Why is the "choice" aspect of homosexuality so central to the gay equality argument?

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by dime21

Wrong. Choice or not a choice isn't all that relevant. Sure, homosexuality could be a birth defect, or it could be caused by a chemical imbalance in the womb, or who knows. The fact is that right now today, nobody knows.

The other fact, is that SSM is a fundamental break from the concept of marriage. SSM Proponents would compare it to the historical equality struggles of inter-racial marriage, or of inter-faith marriage, but that's a false comparison. SSM is fundamentally different from inter-racial marriage, and from inter-faith marriage. Marriage brings the two halves of humanity together, man and woman, and the result is a complementary balance, yin and yang, that isn't present in SSM. Furthermore, marriage is based on the biology of the species. Reproduction requires exactly one man and one woman. A child's DNA comes from exactly one man and one woman. There is no other valid combination that can produce human life. That makes SSM a very different animal indeed. To claim that SSM is somehow "equivalent" to traditional marriage is absurd, and it's factually wrong.

A statement as such runs the risk of blurring religion with government IMO. Homosexuality has been observed to be not uncommon in nature.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by NickZac

A statement as such runs the risk of blurring religion with government IMO. Homosexuality has been observed to be not uncommon in nature.

"Nomad built the directive, “Seek out life. Find imperfections, and sterilize them, then return home.”

Of course all life is imperfect, hence the problem."

STAR TREK: THE CHANGELING

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by dime21

Reproduction requires exactly one man and one woman. A child's DNA comes from exactly one man and one woman. There is no other valid combination that can produce human life. That makes SSM a very different animal indeed. To claim that SSM is somehow "equivalent" to traditional marriage is absurd, and it's factually wrong.

What has marriage got to do with reproduction? People have kids in and out of marriage. People don't have kids in and out of marriage. People have kids made from surrogates. In test tubes. Adopted.

More to the point, we have too many bloody kids. It's throwback ideas of a somehow 'traditional man and wife with 2.4 kids' that are outdated and factually wrong.

[Andeavor]

Marriage is not "just" about reproduction, it's about so much more. Marriage is a contract, a business venture between families. In fact, there was a time when people married mostly for dowries, land and financial or social security. Most of those marriages were arranged and if an heir was expected, there was no requirement for the couple to be "in love" - it it happened it happened, if it didn't it didn't and you just went by protocol.

"Marrying for love" is a relatively new concept in our society and is still having a hard time to settle in our collective minds. There are still people out there who will not accept a couple to get married that doesn't share the same religion or denomination, the same ethnicity or the same nationality or culture. And when you add the concept of SSM, you will have an even harder time to convince those people to accept it - even in theory.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by niuniu

What has marriage got to do with reproduction? People have kids in and out of marriage. People don't have kids in and out of marriage. People have kids made from surrogates. In test tubes. Adopted.

More to the point, we have too many bloody kids. It's throwback ideas of a somehow 'traditional man and wife with 2.4 kids' that are outdated and factually wrong.

Everything and nothing, and that is the problem. As of now, the world is overcrowded and there are more adoptable children than adopters. We will not falter if more people are not made.

Historically, religions have encouraged the creation of children because death rates were high and children were economic assets. And so the historical function of 'marriage' in religion is pretty simple...only two people of the opposite sex can make babies and so religions encouraged heterosexuality by condemning anything else. Today, children are economic liabilities and the success of one does not depend on the amount of children you make.

The problem arises when we try to discuss a 'purpose' to marriage, and a lack of a clear legal versus non-legal, with non-legal being religion, personal beliefs, and what not. The separation between church and state has always been weak in regards to marriage, and it needs to change. In the most fair sense, the legal definition could remove the term "marriage" and use a legal term to describe a binding relationship between two persons regardless of gender. Then it can function as the legal backing for wills, rights, medical emergencies, etc., and 'marriage' can be done in other senses but not those related to the state.

[ELMNT925]

Have to chime in here, i'll keep it short and sweet.

Being gay is not a choice. If it is, when did you choose to be straight?

Exactly.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by ELMNT925

Have to chime in here, i'll keep it short and sweet.

Being gay is not a choice. If it is, when did you choose to be straight?

Exactly.

Yep- that's it in a nutshell. No one chooses who makes their nether regions go BOOM. It just happens. No choice is involved. Can we move on?