Is Gay Marriage Against Natural Law?
Because there has been no discovery of any gay gene, that scientists have spent much time researching, is gayness more of a psychological issue than a genetic difference? Also Is it right for gay people to seek insurance coverage for issues directly related to their choice to engage in gay sex/coverage for psychiatric help when they have lobbied it out of the DSM.
Yes
Side Score: 9
|
No
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
2
points
Marriage itself is against 'natural law'. no other creature gets married, and few creatures are monogamous. The question should be something more like 'do gays have the nature approved stamp' and no, they don't. there is no gay wildlife and obviously no gay offspring. but that shouldn't be a reason to exclude gays from humanity; the outcast species of nature. humans are the most social and intelligent of creatures with the most frustratingly complex and irrational personalities. this is what separates us from the animals and probably why we develop not-seen-anywhere-else-things like homosexuality. Side: Yes
1
point
How can the gay community claim that homosexuality is genetic, natural, yet still ask for insurance companies to cover their medical issues that result from unnatural consequences a gay sexually active lifestyle? How can you argue with biology? If homosexuality is natural, why is it not evident in other forms of life? Also, why is it so rare (2-3% of the population). I have nothing against homosexuals, but I don't believe, just based on statistics, that it is natural. There would be more homosexuals if it was normal. Additionally, sex is the truest way to express love - a giving of oneself to another that creates a new human being. If homosexuality is a part of nature, why would they be deprived of that? Also, why did we have psychological research that supported the ability to restructure homosexual thoughts and feelings to heterosexual thought, that was removed from psychological textbooks because of lobbying. Why does a political group have that much lobbying power - that they could argue with the research of trained professionals (scientists). Again, I have nothing against gay people, but it would be nice if psychologists could help people with those feelings who don’t want them to be able to keep those thoughts and feelings in control. However, psychologists cannot help because lobbyists have gotten it removed from the DSM. Additionally, homosexuality has been studied psychologically, but much of this information has been drowned out by media industries, and lobbied against by the gay community. I am not trying to be antagonistic - I simply want to understand the logical answers the gay community has for these conundrums that I perceive, so I'd appreciate polite and thoughtful responses. Thank you. Side: Yes
4
points
How can the gay community claim that homosexuality is genetic, natural, yet still ask for insurance companies to cover their medical issues that result from unnatural consequences a gay sexually active lifestyle? Can you be more specific. What exactly are they asking insurance companies to cover that isn't covered for heterosexual people? If homosexuality is natural, why is it not evident in other forms of life? It's been observed in 1500 different species. Also, why is it so rare (2-3% of the population). Until we know what the cause is, we have no way of knowing why it's rare, but even if it is rare, what difference does that make? Only 1% of people are ambidextrous. Does that make them unnatural? I have nothing against homosexuals, but I don't believe, just based on statistics, that it is natural. There would be more homosexuals if it was normal. Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Homosexuals clearly exist in nature, so they are natural. Even if they weren't natural, why does that matter? Your computer isn't natural, but that doesn't make it bad. Normal: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. I agree that homosexuality may not be normal, but again I have to ask why does that matter? Being left handed isn't normal, being a genius isn't normal, but just because something isn't normal doesn't mean it's bad. Additionally, sex is the truest way to express love - a giving of oneself to another that creates a new human being. If homosexuality is a part of nature, why would they be deprived of that? What about people who are infertile? Are not not part of nature because they can't create a new human being? Also, why did we have psychological research that supported the ability to restructure homosexual thoughts and feelings to heterosexual thought, that was removed from psychological textbooks because of lobbying. Why does a political group have that much lobbying power - that they could argue with the research of trained professionals (scientists). You'll have to provide sources. The only research I'm aware of that supports the ability to restructure homosexual thoughts was by Robert Spitzer. His methodologies were flawed and he even admitted it saying, "I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy." Most organizations that offered gay conversion therapy have given up on it and admitted that it doesn't work. Again, I have nothing against gay people, but it would be nice if psychologists could help people with those feelings who don’t want them to be able to keep those thoughts and feelings in control. However, psychologists cannot help because lobbyists have gotten it removed from the DSM. There is nothing preventing a psychologist from helping someone with those feelings. You can see a psychologist for anything that is troubling you, regardless of whether it's in the DSM. Additionally, homosexuality has been studied psychologically, but much of this information has been drowned out by media industries, and lobbied against by the gay community. You'll have to provide sources. Side: No
1) There are no unnatural consequences of homosexuality. Disease is natural. 2) Homosexuality is seen in other species. 3) Something being rare doesn't make it fake or unnatural. 4) Normal and natural are 2 different things. 5) Homosexuals have sex 6) Lobbying to remove false information is not a bad thing. Scientists removed that information because they did more research. 7) Psychologists can't go against the research. 8) If psychology is doing research that you claim you should be able to find something posted recently that the media is suppressing. Side: No
Although homosexuality is, quite rightly, accepted by most civilized societies, it is nevertheless a deviant and unnatural psychological state, with the equally unnatural physical side effects which the condition creates. The biggest, and most natural instinct in the healthy of any living creature is the reproduction of it's species. The fact that this vital process is impossible between same gender humans makes the act of marriage futile and demeans the celebration of marriage between man and woman, as nature intended. Trying to argue against nature is an understandable, but pitiful attempt to rationalize an altogether unnatural state. Side: Yes
1
point
it is nevertheless a deviant and unnatural psychological state, with the equally unnatural physical side effects which the condition creates. Deviant, yes, but unnatural, no. Something that exists within nature is not, in fact, unnatural. The biggest, and most natural instinct in the healthy of any living creature is the reproduction of it's species. No, the biggest, most natural instinct is self preservation. Reproduction comes next. The fact that this vital process is impossible between same gender humans makes the act of marriage futile Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage, and, again, is itself unnatural. and demeans the celebration of marriage between man and woman, as nature intended. Now that is just silly. The idea that two consenting adults getting married demeans your or my marriage would only be true if you are incredibly insecure about your sexuality. And, again, nature did not intend marriage, as it is an unnatural social construct. Trying to argue against nature is an understandable, but pitiful attempt to rationalize an altogether unnatural state. Then why do you keep doing it? Side: No
From where do adopted children come? Ever heard of of the lunatic asylum. Go post haste and commit yourself into the nearest psychiatric clinic until the mad dog's shit you have for brains has been totally expunged, if that's possible. Anyone who would consider gay marriage to be anything other than unnatural would either be gay or a dim witted idiot. Even a blind man on a galloping horse could see from a mile off than the anatomy of the male and female were designed by nature to interact with each other with the purpose of propagating the species by the natural process intended. Side: Yes
You said that marriage is only for helping the species propagate, now it is only for making just the couple's genes propagate. Make up your mind. Adoption helps the species propagate. If men and women were meant to be together so perfectly there wouldn't be a pleasure center up a man's ass that makes gay sex pleasurable. Side: No
1
point
|
1
point
Well, the question isn't whether or not being gay is right or wrong. I agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual. However, marriage is an unnatural concept. As such, all marriage is against "natural law." That doesn't mean being gay/bisexual is wrong, nor does it mean gay marriage is wrong. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
|