I believe that gays should be allowed to have unions and have all the benefits that heterosexual couples would otherwise have.  And why shouldn't they? Granted, I haven't seen any studies on the topic, but I think you could argue that something as basic as legal recognition of their union is, for lack of a better term, a human right.

I used to think that even though gays should have a right to a union, a strong argument could be made that their union should be called something other than "marriage".

After all, isn't one of the demons of a politically correct society the fact that some call for the actual change in definition of words? Isn't it wrong to change society so drastically? Of course it is.

Union of a man and a woman has traditionally been the definition of marriage. 

But the question one should be asking is this:

We know gays have been discriminated against for quite a long time.  Is it possible that that when marriage was first defined, discrimination against gays was the reason that they were excluded them from the definition of marriage itself? That is very possible.....

And hence, if the definition of marriage has been discriminatory from the very start, it's very reasonable to consider that a gay union should be called marriage.
11/11/2010 03:12:06 pm

Being gay was and is the minority group at damn near all points throughout history, just by sheer population percentage. It's entirely possible that gays really didn't cross the minds of whatever invented the concept of marriage. Although I'm sure if you reminded them of it, the creators would have added a clause prohibiting homosexual marriage. Homophobia also exists at damn near all points throughout history.

11/11/2010 03:15:37 pm

Gay inst natural.. Darwinism would kill them off in a single generation.

11/11/2010 03:15:53 pm

Anonymous said...
Gay inst natural. Darwinism would kill them off in a single generation.

Surely 'Natural' only means that which occurs in nature? In which case, being gay is natural.

As for "Darwinism would kill them off in a single generation." Again, no. For example, suppose that homosexuality is determined by a reccesive gene. Then, someone could carry the gene, without being homosexual. Or, suppose, that gay people, while not being attracted to the opposite sex, still have the urge to have children.

11/14/2010 06:10:27 pm

No gay is not nature in nature. Bisexuality is though. Gay is being ONLY attracted to the same sex and yes you would kill yourself off. Not sure if you are gay or not but if you are not that would be like having sex with a man just to keep the human race going. I dont know of many if any people who would do this.

11/14/2010 06:12:29 pm


being gay isn't natural? What is it then? Synthetic?

Gays seem to stick around...I don't know if it's because enough of them (say, 10%) are having sex with women, or perhaps their genes are passed down through heterosexual couples.

Being gay is certainly natural.

12/9/2010 02:21:39 pm

this artical is gay.

1/14/2011 04:43:26 pm

But familiarity does not necessarily imply deep friendship

1/26/2011 11:14:31 am

However, many studies suggest that animals are capable of complex emotions such as fear, anger, and even joy and sadness


Leave a Reply.