Are you honestly coming here saying homosexuality boils down to attraction?
So if I am attracted to a car am I allowed to legally marry that car. May I have sex with my car. May I enforce others who do not have sex with cars to make accommodations for my lifestyle choices?
There is absolutely no hostility from any significant portion of the population towards what you would define as a normal marriage. At present, there is a great deal of hostility towards those who attempt to define marriage as only between a man and a woman (And the reverse is true as well of course), but that is not quite the same thing.
You're complaining about letting kids have toys of their own choice? Really?
The definition of marriage doesn't belong to Christians, it was around long before them, exists without them, and certainly has not always been only between a man and a woman. It is a social and legal construct that has been defined and redefined very very often throughout human history. Whether or not a person's marriage is of a type that your particular faith approves of is entirely irrelevant to its place in the law. Now, a different issue would be if religious institutions were being required to perform services for marriages they don't approve of, but that's not happening.
Transgender bathrooms is the one issue that I can understand you objecting to. But to be frank, its just a formalization of something that's already been happening. TG individuals have been using the bathroom they fit in best in for decades already, with none of the issues people are declaring would happen.
Challenge attempt #1: Homosexual behavior is not biologically necessary.
Answer: Technically true, but the same can ultimately be said of clothing, government, modern medicine, cities, nations, religion itself, and nearly every single aspect of everyone's lives that are not strictly necessary for survival much beyond childbearing age. Are you going to ban those as well? I asked for an argument against homosexuality, not a declaration that the species doesn't need it to continue.
Using attraction as an argument isn't the best approach I feel. Pedophiles say that they are attracted to children for example.
Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years up to now. I have no problem with who people choose to love as long as they are consenting adults. Changing marriage like we have has opened Pajdora's box. Anything goes now. Who are we to discriminate against who someone is attracted to? In the decades ahead we will see new types of marriage allowed that would shock us right now. I would make that bet with a certainty. I feel that it should have been kept as a civil union. Now the cow is out of the barn as they say.
Edited: Kyrroeth on 18th Oct, 2017 - 12:02am
Not really, there are two limitations that no one is contesting in regards to marriage, and sexual relations in general for that matter.
-Both participants must be consenting. Aside from the obvious, this principle alone bans children, animals, and other such things.
-Participants must not be closely related. This principle is likely to remain enforced indefinitely, as there are strong biological and psychological reasons to keep incest illegal.
The main reason that gay marriage is now being contested is that unlike the above two items, there is no strong ethical argument against it, just ages old prejudice.
Edited: daishain on 18th Oct, 2017 - 12:23am
Uhh, yes I am coming here to say Homosexuality boils down to attraction. That is the literal definition of Homosexuality.
The original question of this post was:
Are people born gay or do they chose it.
Who you are attracted to is not a choice.
Pedophilia and Mechanophilia are not the same as homosexuality.
In the case of Pedophilia, it is illegal because children are not mature enough to properly consent and it is damaging to the child.
Mechanophilia is not illegal (In most places) because there essentially is no harm in it (If done in the privacy of your own garage). Marrying a car is not legal(Hard to get a car to say 'I do').
In regards to marriage, why does it matter if 2 people of the same sex get married? Who does it affect? If you don't like same sex marriages then don't have one.
You could say the same exact thing about gay marriage ten years ago. Forty years ago it was thought of as abhorrent like pedophilia. If you would have asked anyone back then if it would be legal one day they would have laughed I am sure.
There are people now pushing for the age of consent to be lowered. There is an attempt to normalize pedophilia on the fringes. Forty years from now it will be legal.
Why can't a man marry his mother or sister? It would cause issues genetically speaking but reproduction is not the purpose of marriage now. Societal norms change. Just wait and see.
I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I just see that it kicks in the door for everything else.
Edited: Kyrroeth on 18th Oct, 2017 - 12:47am
The slippery slope fallacy has been used against every civil rights issue. Back in the early 1900's, if people had listened to those arguing as you argue now Kyrroeth, you wouldn't have the right to vote, or indeed do many other things.
There is a strong distinction between these issues, while I cannot guarantee that your scenario would never ever happen, there is much more that must change than just this for it to be possible.
The argument about there being no reproductive purpose in a homosexual relationship is true but it assumes that relationships are only about reproduction. Humans are more complicated than that and often do things that do not have reproduction in mind. Its not only true among us. There are many animals that display this behavior: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia which gives rise to the belief that this is all biological and not merely a "Choice".