If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

[Michael-5]

Jay520 said:

Michael-5 said:

1. I'm against homosexuality, but not gay people (at least not those who practice unsafe sex). I worded that poorly before. I don't think the illness is "okay" or normal. It's a defect, or a disorder, it's not something you choose to have, and current cures are no better then cures for schizophrenia only a century ago. However I don't hate homosexuals, they didn't choose to be gay, and like everyone else they deserve to be happy.

2. Google fitness. It's a term genetecists use to determine the reproductive abilitiy of a species. It should be pretty obvious that two people of the same gender can't reproduce. So it does hurt the fitness of the human race, you even said it in your bullet. However does it matter that a small population can't reproduce? No, not really, thats why I said I'm okay with homosexuals and gay marriage, but why not look for a cure? Not all homosexuals want to remain homosexual. I'm sure a lot of people want to raise their own child, and not an adoptee.

Do you not care about homosexuals who wish to have a monogamous marriage and produce a child using their own genetic material? Do you not want people who wish to live heterosexual lives to have that choice?

3. I am against the condition, I explained myself poorly before. If you look at my previous messages I mentioned several times that I'm not against gay individuals, i'm just against the illness.

However it's not a harmful illness, but it is a defect of some sort. There is no gay gene, people didn't evolve to become homosexuals. It does not benefit the fitness of the species, but unlike every genetic trait that harms the fitness of a species, it doesn't disappear over a few generations. Thus homosexuality is not a genetic trait, and since it's not something that people develop, and people are born gay, then it's most likely an error in DNA replication. Hence a defect, no different from down syndrome, or schizophenea (which is beleived to be such). Homosexuality occurs randomly in the population, and it's very difficult to correct genetic defects, but research has been advancing in these fields.

1. Please explain what you mean by being "against homosexuality." Because based off what you're saying, you are not against homosexuality as a whole. You are against homosexuals who practice unprotected sex, and you are against homosexuality only when it occurs in people who don't want to be homosexuality.. These people do not make up all homosexuals; they are only a subset of homosexuals. So it's silly to say you are against homosexualiy as a whole.

2. Why do you care about the reproductive ability of a small part of humanity? 

3. "Thus homosexuality is not a genetic trait, and since it's not something that people develop, and people are born gay,"

You don't know this. Scientist don't know this. Accept the fact that you don't know. Once you accept that, this can go along a lot smoother. With that said, people may not be born gay, in which case, it's probably not possible for their to be a cure.

Again, what do you mean by being "against the condition." What the hell does that even mean? Do you want all homosexuals to be forced to be straight? What? What does that mean?

1. I'm against the condition, not the individual. It's not the individuals fault that he or she is gay, but I do think that looking for a cure would be beneficial towards society.

I am against unsafe sex, but that's not an act limited to homosexuals. I only mentioned this because I was listing reasons why homosexuality does affect non homosexuals in a negative way, and statistically homosexuals do have a higher occurance of STD's then straight people.

2. Like I said above, homosexuals themselves should have the option to be "cured" and become heterosexuals. The fact that they can't at this stage in medical advancement means that we have a condition, which negatively affects some individuals, and like every medical condition we should look for a cure.

Do you not care about homosexuals who wish to have a monogamous marriage and produce a child using their own genetic material? Do you not want people who wish to live heterosexual lives to have that choice?

3. Actually most scientists do agree that homosexuality is caused by some biological process before birth. The difference is where. Some scientists think it's a genetic mutation, so think it's an error during early stages in the uterus.

I have yet to read an article relating homosexuality to social  and psychological environment, and I'm sure if you ask any gay person, they didn't become gay. You're born this way.

By against the condition, I am looking at homosexuality as a disorder, like down syndrome. I have no problem with down syndrome people, I'm very nice to them, but I want to look for a cure. Same with homosexuality. It's a condition (illness, defect, disorder, whatever it is), which can be cured, and I think we should look for a cure to give homosexuals the option of becoming heterosexuals. Like we both agree, it's a condition which really doesn't affect the way people live in a negative or harmful way, so there is no reason to force this cure upon people, but there should be an option for those who wish to be heterosexual in order to have a family, or escape opression.