Gay Marriage/Rights

You still haven't got my point. I said these reasons because it is 'good' in a utilitarian perspective. You have no perspective, except you hinted that you were a homosexual. In that sense, you still haven't said anything about how allowing SSM will benefit our society, and our future. Adoption? That's because they don't have a choice, if they ever wanted a child. They cannot breed. It also doesn't help the fact that our society is growing old, and the population pyramid is going inverse pyramid. Necessarily, it provides a utilitarian reason to do the society more good, and less bad. Then what have heterosexual couples done to deserve the right to marry? I don't see them performing any special tasks to earn the right to marry. No one deserves the right to marry if it has to be earned. They can breed. Adopting doesn't count in breeding. It doesn't help the world turning senile, but heterosexual couples can breed. That is a good, in a utilitarian sense. Homosexuals do nothing to help our society, but to stir up trouble. So your suggesting we silence all homosexuals by taking away their first amendment right (the right to free speech), so that heterosexuals won't become offended? That's ridiculous. Homosexuals already have limited rights, and you think we should go ahead and take away a birthright(which, by the way, is something you don't have to earn)? You can't deprive someone the right to marry who they love because "it disgusts you". The only reason "discrimination and prejudice" exists, is because of people like you who refuse to accept people for who they are and try to enforce their will on the minority by trying to make them live a lie, which is what you suggested we do. It isn't a violation of the freedom of speech if you define marriage as a bonding of male and female. Under current definition of marriage, males and males simply cannot bond. And the 'disgust' is the important part, which is one of the major reason why it works in the utilitarian sense. Why should the majority have to sacrifice so much to save a few? Again, you can't tell someone else how to live their lives. As I said before, we had the same dilemma with the Civil Rights Movement. The whites were the vast majority in that situation and it made the whites feel good to know that the blacks, whom they considered beneath them, did not have the same rights as they did. That obviously made the vast majority feel good, but we look back on it today and most consider segregation based on race to be wrong. The same thing will happen when homosexuals get the right to marry. Most look back on it and think "Yeah, that was the right thing to do." I'm sorry but I couldn't help but notice that, dealing with the two points you gave above, 2. (waiting years upon years for a "cure" and then forcing homosexuals to accept the cure, which is unconstitutional) seems alot more easier and simpler than 1. (just simply giving them their rights). But that's just me. No, we didn't have the same dillema. African Americans aren't what they choose to become. They're born African American, and frankly, they can breed also. Not only that, when they were freed from slavery, they provided a great labor force for the factories, which helped America become what is today. In the utilitarian sense, they've done a great deal. But what will homosexuals do? Make gay bars? No... It helps my argument not yours. You completely avoided my argument. As I said, if it were a choice they could have just become heterosexual and ended it all. People kill themselves over being homosexual. People cry their eyes out over being homosexual. That doesn't really sound like a choice to me. Ask any homosexual and they will tell you. Again, there is a difference between choice that one has made, but is hard to turn back to. Many are rather feeble minded, and cannot cope with the fact that they're discriminated and snarled at the fact that they did whatever their psychological process led them to. That would do nothing but feed the fire. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then this would do nothing more than stimulate an excitement around the same sex. Coming from a homosexual, I would not be surprised. But as I have stated, typical homosexuals aren't born homosexual. (Which is actually funny, because I'm trying to say homosexual isn't genetic, and you're trying to say homosexual isn't genetic, and trying to act as if it were counter-acting my argument.) They look and act a normal child, until they enter elementary school. Again, the source. And a ton of sources behind that one actually. http://www.narth.com...... As you can see, they analyze that typical homosexuals are the result of a psychological process that begins in elementary, and developes into a full-fledged homosexuality by the time they reach puberty. That is because most homosexuals had had hard time getting along with the masculine (male example) identity, which has led into a craving. But when that reaches puberty without solving the problem, it would lead to a typical homosexuality. And on the round above, I implied that if you segregate both sexes from each other at the elementary stage, they would have no choice but to get along with each other. Even loners have some company in that state, which would prevent most from developing the craving of the same sex. And when that reaches puberty, they would rather crave the opposite sex rather than the same sex. So your saying people choose to be male or female? Left-handed or Right-handed? Smart or dumb? Did you choose to be straight? I know I didn't because I was born that way. You don't choose who you are, God or nature, whatever you believe, made you that way. That is very different from what we're talking about. Male and females are completely decided by the 26th pair of chromosomes, and handedness is also decided by genetics. But it hasn't been unheard of being able to be omnidextrous as a result of practicing the opposite hands. You could also abandon your main hand, and be a lefty through practice (if you were a righty.). In that example however, we can also guess that there is a way to override some things that are genetic. Even if you were homosexual, there could possibly be a psychological, hypnotical, and meditorial methods to stop being a homosexual. I did not say you were a Confucianist. I simply said, that no one has any right to force someone to obey the laws of their religion. Actually if you put all of the numbers together, around 30%-40% of heterosexuals are fine with homosexuals. Just because your a heterosexual doesn't mean you automatically hate homosexuals. So again, put all the numbers together and the number of people who are "homophobic" or strongly disagree with homosexuals, is barely the majority. No, you did not get my point. I didn't say most hate homosexuals, I said most are repulsive against homosexuals. Even if they do not 'think' they don't have hate towards homosexuals, it is in no doubt that most people are creeped out by homosexuals. If you look my reasons up, you will realize I have said nothing about 'forcing' or 'obeying'. I said it would be more reasonable and logical in the utilitarian sense not to allow SSM. And as a Devil's Advocate, I'm not a homosexual hater. But I've seen how I can be repulsive toward homosexuals. Also, I was making a point that Confucianism in a utilitarian sense, the society would be better off without allowing SSM. You still have not refuted that fact.