a surprisingly long time.