Gay Marriage/Rights

I'd like to say that, you did not refute my point. I was actually arguing in a utilitarian point of view. In that point of view, how one feels about it is highly important. I said for several reasons, it's for the greater good that the government does not allow SSM. "Well, whether you like it or not, homosexuals are in our society. But allowing SSM does not force you to accept homosexuals. Even without allowing SSM you still cannot discriminate against someone because they are a homosexual. All allowing SSM does is give homosexuals the right they deserve. And homosexuals already have the right to be publicly homosexual, and express their love for each other. They've never been deprived of those rights." I do know that homosexuals are in our society, hence our debate. You have not given a reason for me that they deserve any right they actually deserve. Personally, it's very ludicruous that anyone has a magically 'deserved' right in the first place. But as you point out, if discrimination and prejudice continues, we do not have to give them the right to publicly announce to get themselves publicly discriminated. It's not only good for the vast majority, but in an ironic sense, good for also the inevitably homosexual. I'll skip #2 refute for further down. Instead, I'll add in the dillema part here. "I apologize, but I'm not sure what point your trying to make with this argument. Please forgive me, but I have no response." Allow me to explain. It is a simple dillema whether to consider homosexuality a psychological/genetic disease. If one could prevent or cure one from such a state, would you consider it a disease? It is of course, already abnormals. There are two ways to consider. 1. We deprive them of their choice, and prevent/cure all of them. It would cleanse our society of homosexuals, and we do not have to further worry about homosexuals. 2. We give them their choice. But it would most likely not be for the best of our own good. Because obviously, it wouldn't make the vast majority feel good. Which does not good to the most, and in a utilitarian sense, thats very bad. And furthermore is that we can actually do this. While a cure maybe far from happening, prevention of many possible homosexuals is possible. Furthermore, that will be connected to my #2 argument. I will refute first. I personally believe that there will never be a way to absolutely prove or absolutely disprove that homosexuality is genetic. However, not only are there literally hundreds of studies displaying strong evidence for the argument that homosexuality is genetic, all homosexuals (except for perhaps a handful) say that they didn't choose to be homosexual. There is also evidence in the homosexual suicide rate, which is much, much higher than the heterosexual suicide rate. What about all those homosexual children whose deaths have been floating around the news? In most of their suicide notes they admitted to having been bullied and abused at school for being homosexual and that was their main reason for suicide. If you could just switch your sexuality with the snap of your fingers, why didn't those children do that? Why couldn't they just be heterosexual? Because it isn't a choice. You can't decide your sexual orientation, no more than you can decide if your male or female. I don't care what you believe. That's not the point either. And next is a link. Genetics does not always override how one becomes. One is also influenced by its surroundings to form who one is. A person is actually the output of its template and in addition, its past. http://www.narth.com... 'There is also evidence in the homosexual suicide rate, which is much, much higher than the heterosexual suicide rate. What about all those homosexual children whose deaths have been floating around the news? In most of their suicide notes they admitted to having been bullied and abused at school for being homosexual and that was their main reason for suicide.' That helps support the fact that we should prevent more people/children from turning to homosexuality. If you could just switch your sexuality with the snap of your fingers, why didn't those children do that? Why couldn't they just be heterosexual? Because it isn't a choice. You can't decide your sexual orientation, no more than you can decide if your male or female. No, people always have a choice. But not always is the case when you can go back on your choice. Like I said, and with the reference above round, homosexuality is mostly the result of the environment. If you change the environment, then you can also change the person, without choice. As referenced above, one of the key pivot in the typical process of how one turns to homosexuality are: lack of a father, inability to assimilate a masculine identity, acquiring a feminine identity... But the one key thing is that the very process is very pivotal in the stages where a toddler is in elementary school. It would prevent homosexuals if one were to segregate the males and females in different classes on elementary schools. In that sense, it would help toddlers develope their own 'correct' gender-identity, and furthermore help develope a more 'craving' for the opposite sex. And the very point is that we 'can' prevent homosexuals. And in a utilitarian sense, that is very good. If you could just switch your sexuality with the snap of your fingers, why didn't those children do that? Why couldn't they just be heterosexual? Because it isn't a choice. You can't decide your sexual orientation, no more than you can decide if your male or female. No. People always have a choice, only that some choices come with cold hard consequences. But, people always have had the choice to become what they want. What mistake or misconception you maybe making is that they made a choice, but cannot easily go back on that choice. Usually, the case is that people did not choose themselves, but let their environment choose for themselves. It usually ends up bad. But in a sense, you're saying something similar to this. For example: A game addict is 'addicted'. He cannot 'give up' on games. He always has to play the games, and thus has horrible grades, and horrible future. He has the choice to give up the gaming, and continue his academic ways to pave way for a rather brighter future. It might be hard, but he had a choice. But he does not make that choice, and let his addiction get the better of him. The addiction developes, and he becomes suicidal when he does not play games. God knows what will happened to him. What you say I'm sure is true. It's actually true with the majority of religions. I'm not sure where you live, but in America we live in a democracy not a theocracy. They do sound alike but they're not the same thing. Unless you live in a theocracy, the government should not be ruled by religion. The reason for this is because everyone believes something different. Not everyone is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu... In America, you have the freedom of religion, which is the right to practice any religion you want. You do not, however, have the right to impose your religious beliefs on someone else. So while you do have the right to be, for example, a Jew. You do not have the right to force someone else to be a Jew. While what you say is pointless to this topic at hand, you did make a point that majority of the religions do believe that homosexuality is not desirable. What I said was not how I want you to be a 'Confucianist'. I'm not even Confucianist. What I said was how confucians believe how a well-ordered society leads to a better future. And how I connected it to a utilitarian view, that homosexuality is undesirable, and makes people feel uncomfortable. It would not only be irrational to allow them SSM, but it would rather be more logical to prevent and rid of homosexuals. And furthermore, do not call me a Nazi. I am not a Nazi.