So do you think Gay is a choice, or are people born with it.
Let me preface with this: 2 years ago I had 2 brothers who I thought (more or less) were straight. Now I have 1 gay brother and 1 gay sister, so I think I have a unique perspective on this topic.
It is a total nature vs nurture argument.
I think you can have tenancies of varying levels from birth that are aggravated or suppressed by events that happen in your (probably early) life. So in this respect, you are born with in because by the time you have a chance to make the choice the choice has already been made for you by your experiences.
Studies have shown that the person you had your first crush on will determine what characteristics you like in a woman(or man). I suspect that the crush helps form the association with that feeling and their appearance, in a Pavlov's dog kinda way. I think this same type of thing applies to your sexuality.
Events, big or small, happen in our lives that change who we are. To deny that they have a hand in shaping our sexuality would be naive.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Thank you for that Rathji, however there is also links to genetics in this issue as well.
I think ultimately it will become a many factored reason as to why this happens, we know for example with brain scans that females/gay men share very similar brains, and gay men share womens ability to remember faces/names unlike us dumb hetero's who can't seem to remember a name for the life of us.
I think we'll see theres a percentage factor, some genetic, some during embryo stage and early childhood/adolescent environmental.
However we come to those percentages its sure to be obvious by now that you have different variations of 'gayness' if you will lol.
When this subject comes up in conversation, I find that most people who are against gay marriage are mostly just hung up on the definition of the word "marriage" and don't usually have any problem with people being gay or living together in civil union, but think that "marriage" is reserved solely for a man and a woman.
Sure it's not always the case, but that's pretty much what I've taken away from most of the opponents of gay marriage I've encountered.
Well it's politically correct to say "sure, why not".
But tell me why gays need to be married, for the benefits, and tax breaks?
Heteros get married because it's traditional and chances are they will have children that will inherit the family genetics and coincidentally the family name, something inherently important for generations... millennia.
With the increasingly growing tax burden on society, why extend the tax breaks and benefits designed to help families with the financial drain of raising a family, to gays?
Personally I voted no because I don't see a justifiable need that would outweigh the costs to society.
Gay marriage will take billions and billions out of the public and private pension funds, insurance companies and tax coffers. That money will have to be replaced by higher taxes, contributions and premiums... but hey, it's politically correct.
Thank you for that Rathji, however there is also links to genetics in this issue as well.
I read an article a while ago that showed a tendency for children either born of older parents, or children from very large families, to have a more likelihood to be gay.
A couple of the theories were children of older parents have a higher likelihood to have some kind of genetic defect and a tendency towards homosexuality prevents that child from passing it on through the population by limiting chances of re-production. With the large families, it was a way of conserving resources and population control. Not too far-fetched as some mammals in other species have shown similar results.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinner
Well it's politically correct to say "sure, why not".
But tell me why gays need to be married, for the benefits, and tax breaks?
Heteros get married because it's traditional and chances are they will have children that will inherit the family genetics and coincidentally the family name, something inherently important for generations... millennia.
With the increasingly growing tax burden on society, why extend the tax breaks and benefits designed to help families with the financial drain of raising a family, to gays?
Personally I voted no because I don't see a justifiable need that would outweigh the costs to society.
Gay marriage will take billions and billions out of the public and private pension funds, insurance companies and tax coffers. That money will have to be replaced by higher taxes, contributions and premiums... but hey, it's politically correct.
I think you're overestimating the size of the Gay Scourge.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
But tell me why gays need to be married, for the benefits, and tax breaks?
Please tell me that's how you will (or already did) pop the question to your wife...
"Honey... Will you make me the happiest man in the world and marry me... so I can save money on my taxes?"
Cause... ya know... that's all marriage really is...
Gay marriage will take billions and billions out of the public and private pension funds, insurance companies and tax coffers. That money will have to be replaced by higher taxes, contributions and premiums... but hey, it's politically correct.
Now we're taking 3,000 steps backwards and saying they shouldn't even have civil union benefits. So if I'm with a committed partner of the same-sex for 50 years, we love each other and take care of each other for 50 years, and my partner passes away - I shouldn't get the survivor benefits of the pension?!?! Some days I just think I should hide in a cave an escape society.... people just make me want to cry.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
