Can homosexuality be "acquired"?

B

bigbutnottoo

0
I swear every time I read something, I can't believe how stupid people are. I was just reading an article that says that most people strongly oppose homosexuals and gay marriage. For the record, I oppose any ammendment against gay marriage. I also believe conservatives who support one are hypocrites. Their intent is to effectively legislate the establisHydromaxent of a special class of people ( to "protect" marriages. What are they the Spotted Owl or some shit?). I neither support nor oppose gay marriage. It is either a religious issue (in which case government should have no business) or a legal one ( then government is involved in enforcing the contract. Basically, I think any individuals should be able make any contract they choose. If 2 guys want to writeup a marriage contract, that should be their business. The government should honor it.

What I found really laughable is that obviously many of the people who oppose it are scared that they or their children can somehow catch homosexuality.

For example:
Theresa Eaton, 49, a financial analyst in Corona, Calif., and also a Republican, agreed.

"I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman," she said. "If I knew that we had a neighbor who was gay, I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don't want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right."


<<and>>:

"I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was," said Ziad Nimri, 41, a salesman and a Democrat who lives in Spokane, Wash. "I don't want my children to start getting ideas. They see it's out in the open and you see men kissing men on television these days."

<<haha. actually an unemployed Democrat was the only one who made any sense.>>

One of the few people interviewed who was not opposed to legally recognized same-sex marriages was Cliff Martin, 47, an unemployed Democrat in Gainesville, Fla. "I think gays should be allowed to marry because it's not something that threatens other people," he said.
 
Who pays for that wedding?

If gays wanna get hitched, I don't care. I find gay marriage to be ridiculous and funny. It shows just how much of a sham real marriage is. It's all a joke.

This world we live in is getting more surreal each day, who am I to oppose this snowballing effect of stupidity?

It's only a big deal because the status quo of "bovine America" is so easily offended.

I don't think society is becoming more "accepting" of different types of things just because it is now ultra-hip to showcase fags on television. I think it's more of a numbing-over of our senses, resulting in more of an apathy effect rather than some kind of acceptance or understanding.

Something "controversial" like that will just become the flavor of the week, until it loses it's flavor and the public spits it out like so much bubblegum. I guess this apathy could be mistaken for some kind of pseudo-acceptance, but I don't think so. Everyone still hates everyone.
 
Originally posted by bigbutnottoo
"I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman," she said. "If I knew that we had a neighbor who was gay, I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don't want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right."
Click to expand...
The belief that it can be acquired stems from the fact that the Bible calls it a sin. You can't have sin without choice.

If it is inborn, and not a choice, then it can't be a sin, and the Bible is therefore wrong.

This is where sometimes science ends up being irreconcilable with Biblical pronouncements. That's why many fundamentalists still deny evolution, for example. There are still a few flat earthers, for that matter, since the Bible doesn't describe a spherical earth.

However, mainstream Christianity tends to adapt eventually. For instance, the Catholic church now officially accepts the possibility of evolution. And certainly they have to confront the fact that many of their priests are homosexuals (some of which are pedophiles.)

Other Christian factions have already accepted homosexuality. But there will always be holdouts (i.e. like the flat earthers.)
 
Its not for me, but if two people want to do it they should be able to. As for the real problem the govt has with it the different in their TAX bracket, That is something better left to them to figure out.
 
Originally posted by bobbdobbs
The belief that it can be acquired stems from the fact that the Bible calls it a sin. You can't have sin without choice.

If it is inborn, and not a choice, then it can't be a sin, and the Bible is therefore wrong.................

the Catholic church now officially accepts the possibility of evolution. And certainly they have to confront the fact that many of their priests are homosexuals (some of which are pedophiles.)
Click to expand...

Interesting. This is what it seems like to me. The Catholic church has accepted that a homosexual orientation is inborn and therefore, not a sin. However, they believe the homosexual act is a choice (of course, it is) and a sinful one. They seem to accept homosexuals as long as they are abstinent. Well, this woud seem to make sense if you are a hardliner who believes sex is only for procreation and reserved for marriage. It seems to me that a vengeance is reserved for this particular "sin." I can think of any number of behaviors that are more detrimental to society and families.
 
Originally posted by NeXus
Well they better get used to homosexuals. They got caught molesting little boys for Christ's Sake!
Click to expand...

Which is terrible, but it is still a very small percentage that have ever had allegations surface against them. It is a problem, but good people should not be demonized for the actions of their peers.
 
I guess it can. Many convicts or sailors or normal "open-minded" guys end up being homoesexual by choice. It cannot be aquider like a disease or something, but it can be developed if you have a little tendency to it and in a certain environment.
 
Originally posted by Omul_Paianjen
I guess it can. Many convicts or sailors or normal "open-minded" guys end up being homoesexual by choice. It cannot be aquider like a disease or something, but it can be developed if you have a little tendency to it and in a certain environment.
Click to expand...

I understand what you say,but when you said "guys end up being homosexual by choice" that means it can't be acquired. If something can be acquired that implies there is no choice or decision involved.
 
Originally posted by bigbutnottoo
I neither support nor oppose gay marriage. It is either a religious issue (in which case government should have no business) or a legal one ( then government is involved in enforcing the contract. Basically, I think any individuals should be able make any contract they choose. If 2 guys want to writeup a marriage contract, that should be their business. The government should honor it.
Click to expand...


I'm not stating an opinion on gay marriage, but, legally, marriage is not a contract.
 
Originally posted by Texan
I'm not stating an opinion on gay marriage, but, legally, marriage is not a contract.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate? Also, explain what is the basis for enforcing a marriage "contract" through the courts if it is not a "contract". How can someone be sued when a marriage ends if that person was not contracturally obligated?

Thanks


Edit: Well, that is what it should be. I dont see any other basis for government intervention.
 
Last edited:
I agree with

''I guess it can. Many convicts or sailors or normal "open-minded" guys end up being homoesexual by choice. It cannot be aquider like a disease or something, but it can be developed if you have a little tendency to it and in a certain environment.''
 
Originally posted by bigbutnottoo
Could you elaborate? Also, explain what is the basis for enforcing a marriage "contract" through the courts if it is not a "contract". How can someone be sued when a marriage ends if that person was not contracturally obligated?

Thanks


Edit: Well, that is what it should be. I dont see any other basis for government intervention.
Click to expand...

I kinda agree with you... it seems like a contract... but legally the exchange of marriage vows has been deemed non-contractual. Marriage is like a contract in that it can be void or voidable depending on circumatances such as fraud, duress, or lack of capacity, etc. There are legal benefits of course...state recogition of the union, spousal benefits, etc.

As for the contractual thing, courts have found implied contracts through the actions of married individuals, but these "implied contracts" are not based on the legal concept of marriage or the exchange of vows, and have been used just as often, or perhaps more often, to keep non-married individuals from getting shafted when one person leaves and takes everything and says 'I don't have to split anything because we weren't married.'

Examples:

The court will often find a contractual relationship if one person gives up certain rights based on the promise of another. Like if one individual gives up a career to stay at home and support the family domestically on the promise of the other individual to work and support the family unit. This keeps the person who worked and "paid" for everything from taking it all when they break up.

Also, prenuptual agreements are legally enforceable contracts. But most states have very strict laws about the formation of these before they will be enforced.

-----

I think part of the reason the law is reluctant to call marriage a contract is that the decision to marry is often based in emotion (it is often not really a negotiation for an exchange in the typical contractual sense), and often the vows contain words such as "as long as we both shall live" or "til death do us part" which would mean that every one of these marriages that ends in divorce would be a breach of contract for which there would have to be some legal remedy. In contract law the legal remedy for breach is generally to put the parties in the position to which they bargained to receive. This can be done either through specific performance (which would mean forcing the people to stay married, and just because they are still married doesn't mean they fulfill their wedding vows) or through monetary relief (this would force the breaching party to pay $$ for the value of the benefit of what their marriage role would have been for life). Also, this could lead to an increased case load for the courts if the parties brought civil suits based on breach of contract in every divorce case, and courts do weigh these factors in their rulings.

Two answers to your question: "How can someone be sued when a marriage ends if that person was not contracturally obligated?"

1) Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time; but that doesn't mean they will win.

2) Just because the vows aren't considered a contract doesn't mean there is no contractual obligation. There may be a contract that arises out of the relationship (marital or non).


I hope this makes sense; it is a very generalized overview. Also, I am a law student still, not an attorney yet (and family law is not really my area of interest anyway). Like most things in law it is kinda tricky. Most laws on marriage are based on case law, not statutes.

Best...
 
Originally posted by Omul_Paianjen
In order to aquire something you do have a choice
Click to expand...

Well, when I think of "aquired" in this sense, I am thinking more of catching something, not "acquire" as in buying a car or a stock.

My understanding of the article was that they thought it was something you can "catch" like a cold or the flu,where you do not choose it.
 
Oh... OK then... But I said
It cannot be aquired like a disease or something
Click to expand...
.I really can`t.
I`m against homosexuallity.
And about the guys/girls that end up gay.... The way I look at it, it`s a mental insanity, not a disease. The need to get with someone your own sex grows inside of some of the people`s MINDS[hopefully a small percent], but it doesn`t INCUBATE like a virus or something like that.The gay virus hasn`t been discovered yet. lol
 
I believe homosexuality is an in-born trait, (i.e. genetic). There is no way that anyone is going to convince me otherwise, because it doesn't stand to reason that people would choose to become one of the most highly discriminated against minority groups on the face of the earth.

It is plausible that certain environments could promote homosexual tendencies (i.e. prison), but homosexuality itself I believe to be a genetic trait that a person is either born with or isn't born with.
 
This is my last post on the matter.

I agree with this line from a member here

''It cannot be aquider like a disease or something, but it can be developed''

--

That ^^^^ sums it up for me....not just for this but with alot of things.
If you hang around with very violent people alot...you will end up the same as them, I know from past experience as Ii hung out with alot of violent drug dealers in the past cos it was cool [yeah right] and I thought I was the big boy.
I am alright now...but while I was with them, it grew on me...I got like them.
Another example...My ex GF.
She used certain words ALOT....like yey and yazza cos they are part of her speak as shes got a South American accent.
Anyways I started saying it alot...you tend to do this.
Like when people move to another country they eventually get the accent or loose theirs to some degree.

Now as for becomming gay like this, I think its possible.
No its not a disease....its part of evolution that humankind had to evolve and adapt to what was around it....we are Mammals and we still have animal tributes.
If you were to hang around with gay people alot than I think its very possible some may start to go that way themselves.

However I belive and think that changing from straight to homosexual is alot more in-depth shall I say than living with someone and talking like them after awhile....I reckon some of us may be more prone to certain changes more than others....deep down I think you must have it in you.....or you wont make yourself go that way as you may be very against it.

Thats my view anyway.
Hope it makes sense.
 
Originally posted by REDZULU2003

If you hang around with very violent people alot...you will end up the same as them,
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your discussion and candor on these boards, I have to disagree with you here.

This statement implies that human beings have no choice or free will in life. It also implies that man has no mind, no faculty for reasoning and making his own decisions. It implies man is just a mass of cells,compltetely subserviant to the whims of motions of others.

I do not know your situation, but you were influenced by violent drug dealers. However, they did not make you like them. You chose to, whether you were aware of it or not. Now, you say you are not like that anymore. Why? At some point, I assume you chose not to be like that anymore and you continue to make that choice.

( I don't discount influence, and I suppose statistically, perhaps "those who associate with violent criminals are more likely to do so themselves." However, I do not think man loses his ability to choose other behavior.)
 
Redzulu is right about this. The people you hang out with influence you A LOT.
If you choose to hang out with drug dealers and you are not a drug dealer, at first there is a difference between you and them. You try unconsciously to eliminate it in order to be like them.
His statement implies not that you don`t have a mind, but that it can be influenced. The stronger mentality will take over the weaker one. Only if you will find the difference between them and you too big you will choose not to hang out with them anymore.
Until then you will be influenced , or you will influence.
 
Bigbutnottoo I respect what ya saying but I have already answered what ya said in that lastpost; you must have missed it [no offense] here it is quoted from the original.

-

''''...I reckon some of us may be more prone to certain changes more than others....deep down I think you must have it in you.....or you wont make yourself go that way as you may be very against it''''

^^^

Thays similer to what you just said :)
NOT EVERYONE will get influenced the same see below for another quote:

'''''..deep down I think you must have it in you.....or you wont make yourself go that way as you may be very against it''''

So yey I agree with you.
Jjust had to point out that I already walked that ground.
 
Sorry Redzulu. Sometimes when these threads tend to go on, it's hard to keep track what everyone says and I dont always go back over everything. I see what you said now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top