Why does this matter?

I might've lost track of what you're trying to argue, so clue me in if I'm missing the point here:

Homosexual relations and homosexuality can be considered abnormal and deviant, maybe even defective from an evolutionary standpoint (though they're perfectly able to procreate). If that's your point, I agree. But I don't see how you get from 'abnormal', 'deviant', or 'defective' to 'immoral'.

And furthermore, I don't see why it would even matter if homosexuals were defective in that way - what's the actual relevance? You've got to explain why these points you're making are significant.

how did this deteriorate into a debate about who gets to say x is or is not "normal"? and why is this interesting?

any considered understanding of "normal" in the broader social or descriptive sense treats it as a synonym for "functional"----and what is socially functional encompasses a wide range of behaviours, like it or not.

you can't revert to evolutionary-style narratives in this context because there is no agreement on which time-frame is relevant to such discussions when they are applied to social life, and because there is no such agreement there is no meaningful way to demonstrate claims.
to revert to this is to mix up descriptive and normative.

normative claims about "normal" involve fundamentally different criteria.
the simple fact of the matter is there there is no natural law, there is no single set of norms that function as a baseline for all others, and so it follows that there is no way for people who operate within one normative set to argue that the normative set of another is absolutely wrong. all that can be said, really, is that actor x in group 1 does not like what actor b in group 7 does. the usual next move is to try to link claims that are arbitrary outside a given frame of reference to another claim concerning the idea that there is a single "mainstream culture" and a subsidiary claim concerning who gets to speak for that meanstream culture. there claims are ridiculous, and even if they weren't they still are not any good because the strongest position you can dervie from it amounts to a variant of "eat shit: 100 million flies cant be wrong"

mixing the two kinds of evaluation is simply an example of shabby thinking--which i see alot of here from the "we do not like gay people" set--ustwo is engaged in a tedious semantic game that is predicated on blurring any meaningful line between descriptive and normative, which he tries to legitimate by endlessly referencing his background in biology, much of which is no doubt a kind of abstraction in his line of work and so is amenable to being rearranged, blurred and used for cheap political purposes, etc. the recurrent claims of "ich bin ein expert" resonante in this context in a manner similar to the way it resonated when acting immortal karl hungus uttered this line in "the big lebowski"---ncb seems unaware that there is any distinction between normative and descriptive and the results are predictable...i could go on but my interest is waning fast.

perhaps it is time for this thread to dribble toward a well-deserved conclusion.

The main rhetorical trick the anti-gay side seems to have in this thread is to shift the sand. You can't reply to one statement without them saying, "That proves this other statement! Ha ha! I win! I always win!"

It's now officially pointless to discuss this any further, so here's the bottom line, for me. Homosexuals are human beings. To whatever degree they differ from the norm, it's not because of any choice they made; it's because of something entirely outside their control. The least a caring society should do is to allow homosexuals the same rights and benefits as everyone else. Anyone in the world is free to disagree with me. If you do, I assert that you're lacking in compassion.

The same anti-gay argument could be made for not making public buildings handicapped-accessible. Being in a wheelchair is abnormal, after all. Why should those people have special ramps and stuff? It's a valid position, I guess, but it's pretty heartless.

When you said that it was a trait that would be lost over time.
So then we agree that homosexuality is probably a natural way to deal with overpopulation. Natural. Normal. Acceptable. Even usefull.
I hope you have a link or citation to support that. How do you know that homosexuality doesn't only appear or become more prevalant when a population becomes to big? The current population, 300,000,000 people in the US alone, is CLEARLY overpopulation. And there are more homosexual people in larger cities.
If that were so, how did I formulate arguments against you? You can't argue with truth, but you sure as hell can argue with flawed logic.

Oh I'm firmly on the track, I think we are on different trains :D

both currently and historically - who have practised on a wide scale and condoned same sex behaviour and orientation (such as the Sambia or ancient Greeks),

In my last post, which you may not have seen I pointed out this is bisexuality not homosexuality. Bi sexuality, especially learned bisexuality, wouldn't stop you have having children. Its really an apple vrs an orange argument here. I don't have anything to cite by my own memory, but from what I was taught, homosexuality was not considered normal or desirable in the greeks. You had social sex with your male friends, and wives, slave women, and prostitutes for the real thing.

the "birth defect" argument assumes that homosexuality is caused by genetics.

No, not all birth defects are genetic. Birth defect means the damage was done prior to birth. It doesn't matter if its genetic or environmental at that point.

Upbringing may be the predominant role,

From what I have read, this has been pretty well debunked.

exposure to various hormones at certain stages of development might do it,

This may well be true to exposure to hormones prior to birth in male homosexuals, it doesn't seem to be true after birth. The 'male' brain is stamped into place and doesn't require hormones to be male after birth. This is why young boys like to hit things with sticks, and are less verbal than young girls. Neither has sex hormones telling them what to do or their brain how to form at this point, the change has already occurred. Young boys who act more feminine have been shown to have a greater chance of being homosexuals once they reach sexual maturity than more masculine boys. I can't say how this applies to female homosexuality as its less well studied. One thing that was done was to treat male homosexuals with testosterone to see if that 'cured' them of being gay. What the result was they were more horny but for homosexual sex, the hormone didn't make them straight, their brains were not wired at such.

or there may be a "gay" gene.

There MIGHT be a single 'gay' gene, but I don't think thats the case. I think there is most likely a group of genes which makes one susceptible to being gay. If the mothers hormonal condition is right (and the leading cause is believed to be stress hormones in the mother) and you are susceptible to being gay, the brain turns 'gay'. It doesn't matter a whole lot if its a gene, gene's, or pure development to the child, it all happens before birth and can't be changed after by any means we are aware of.

The reason I think its genetic is there does seem to be a family trend for it. Families who I know have homosexual members, tend to have other family members who do as well, though not always immediate family (which would help to limit the 'nurture' argument).

You're focusing on only one potential cause, without considering the other strong possibilites, which is hardly a very scientific or dispassionate way of looking at things as you claim to do.

:hmm: I have been nothing but scientific or dispassionate. I think the issue is you don't have a good understanding of the science and are not thinking through the situation. Most people think of genetics as a black and white science. Bonde hair or brown, blue eyes or green, all based on the old dominant/recessive genes you were taught in biology freshman year in highschool. In reality very few genes follow this pattern, and there are many overlapping effects. If there was a 'gay' gene, my guess is it would have died out a long time ago. If there was no genetic component, then we would be able to isolate what the environmental conditions were that caused the change. Instead I think its clear we have a genetic predisposition which can be affected by the conditions in utero.

My argument has remained the same. Its the pro-homosexual redefinition of marriage crowd that has been twisting themselves into pretezels defending their position. Homosexual "marriage" is unnatural and it should not turn upside down the very building block of our society, especially since they represent 3-5 % of the gen pop.

Although this is seriously off topic, I wanted to say thank you to each and every person who has posted in this thread so far.

I can honestly say that this is one of the best debates I've seen so far where each person throughly explains their points, the points are commented on with through explainations, and it hasn't come down to a huge flamer thread.

I would post my opinion but all I have are a few questions if anyone can answer them:

For the greek references, are there any referral websites/sources to look at? I've been curious about that and it has come up in many gay debate conversations.

For the science: the gay gene factor, I've heard research studies have been conducted, again, sources?


Overall: thank you all again for posting, I really hope this thread continues, it's been very educational.

You put the penis in the vagina. There are variations.

You're very tenacious for someone who can't retain the same argument for more than three or four posts.


Oooooh, an arbitrary and selectively applied reason why homosexual families are wrong. Frankly, i'm shocked.

I'm sure you thought a lot of things about homosexuality. Unfortunately you can't seem to consistently think the same thing about why it is wrong for more than a day or so.

Umm, where have you been? Divorce, adultery, spousal abuse, or any number of other things, I'm pretty sure they've turned your 'building block of our society' upside down quite a bit, but why discuss those, it's those damn gays.:rolleyes:

Next time you call something a 'building block of our society', make sure it can support the weight.

As useless as many marriages turn out to be, the normal union can produce a productive family situation. With a homosexual "marriage", this is biologically impossible in any situation.

A homosexual "marriage" will never have the stability of a natural, heterosexual one. You can spin all the statistics and celebrity couples you like, the differences in men and women are purposeful and no amount of put on feminine and masculine homosexual enthusiasm can imitate that.

BTW, nice avatar. Fan of the old USSR I see

I'm really interested in what real world evidence you have of that. Do you actually know any gay people, NCB? How about any gay couples? This paragraph has the smack of blind faith about it.

Gay people are human beings. They're just like you. They deserve everything you deserve. That's what I have blind faith in. I'd much rather live in a world where people are interested in our similarities than one where people are interested in our differences.

We'll just agree to disagree I guess. I'm not for denying anyone anything, I'm just agianst giving 3-5% of the genpop special rights that in turn revolutionize the way family structures are designed for the rest of us.

Wait... So that's the fourth or fifth time the argument has changed. I don't disagree that we'll have to agree to disagree. I just want to be clear what I'm agreeing to disagree with.

What exactly does a gay couple having equal rights do to your marriage? How does it impact anybody other than that gay couple?

Also, for the second time, I ask: do you know any gay people? Any gay couples?

ratbastid, I would just like to say that you summed up my feelings on the situation present in this thread very well.

I guess not everyone can be as compassionate or caring for another human being as we would like them to be.

1. Again, they already have equal rights. They just want special rights. It impacts society as a whole for it legitimizes a sexual fetish. Also, it will eventually lead to homosexual sex education in our schools and thus upsurping the majority of American families values.

2. Yes, my hair stylist is a homosexual man. Great guy.

Marriage is a special right? Why? Also, I think you might be confused. "American family values" is a meaningless phrase. There were no family values set up in the Constitution or the BOR. Family values are everchanging as society ever grows and evolves. What you mean to say is traditional religous values, as the moral ida that homosexuality is wrong has an obvious root in religon. That makes this whole thing religous persecution.

Not allowing homosexuals the right to mary has, is and always will be religous persecution. It's like not letting Jewish people marry.

All marriage is unnatural.

Granting homosexuals equal marriage rights will not in any way affect heterosexuals or their marriages, and won't turn the institution upside down.

A homosexual marriage can be a productive and functional family situation. Mine certainly is, as is that of my sister-in-law and her wife.

Setting aside for a moment that there's no such thing as a "natural" marriage, why do you say this? I've been married four years and in a stable relationship with my wife for five. I know a good number of gay couples in long term stable relationships.

I'm trying to respond to this, but I can't seem to understand the point you're trying to make. If it's about gender roles, most of the homosexual couples I know don't adopt traditional gender roles within the marriage, or attempt to emulate the masculine-feminine dynamic that you seem to be implying. My wife and I are both femme. We're mostly just trying to be who we are and find a mode of expression that fits us as a person and a balance within the marriage that fits us as a couple. I imagine that's what most heterosexual individuals and couples do.

You're wrong on both points. We don't want special rights, we want the same rights as heterosexuals. Extending civil marriage to homosexuals won't change anything about it for those in or entering heterosexual marriages.

If gay is genetic can someone explain to me why I work with a pair of identical twins one of which is gay and the other of which is not?

I believe being gay is primarily a result of influences within ones life, many of which are probably outside of the control of the individual. I don't believe it is genetic nor do I necessarily believe everyone makes a conscious choice to be gay. With that been said I defiantly do not believe that just because someone is gay we should treat them differently, that we should ridicule them and take away their rights. For some reason I have a hunch Jesus wouldn't support that either, didn't he come for the sinner not the sanctified....

I've already demolished the "they'll gay up our kids" pap; I'm not going back there.

Explain how not being allowed public and legal recognition of their relationships constitutes having equal rights, please.

Have you talked with him about this? I'd be really interested to see what would happen if you put a human face on the people you're working so hard to invalidate.

Where did I say I was a fan of the USSR? Or are you assuming that because I have a hammer and sickle in my avatar I must be a fan of them? Of course if I have it for an avatar then I must be a fan, I couldn't just put it there to fill the space when I can't find anything better to put on

Funny though it's only 2 posters who have mentioned my avatar, and both happen to tow the dubya party line to a T. Any guesses as to who the other is aside from NCB, it's really easy?

Oh MR. Kotter, I can answer that one, OH OH OH OH MR. KOTTER!

I'm surprised you remember it though for reasons in that thread :lol:

Actually lesbian couples have been shown to be mostly stable, gay males far less stable. Personally I think it doesn't play any part in the argument about marriage per say.

I miss Welcome Back Kotter so much, what a great show that was.

I'm rather impressed I remember that too, it was a rough, weekend, damn pot is going to be the death of my memory :lol:

OMG you defective human!!! You should be singled out and poked fun at and stripped of all your rights!!!!!

See how silly that sounds? :rolleyes:

For Craps and Giggles I went to Dictionary dot com...

marriage Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

I am particularly fond of #4 and #6. Note not one of the above definitions say anything about children.

Live and let live! Group hug! Lets all sing campfire songs now!

If that were so, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We have unequal rights and would like to change that so that we are recognized as equals.

Please elaborate. What "special rights" do we want that are not also granted to heterosexuals?

First, homosexuality isn't a fetish. I'm assuming you're attracted to women. So am I. If this is a fetish, it applies to both of us.

Second, there's nothing wrong with a fetish that doesn't impair one's sexual or social functioning. A fetish becomes a paraphilia only when it causes impairment, and homosexuality doesn't fit.

This is a big leap in logic. Explain the connection here, how gay marriage would lead to homosexuality being included in sex education.

I see these as separate issues, and would like to see homosexuality included in comprehensive sex education so that people will be more informed on the subject and we can demystify it. So long as the subject matter being taught is done in an equivalent manner to how heterosexual sex is treated, I have no problem with such an inclusion. Why would this be a bad thing?

How would you propose accomplishing this? It seems to me that many of the specifics of the actual sexual acts and precautions can pertain to either homosexuals or heterosexuals. Do you mean sexual education in terms of sociology?

This still doesn't explain how and where I said that homosexuality was relatively new.

No. This has been proven true in animals; It has yet to be seen in humans. I won't even get into the fact that homosexuality in humans has been documented long before the issue of overcrowding ever became the central topic of debate. In regions where there is severe overcrowding, you would expect homosexuality to be more prevalent than in regions with less people per square mile/kilometer, but this simply isn't the case. In fact, it's almost the opposite. Did you know that a large portion of homosexuality in humans occurs in regions which aren't considered to be overcrowded?

Wait... The United States is the third largest country by landmass and the third largest by population. The fact is that the United States doesn't even rank at the top of the most densely populated countries of the world yet we have one of the highest occurances of homosexuality. Please explain to me how this fits into your "Population control" theory?

Simple answer: You didn't :lol:

I meant that I see same-sex marriage and inclusion of homosexuality as part of a comprehensive sex education program as separate issues, though I am in favor of both.

I do agree that, other than vaginal intercourse, sex acts and the precautions needed to engage in them more safely are applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual contact.

You do have equal rights.

I hate this argument, as it can be applied to a multiple of different social groups which suffer the same "Injustices" that homosexuals feel they endure.

"Why can't I drink legally but someone over the age of 21 can?"
"Why can't I vote? It's discriminatory?"
"Why can't I <Insert action here> while <Insert group name> can?"

An argument shouldn't rely on the "They can so why can't I?" premise for strength, as it usually crumbles under scrutiny.

NCB...you really need to explain your "special rights" argument. How is it "special" to want to be able to enter into a social contract (leaving the religious issue aside, for that is a church matter, not a state matter) that would provide the same rights for any two adults entering into a committed relationship.

As to the sex ed component, whats wrong with a comprehensive sex ed program that acknowledges and allows an honest discussion of homosexuality. I suspect many kids would appreciate the facts and not the myths that are perpetrated. But then again, I think many of the parents are probably more fearful than the kids and many would still prefer to limit sex ed to abstinence only.

While I've ignored the 'homosexuality as population control' sub-thread, I have to say he did nail you here will.

Homosexuality as population control doesn't seem to work as an evolutionary 'reason', at least not in todays society.

I think we had different sex-ed classes in high school, or my memories even dodgier than I originally thought...totally possible. I think what you're describing would be something of a combination between what we had in sexual education (which wasn't really sociological interaction of either hetero or homo, but only biological "here's the penis, here's the vagina, are you all squirming?") and sort of a civics type class. Either way, I can't see the harm in teaching the reality of our society, which is apparently that there are some gay people around. Who knew?

As to the homosexuality as population control discussion - oooh burn, lock the door on your way out crap...if one of the principal arguments in favor of denying homosexuals the right to marry is that they can't directly, biologically reproduce, while heterosexual couples can directly, biologically reproduce and it is a fact that the world's population is increasing (as is the United States population, our percentage of the world's population is decreasing, because that's how exponential relationships work), then under these caveats homosexuality would seem at the least to be a nil on the population argument, and quite possibly a bonus. This is an argument which is structured within the assumption used by critics of gay marriage; otherwise, the entire argument falls apart.

As has been pointed out, there are numerous other ways for people, both the not-gay and the gay, to go about becoming parents. In these scenarios, all blanket statement sort of fall apart - but that's because its closer to reality.

That entire line of reasoning is off the point. As has been said before, these are real 3-D people and this special rights crap is obviously not logically valid. Why can't people drink before they're 21? Beats the crap out of me. Reactionary blue law horseshit? But the idea is you need some training wheel time before you start drinking. I don't think there are really training wheels for sexual orientation. For sexual practices, there are. That's why we can't fuck children. They're off limits....theoretically, even to each other. You can't fuck before you're 15.

Why can't I vote? What the fuck does that even mean? I don't know. Maybe you're Austrian. Maybe you're in prison. Maybe you've been assigned supersecret top special mission to pee in Hugo Chavez's lemonade. You mean, why can't I vote before 18? See above.


Why can't I while can? You are completely on your own there. It's worked so far for me, so I'm going with the training wheel thing, but that's a big time guess.

You can't just say "it usually crumbles". That's not argumentation, that's just pulling stuff out of your ass. You actually have to crumble it for us.

This is my whole experience of talking to anti-gay people. They pronounce these... pronouncements as if they were ironclad fact and patently obvious. There's never any defense of their position. I believe it's because they know that the only possible defense is moral/religious in nature, and they know better than to go there.

In the cases you've cited (drinking under 21, voting when it's not legal to), there are very good reasons why those laws are in effect. In the case of allowing gays to marriage, it's pure prejudice.

Wrong. They're arbitrary laws with arbitrary numbers. The rationale for having such restrictions are that people under said ages aren't mature enough to make responsible choices. That entire premise is false, but I'm not going to go off on a wild tangent. You want to scream discrimination based on sexual orientation? There's mild discrimination against people of age, mental prowess, national origin etc. Point being, all groups aren't treated equally. Therefore, before you pull the "We're not being treated equally!" card, you might want to rethink that stance.

Now, if you would, show me an argument that doesn't boil down to "They have, so why not me?", which is fundamentally flawed.

I hate it when I write a big post and then something weird happens and it gets lost. That really pisses me off.

The ONLY argument for not allowing gay marriage to be recognized by the state that rings true to me is that we-as a governmental society-create benefits for things which are socially desirable. Heterosexual marriage is desirable because it creates children and creates a stable family relationship to support the children, thus, we encourage people to become married. Homosexual marriage cannot do that, and, thus, from a purely rational perspective, we shouldn't give people an incentive to do it. It's not a perfect argument, but it's the only one that isn't based on religion or morality, which is why it's the only one that makes any sense to me.

That being said, if this is true, then all marriages in which either or both members are infertile either by choice or by natural causes, all marriages which are childless by choice and all marriages which require medical assistance in order to create a viable pregnancy should also not receive the benefits of civil marriage, since none of them are able to fulfill that institutional purpose of creating and nurturing children. If you (anti-gay marriage people) are ok with depriving all of those people access to civil marriage, then I can't criticize you and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's very likely that you would be ok with it, however, so maybe you need to think about your reasoning some more.

So you're okay with prejudice, then? NCB argues that gays already have equal rights. You seem to be saying that they don't, but that's okay, because minors can't drink and felons can't vote.

Here's one difference: being a minor is temporary and being a felon is a matter of choice. Being gay isn't temporary and isn't a matter of choice. It's much more like my earlier analogy--we build special accessibility into our public buildings for handicapped people, whose situation isn't temporary (or, at least, not short-term) and generally isn't voluntary. Should we destroy all wheelchair ramps?

I decline, in as much as that's not what my argument boils down to, and even if it did, I'm not convinced it's fundamentally flawed, if you actually compare apples and apples.

OH, you wanted a quote and post number:
Post #183
By your logic, homosexuality, something you yourself claim runs contrary to reproduction, would be weeded out rather quickly from the gene pool. That's quite wrong.
Ah, but there is not one variable in this equasion. Again, not everything is black and white. For example, would you expect homosexuality to be more socially exceptable in a liberal place like San Francisco, or a conservative place like India? If you guessed SF, you get a cookie. If you're raised in a society where homosexuality is considered to be wrong, you're less likely to 1) admit to yourself that you might be gay, 2) admited to others that you were gay, and 3) live a gay lifesyle where you actively seek out other homosexuals for a relationship. On the opposite end, if you're raised in a society that promotes and even celebrates in your living as you see fit and in what way makes you comfortable, you see more homosexuals coming out and living honestly. That one variable, without any others, could explain why there are not as many outed homosexuals in some of the heavely populated places outside of the liberal areas of the US.
It's too bad you can't see the forest for the trees here. Bigotry can't be hidden beneith weak arguments. Homosexuals deserve the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, and to deny them this based on logic such as yours - homosexuals already do have equal rights, homosexuals aren't "normal because they only make up 8% of the population, homosexuality is comparable to polygamy or incest, and it doesn't follow "traditional American values" - is absolutely insane.

Maybe we should take away marriage rights from everyone.

On another note, a critical difference between the drinking/driving age discussion and gay marriage is that while it is an arbitrary number, everyone gets there eventually (short of some tragic accident). It's just when we, as a society, have decided it's ok to allow it to happen at that arbitrary age.

Being gay or not being gay is an attribute of a person. It is not fluid, you don't grow out of it. EVERYONE goes through 21 years where they can't drink and then they suddenly can, just because. There is nothing so arbitrary about being gay or not being gay. It's who you are on a fundamental level. There is NOTHING different about discriminating against someone who is gay and discriminating against someone who is black or who has a long nose or who has red hair or who was born in a clay hut on the wrong side of the tracks in French-Indo China to a potter and a seamstress at 9:30 AM on July 2nd. They're all fundamental parts of the person that they can't alter (though plastic surgery is awesome). It is nothing like an age limit, and making such a suggestion is plainly ridiculous.

I do have some sympathy for this argument. I live in a household with a teenager who can maturely handle the use of alcohol, and a middle-aged man who can't. To some degree, I agree that it's arbitrary.

But not completely.

The vast majority of ten-year-olds should not legally have access to alcohol. The vast majority of thirty-year-olds should. Within those brackets, there is surely a great amount of variation - responsible 15-year-olds and irresponsible 25-year-olds alike - but the government is not equipped to deal accurately with such variation. We go with an arbitrary standard because it's better than no standard and infinitely more feasible than a precisely justified standard. An arbitrary line can have a reasoned purpose.

But I don't see a reasoned purpose with a line that excludes gay marriage.

In either case, "We're not being treated equally!" deserves a good response.

IL answers it pretty well above. Its a special right because they already can get married and that they are not discriminated against.

You argue that people are imposing their beliefs on others, yet you seemingly have no quams with the school system to have "open dialogue" about a sexual preference practiced by a small % of genpop and that goes against many parents morals and values. Most people would call that hypocritical, but I assume that you and other liberals would call it something else.

Thats a really bad argument (especially for someone as well informed as you), will, and it demonstrates the grasping of straws when it comes to this issue. Tell us then, exactly which religion is doing the persecutin'?

But I don't see how homosexual marriage would "turn upside down the very building block of our society".

How would it?

By its very exisitence. Marriage is made primarily for raising children. Homosexual "marriage" can never do such except via extrodainary measures. Its really that simple

I don't see how that answers my question.

How would homosexual marriage, by its very existence, "turn upside down the very building block of our society"?

Perhaps this is a better question: what do you mean by "turn upside down the very building block of our society"? What are the tangible results of such an occurrence?

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

There are sound reasons behind those laws, and each had its own debate at the time the laws came into effect and when the ages were changed. So how about we debate gay marriage here instead.

So do that.

Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

Teach morals at home. Teach facts at school.

I'm not even sure what you're worried about. Homosexuals exist. Homosexuality exists. Homosexual sex exists, as do all of the heterosexual counterparts. The school isn't telling them about some secret that no one knows about. Nor are they advocating that everyone go try having gay sex with their classmates. If the school does anything, it's a variation of, "Sex can be dangerous. This is how you can protect yourself." They are being exposed to information, which is the whole point of going to school. You learn things and hopefully remember them and make decisions about them. "Imposing beliefs" is when you force someone to or prevent someone from expressing an opinion without regard for how they feel about it. Exposing someone to information is entirely different, and is done in a value neutral context. Schools don't tell people that sex is good or bad or that homosexual sex is good or bad. They tell kids that it EXISTS and if they CHOOSE to do it, it has consequences. It is the responsibility of the PARENT to provide the moral framework for the child to interpret these facts.

Saying that schools shouldn't teach comprehensive sex ed programs because some parents dislike parts of it is as stupid as saying schools shouldn't teach the Napoleon Wars because some parents disagree with why they occurred. That's not the point of a school, it's not the point of a curriculum.

Please re-read my post 234. Then read what I've quoted.

You CANNOT make the argument you just made without denying lots of straight people the right to get married as well. If you're comfortable with that, fine. If you're not, then that's not really the argument you're making.

As an addendum, marriage was primarily created to transfer property, not for raising children. Marriage now has almost nothing to do with raising children. See: divorce with children, childless marriages, single parenting. You're making an anachronistic argument about an institution that really was only ever true in theory to begin with. Stop making it.

This is an unsupported, absolutist pronouncement with no evidence or reason to back it up. Repetition alone doesn't make it true.

This thread is dead. It just hasn't stopped twitching yet. It's possible that Tilted Politics is in the same state.

If they "already can get married" why are they not eligible for the same health benefits? ERISA, which regulates health insurance, allows "self-insured" health programs to exclude the coverage of a same sex partner that is guaranteed for hetero spouses. COBRA, which requires the continuation of health benefits, including spouse (even a divorced spouse) and dependent benefits to a person for a defined period after employment is terminated but employers are allowed to deny these coverages to gay couples. Not discriminated against?

If they "already can get married" why are they not eligible for the same benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act? Inheritance law? Tax law? Not discriminated against?

The examples are endless.

And finally, Sorry, but I just dont see how an open discussion of sexuality is hypocritical, any more than discussion of Huck Finn or evolution, because it offends some parents. Why are you so afraid to educate and provide factual information to kids?

Because it goes from one man, one woman to two men or two women or three or four, or whatever. Fact is, children thrive better in a true father and mother enviroment than a two man enviroment with one top and one bottom, each putting on their faux feminity and masculinity. Of course you can tell me some story on how your sister in laws friend is raising a kid with her partner and theyre doing well, but thats just ancedotal evidence. As a general rule it absolutely holds.

But at least with normal married couples, the possibilty of having a natural family is still there. It can never be there with a homosexual "marriage"

If one member of the couple is infertile, there is no possibility of having a natural family. Period. End of discussion. It's exactly like a gay couple, in that sense. There is NO WAY for those two people alone to have a kid. So, according to you, depriving all infertile people of the right to get married is ok.

Now thats just taking it to the extreme isnt it? With normal couples, the possibility of taking medical procedure to help theri cause is still there. With homosexuals, sperm + sperm or ovaries + ovaries can never, ever lead to a child between the two

So that's what you mean by "turn upside down the very building block of our society"?

That's an odd way to phrase it, considering that your scenario doesn't mention anything about "the very building block of our society" - which I assume is procreative heterosexual marriage - being turned upside down. Seems that people who want to participate in that building block would still be able to. And the people who don't... well, they already don't have to.

Is it fair to say that, by "turned upside down", you mean "broadened with more options for only those who want them"? Or am I missing something?

"As a general rule it absolutely holds?" Heh...I don't see how that sentence is logically possible. But nevermind that...

Source for this fact?

And assuming you provide a source... Reason for denying children same-sex parents simply because they're not optimal?

It's like arguing for a Copernical solar system with a flat-earther. Argument ad nauseum doesn't hold much weight.

You argue that people are imposing their beliefs on others, yet you seemingly have no quams with the school system to have "open dialogue" about a sexual preference practiced by a small % of genpop and that goes against many parents morals and values. Most people would call that hypocritical, but I assume that you and other liberals would call it something else.

You have yet to connect this to the same-sex marriage debate, yet you keep bringing it up as if the connection were already made. I disagree with you here regarding imposing values via sex education, but that is a different debate.

3000 years of recorded human history cant be wrong.

Inappropriate response. Nevermind.

Actually a good analogy would be Bill Gates suing for the right to recieve welfare payments. He doesnt get them because he just doesnt qualify


No, I have. Part of the whole homosexual redefintion of marriage revolves around demnding to be accepted as legit. If we redefine marriage, then the next step is provided homosexual sex education because if the govt has already legitimized it, then why should they deny such education in the schools that have normal sex ed programs? Logically, its the next step. Sure, it doesnt help your side, but it is what it is

the next thing you know, it will be raining men...

Hi - Hi! We're your Weather Girls - Ah-huh -
And have we got news for you - You better listen!
Get ready, all you lonely girls
and leave those umbrellas at home. - Alright! -

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining men.

It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
I'm gonna go out to run and let myself get
Absolutely soaking wet!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah!
It's Raining Men! Every Specimen!
Tall, blonde, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every woman could find her perfect guy
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah!
It's Raining Men! Ame---------nnnn!

I feel stormy weather / Moving in about to begin
Hear the thunder / Don't you lose your head
Rip off the roof and stay in bed

God bless Mother Nature, she's a single woman too
She took off to heaven and she did what she had to do
She taught every angel to rearrange the sky
So that each and every woman could find her perfect guy
It's Raining Men! Yeah!

Humidity is rising - Barometer's getting low
According to all sources, the street's the place to go
Cause tonight for the first time
Just about half-past ten
For the first time in history
It's gonna start raining men.

It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men!

Do you know that there's nothing self-evidently bad about that? You're the only one here who has a problem with that. As is often the case with people holding fringe views, you're screaming it pretty damn loud, but it's a fringe view nonetheless.

You should expand your universe a bit. Most people have a problem with that, even in the bluest of blue states.

Every time you make this argument, you are logically supporting marriage for same sex couples:

A: Marriage is for raising children (this is in part true, though this is not the only purpose or even the primary one.)

B: Homosexual marriages can have children through extraordinary measures.

The first is your assertion, the second is a fact that you concede in this post. The logical conclusion is that same-sex couples should be permitted to legally marry because they can meet the "raising children" condition.

Were people not so narrow minded I'd suspect more gay couples would adopt children. What is extraordinary about adoption and how is it jumping through hoops?

Great, but can and should are two very different things. Children thrive when there is one mom and one dad, not one mom or one dad, or two moms or two dads, ot one top or one bottom. Its really that simple. Can homosexuals raise children? PRobably, but its about the kids and not the parents

Cite for this "fact"?

By the way, what's with the "faux femininity and masculinity" bit? Do you know anything about gay people? Making reference to ignorant stereotypes doesn't really support your argument well.

In addition to the anecdotal evidence I have every American medical and psychological organization that has a policy on the issue on my side.

Not all heterosexual couples can have children together. The infertile, the elderly, CFBC, those who have a genetic disease they'd prefer not to pass on, yet all can get married even in the absence of any intent or ability to have children.

Come on now NCB, did you miss my post on page 6 where I pasted the 10 definitions of marriage from dictionary dot com? None of them mentioned anything about children.

And you should try reading. I said you're the only one here who has a problem with it. You even put that in bold when you quoted me. Nobody else on this thread has complained about responsible teaching of acceptance toward homosexuality in schools--and all the reasoned arguments why it's not a problem are met with, "But they'll teach our kids gay!"

In the face of superior argumentation, your only tool is repetition. Propaganda that is based in repetition rather than reason is called indoctrination. I submit that you have been indoctrinated; that you no longer think your own thoughts.

I keep promising myself that I'm done with this thread. Maybe eventually I'll keep that promise.

Dont ever change UP! Your sense of humor is a light unto the darkness. :)

Dude, it goes both ways, doesnt it? In could very well post that same argument. At least be honest here

More argument ad nauseum.

What, specifically, are the special rights that would come with same-sex couples marrying? Name them. Name some rights that a same-sex married couple would get that a heterosexual married couple would not.

Answer: There aren't any. We don't want anything but to be treated equally, the same rights and responsibilities. Heck, if my wife and I were legally married, we'd actually be paying a good deal more in federal income tax.

More argument ad nauseum. You have yet to provide a clear connection.

What does this even mean?

You assert that a mother and a father are optimal and then point to 3000 years of mother-father child rearing to support it?

This would surely show that mother-father is the traditional method of child rearing, but how in the hell does it show that it's better than father-father or mother-mother?

Can and often has been.

We're just going around in circles here. We just need to agree to disagree. I'm done with this thread. Well, at least for today :lol:

Gods I love being ignored. :) At least I debunked the "children" thing.

Gilda, once again I am very happy for you and yours. :D It is about time!

You say it's a bad argument......then you don't argue with it. Does that mean your argument is even weaker than you suggest mine is?

As I've stated before, it's the Abrahamic religons: Judism, Chsitianity, and Islam. That's where the idea of homosexuality being bad comes from in our society (that, and maybe from the evolution of stoic ethics in late Rome, but stoic ethics were obviously effected and formed greatly by the spread of Chsitainity...).

Homosexuals have been around for thousands of years. Only the Puritanesque seem to have a problem with it.

You undermine your own argument every time you post based on ignorant stereotypes.

Cite me a study that concludes that children raised by same-sex couples are harmed by that in comparison to either heterosexual couples, single parents, or especially to the foster care system.


Not "probably," the answer is an unequivocal "Yes." Also, you're repeating an argument you haven't supported. More argument ad nauseum.

However, let's assume that marriage is to provide a stable environment for children--don't the children of homosexuals and being raised by homosexual couples deserve the same protections as those being raised by heterosexuals? Why punish the children for their parents' orientation? Every argument regarding the rearing of children logically supports same-sex marriage.

Yet, it is true. You're not being treated as unequals. If you get right down to it, you're not any more "discriminated" against than your average teenager is.

I laugh when people try to compare homosexuals not being allowed to marry to such things as the abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage or even the civil right's movement. Unlike slaves, you're not being subjugated and forced to live your life as inferiors nor are you considered the property of someone else; Unlike women before 1920's, you're not going to be jailed if you choose to vote (Or, in your case, have sex with a member of the same sex) ; And unlike minorities before the civil right's movement, you're not forced into government sanctioned isolation nor are you subject to public humiliation.

In fact, you enjoy many protections which the latter groups simply did not have, yet you would rather scream discrimination because you're not allowed to marry?

The fact is that you're trying to force others to accept your definition of marriage; The exact same thing you accuse those people who are anti-gay of doing. That's the fundamental difference between any movement of the past and the homosexual movement-- The desire to make people accept the way you choose to live your life.

See? You feel it's okay to discriminate against people based on age. Therefore, it perplexes me as to how you can think it unfair to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. Just as you think there's a good reason to discriminate based on age I think there's a good reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Seems fair, huh?

This would be a good thing.

Gilda, once again, thank you for posting the good news. May other states follow soon in providing just legislation.

Pen

Erm... Ignoring the fact that nearly all religions condemn homosexuality, are we?

Teenagers are allowed to get married.
I laugh when people try to compare homosexuals to polygamists and incestors(?). Unlike polygomists, you're not doing anyting illegal, and unlike those who practice incest, homosexual pairings won't result in severly disabled children (or me throwing up all over). Once upon a time, homosexuals were forced into isolation, jailed, hanged, etc. It's a slow process that started with bigotry and that will end with real equal rights, just like it did with women and minorities.
...that way they chose to live their life doesn't effect you. We're not forcing anyone to accept anything. You're trying to pretend like marriage means something, and you're bravely defending marriage from the gays (how brave of you). In reality, marriage doesn't mean jack shit. When the divorce rate is well over 50%, what are you defending? Just becuase you forced gay out of marriage first doesn't mean that you're right.
It's not okay to discriminate. If I discriminate, does that make it okay for you to discriminate? Shit no.

Also, on a side note, there should be no voting age or drinking age. They're useless, and are ageist.

See reference to Puritanesque and add to it the fact that sadly most people cant see past the end of their noses and yes.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't become true. You've been arguing that discriminating against homosexuals is justified this whole thread.

This is, literally, a civil rights issue.

Let's compare this to minorities and marriage rights. I can't have my marriage legally recognized, and the Lovings, and a great many interracial couples like them, couldn't have theirs recognized either.

You're kidding, right?

I'm funny that way. Being treated equally in some ways isn't enough. I'd like to have all the same rights, privileges, and legal protections as everyone else, not just some of them.

Nope. I don't want to make marriage solely between gay people and prevent heterosexuals from marrying. I want an even playing field where you can act on your definition and I can act on mine and neither of us dictating to the other what she should be allowed to do.

Well of course. Blacks fought to be accepted as equal to whites, women fought to be accepted as equal to men. A desire for acceptance isn't new, it's been a part of every human and civil rights movement in history.

Well, I believe I said that those are separate issues, but sure I accept that legal restrictions on minors are reasonable as a means of preventing them from engaging in dangerous behavior until they reach the age of maturity at which they can handle those issues is reasonable. I don't think anybody is going to say that drawing a line somewhere is unreasonable, even if we might disagree on where to draw that line.

One is based on practical considerations and the other on prejudice.

I lied. Couldnt resist this softball.

Buddism:



Hindu
African religions dont take to homosexuality to kindly either.

Look up for a response

Buddhism has absolutely no effect on western society as a whole. The same can't be said of Christianity, Judism, and Islam.
This religon does have far reaching effects across India, which is why I mentioned before that it's harder to come out of the closet in India than in San Francisco.

I wish people would read the whole thread.

Nice backpedal, but too bad your implication was that Islam, Judiasm, and Christianity were the primary religions that were oppossed to homosexuality. You swung and missed.

I wanted to point out that whatever any religion has to say about marriage is absolutely irrelevant to the issue. This is about civil marriage. Religious marriage is a subject for the various religions to deal with internally as they see fit. This is about a contract, a legal arrangement, and should be discussed on that basis.

It's not a backpedal. AGAIN, IN THE US, THE PLACE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD, THE REASON THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS TREATED AS BEING WRONG IN ANY WAY COMES FROM CHRISTIANITY, JUDISM, AND ISLAM. Hinduism, like Buddhism, has almost no effect on our society.

The reason that some people are against the civil marriage of homosexuals in the US is because of some sense of religous obligation. There is no other reason, and there is no excuse.

These organizations recognize that gay and lesbian parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, and that children thrive in gay- and lesbian-headed families.

American Academy of Family Physicians
The AAFP establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation. (2002) (2003)
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/p.../children.html

Child Welfare League of America
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) affirms that lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.
http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

American Psychological Association
The results of existing research comparing gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents and children of gay or lesbian parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite uniform: common sterotypes are not supported by the data.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Also: American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and National Association of Social Workers.

Their "research" has been completely refuted by this in depth study:

What does that have to do with cost of admission to the Juarez donkey show? Many religions are against people eating pork. Should my wife and I not be afforded equal insurance, Social Security and other benefits due to the BLT we had for lunch? Beyond thou shall not kill, steal etc. religion is a poor basis for laws that everyone should live by IMHO.

Do you have any research to back up your opposing claim? 3000 years of heterosexual parents may indicate that mother-father is generally a good way to go, but it does nothing to indicate the inferiority of mother-mother or father-father.

I disagree.

Personally, I think a multivariate approach that examines genetics, hormonal exposure, upbringing, choice, and other factors to determine why some people have a particular sexual orientation is more likely to yield fruit.

I think maybe you don't have a good handle on the science.

:lol:

One "study" by less than objective researchers and never submitted for peer review and only published in the journal of a religious institution is more credible and authoritative than the POLICY (not just research) of six professional non-partisan, non-biased organizations that represent the cross-section of medical and social work?

Sorry, NCB...only in your world.

Notice the contortions that the right has to go through in order to put up the facade of winning something--nay, even, the facade of participating in the discussion.

Will didn't say the Abrahamic religions were the primary religions that were opposed to homosexuality, and all your ranting about Buddhism and Hindu is nothing but a troll. What he said was that the anti-gay sentiment in our country is based in the anti-gay sentiment of the Abrahamic religions. It may well be based in other religions in other countries--that's not what he was saying.

The bottom line is, the belief that homosexuality is wrong is fundamentally a religious one. It is inappropriate for our country or any state to make law based on religion. In any modern society, a concern for civil rights always trumps a concern based in religious morality.

Sorry, but that "in depth" study is not a study at all. It's a research critique and it's completely generalized at that. It isn't critiquing specific research done by the institutions named and, moreover, the problems it has with the research often just don't apply. Anyone who has ever done scientific social research knows that there is no such thing as a perfect study. There is no perfect random & representative sample, there is no way to prevent people from dropping out or not completing the study, there is no perfect lab setting, and so on and so on. The question that is important is if there imperfections in every study are so great as to remove the internal and/or external validity of the study. Whether the answer is "yes" or "no" its still part of the "research loop". That is why more than one study is done under different conditions to see if the results of the previous studies still hold up. And you know what? In this case they do. In what cases doesn't it hold up? In the same situations as heterosexual households. Ex. abusive, negligent, split, or generally emotionally unstable households.

Now back to the marriage issue, which is seperate from (but related to) the parenting issue that we've gotten side-tracked on. We are talking about equal, civil rights here. These are distinguishable from religious rights (I think that's been adequately covered) and a sweeping libertarian freedom claim. The latter is what seperates it from polygamy and incest. The civil rights, policy argument here is not that anyone should be allowed to marry as many people as they want regardless of age or involvement. While that is a fine philosophical notion, when it gets down to it most people aren't willing to stand by everything that implies. However, the civil rights argument is that homosexuals are entitled to the same legal recognition of their arrangement as heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that polygamy doesn't fit in with the legal manner in which marriage is constructed. I'm not talking about social taboos or that people thought/think its not right/unnatural. What I am talking about is the legal institution of marriage is only constructed to deal with two people in a relationship and the law isn't prepared to deal with varying numbers. Maybe that's a deficiency in the law and ought to be corrected, but nonetheless a lot of legislative work would need to be done to bring polygamy into the legal fold. With incest the story is also legally complicated because of the structure of legal relations, sister/cousin/daughter/wife complicates the process of legal authority, estate control, inheritance, etc. Moreover, both polygamy & incest tend to be exploitive in that they occur between an adult and a legal infant (under the age of majority). Out of this arises the problem of the rights of one of the member of that relationship possibly being harmed. That is not a concern in homosexual relationships. In these relationships there are still the same protections on the rights of partners, they fit into our legal structure that is mostly gender neutral, and which, in the end, is not an issue of condoning any type of relation but about the law not ignoring any particular person or group of people based arbitrarily upon an otherwise legal sexual practice.

It will never cease to amaze me how many people would rather have their panties in a twist than relax and let go of something that doesnt even play a role in their personal lives.

If you are against homosexual marriage dont marry a homosexual. Otherwise deal with it.

Really. It's not like I'll wake up one day and say, "Oh my god! My marriage is now meaningless! Marriage configurations other than one man and one woman are possible! Sorry, sweetheart--it's over. I can't love you anymore, because now gay people can have the same sort of relationship that you and I have."

Totally freaking absurd.

It's also totally freaking absurd that you're using a straw man argument. No one here has said any of what you're implying. Nice try, though.

If you don't like the fact that there are people who oppose gay marriage you could always, I dunno', not read our replies :lol:

Okay, so say more about how gay marriage "undercuts the foundation of society". In my view of things, that statement is patently indefensible. How does a gay couple getting married hurt me in the slightest?

You know, I was just about to point out that this entire thread is now a simple repetition of the same arguments, but this last point could be useful. Can either IL or NCB, or really anyone else, explain how gay marriage would fundamentally change the building blocks of our society. Hear Hear, I second the motion that el bastid did put forth. Roberts rules of order and all that. If I could be so bold, maybe something that's not a one-liner, but an actual real deal Holyfield response.

I don't think I've ever said that ;)

Anywho, the statement "If it doesn't hurt me, I don't care" is fundamentally flawed as it's naturally irrefutable and evasive as it doesn't address the main point. The majority of laws in effect today have no direct, negative consequences on you; That doesn't mean that they should be rescinded nor does it mean that there's isn't a good reason that they're in place.

How does a gay couple not getting married hurt you in the slightest? See? That argument sounds just as ridiculous as your argument does.

It does if you're gay and in a relationship. Hi Gilda :)

I'm not going back through and re-reading all the posts in this thread, but as I can tell, the only argument that is left standing is the notion that gay marriage seeks to "redefine marriage" and that somehow this "redefinition" process is directly harmful to American society. I do not understand this concept. Please explain.