Homosexuality is Caused by…

October 22, 2009 at 2:03 am | Posted in Atheism, Beliefs, bigotry, civil liberties, hypocrisy, Religion, stupidity | 6 Comments

I heard a sound byte of Pat Robertson saying that gays don’t want the right to marry, they just want to ruin the sanctity of marriage (You can see video here). That guy is so amazing, not only is he a candidate for the Guinness Book for holding the record of the highest number of stupid things uttered out loud in public, he also possesses psychic abilities (a gift from god no doubt) to know what is in the minds of others. Silly me, I thought the gay marriage issue was about a group of people being denied civil rights and it turns out they just want to ruin our country by getting married.

I started thinking about the irrational and ignorant fears some people have regarding gays. Just a few:

their agenda is to turn straight people gay – leave a comment if you have been converted from straight to gay by a gay person
they will molest our children – straight men (or women) NEVER molest children
if they marry it will ruin the moral fiber of our christian nation – gay couples are living together as married couples now and this has affected your life exactly how?

Then it occurred to me that the ban should not be on gay marriage but on heterosexual marriage. It would seem, and I think statistics would prove, that the vast majority of gay people were born of straight parents (married or not). So if the Pat Robertsons of the world want to eliminate the abomination of gays then he needs to campaign against straight marriage.

For more stupidity check out Stupid Pat Robertson Quotes.

6 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

While I am not a biologist and I am certain this has not be scientifically proven yet, I would venture to say that homosexuality is probably a recessive genetic trait.

That being said, gay marriage is an entirely different issue. It has more to do with the definition of marriage.

While I have not exactly researched this, I would venture to say that most states have civil union laws. So going to ‘town hall’ and getting a certificate of civil union is not all that different than getting a marriage certificate. So the public contracts are essentially the same. I am sure some states may limit the scope of civil unions, but I would suspect that would be settled to a large extent.

There is a procreation component to marriage that biologically does not exist in a ‘gay’ relationship. Marriage always contained religious or spiritual pretexts.

In the end the issue broadens to “what constitutes a family”. The answers to these questions have real social, emotional and financial consequences.

Comment by Phil— October 23, 2009 #

Reply
- There is a procreation component to marriage that biologically does not exist in a ‘gay’ relationship.
  
  Not all straight marriages include children, and of the ones that do, they are not all biological children but adopted, so some non-gay marriages also lack this biological component.
  
  The answers to these questions have real social, emotional and financial consequences.
  
  I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically, perhaps you would care to be more specific. Keep in mind though, I’ve heard people make similar arguments. These are the same arguments they made against inter-racial marriages in our not too distant past, and more recently (last week) by a judge in Louisiana.
  
  Comment by honjii— October 23, 2009 #
  
  Reply
  - All heterosexual marriages start off with a biological expectation of reproducing the species … the fact that some do not, is either because of medical reasons or by choice. ‘gay marriages’ will NEVER reproduce the species (humans are not frogs).
    
    The recent event in Louisiana is inconsequential since the couple simply went to another judge and got married. This is no different then the Social Security Administration denying all initial claims to disability as a matter of course.
    
    The exception is that inter-racial couples stand a better chance of getting married than getting the SSA to consider your disability claim without legal intervention.
    
    Simply put, how a society defines ‘family’ has social (or legal), economic (or financial) and emotional (or religious) consequences. Are you suggesting that the definition is inconsequential ?
    
    Comment by Phil— October 24, 2009 #
    
    Reply
@Phil,

All heterosexual marriages start off with a biological expectation of reproducing the species.

How can you possibly know what is in the minds of people who marry? Many people decide long before marriage not to reproduce.

The recent event in Louisiana is inconsequential since the couple simply went to another judge and got married.

Just because the couple was able to obtain a marriage license from another judge hardly makes the event inconsequential. Are you kidding me? Since when is it okay for a sitting judge to deny someone their civil rights because of their own personal bias?

This is no different then the Social Security Administration denying all initial claims to disability as a matter of course.

How is this even relevant?

Simply put, how a society defines ‘family’ has social (or legal), economic (or financial) and emotional (or religious) consequences. Are you suggesting that the definition is inconsequential?

So you and some other closed minded people think that allowing a group of people to have the same civil rights you enjoy will somehow impact YOU financially or emotionally. Oh please, do tell how this would happen. Tell us why two people of the same gender marrying would be different than two people of different genders marrying. I can hardly wait.

Comment by honjii— October 26, 2009 #

Reply
Phil, what have you been smoking man? Your comments are all over the place, and no offense but you are not making a whole lot of sense in trying to make your point, you sound very confused..and it’s confusing to read what you wrote, so what the heck are you trying to say here?

Comment by contrarian— October 28, 2009 #

Reply
i myself a Doctor and i agree your points.

Comment by sexual health— November 10, 2009 #

Reply