View Full Forums : Should gays/lesbians have the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples


seferon
03-08-2004, 02:08 PM
Should gays and lesbians have the right to marry.

Araxx Darkroot
03-08-2004, 03:36 PM
Hmmm, now you mention it maybe the US government might want to change that....

BTW, this was JUST A JOKE!

You never know what weirdo freak is roaming reading and takes things WWWAAAYYY out of context.

quinalla
03-08-2004, 04:37 PM
Did you mean "should" as opposed to "do"? I assumed that you did, but I wanted to check. Perhaps the question in the poll should be changed?

seferon
03-08-2004, 11:14 PM
thanx changing that now

humm i cant seem to change it if a mod would be so kind or someone could explain how to

Tils
03-11-2004, 02:15 PM
Needs another option.

Yes.... but no benefits. So i voted no because the other 2 arnt really any good imho.

In other words I got np with 2 people getting Married of the same gender and taking each others surname etc. However I do have a problem when they get Government Benefits from it.

Tils

Panamah
03-11-2004, 02:32 PM
Government benefits like what? Current in the US the only one we have is a payment to a spouse from social security if the other spouse dies. So, if your Mom didn't work and stayed home to take care of the kids and your Dad dies, your Mom would get a part of his social security to support her. Or visa-versa.

Same sex couples do actually have families to raise too. I suspect they're making the same decision as other couples about one person staying home to look after the young'uns or both working. So they would have the same issues.

The rest of the 'benefit' is from laws that govern things like power of attorney (like who can make decisions for you if you're incapacitated) and inheritence and such. Nothing that really has a fiscal impact on anyone but the couple in question, but they are important rights for spouses.

Tils
03-12-2004, 05:36 AM
Well over here if your diff sex married you get whats called as tax benefits. Also some other benefits like banking etc.. which for here would mean i woud oppose it.

Tils

Celaeno
03-14-2004, 06:07 AM
In Norway, gay and lesbian couples can enter registered partnerships, with pretty much the same rights as married couples and wedding ceremonies at courthouses. (Church issues remain, and adoption rights are heavily discussed)

I heard that Scandinavian politics were mentioned in US debates, and that those debates brought up how we allow this and that we have so many people living together without being married, and that was supposed to show that we'd cheapened the Institute of Marriage(tm). So? People lived together like that long before we allowed registered partnerships, we even have a proper word for it as opposed to the live-in boyfriend/girlfriend terms, which barely seems to denote anything special at all.

Jinjre
03-14-2004, 10:47 AM
The people having coronaries over this don't realize that folks have been doing this in the US for far longer than they will admit to as well. This is why we have the concept of "common law" marriages on the books, and have had for a very long time.

If common law marriages applied to homosexuals, I know several who would be legally married by now.

Artio
03-16-2004, 01:49 PM
I just had this emailed to me. I'm not sure if it really came from Bette Midler. But, I think it sums up what I feel about this whole constitutional amendment business. It's a little long.

Letter to the President, from Bette Midler...
>
>Dear President Bush,
>
>Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US
>Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of
>marriage. I would like to know why.
>
>In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to
>protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like
>you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a
>society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of
>family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married
>and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I
>believe that there is something fundamental about finding another
>person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family,
>and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need
>more positive role models for successful marriage in this country -
>something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular
>culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying
>genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even
>politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion,
>it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children
>and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity
>with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples
>to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more
>than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the
>contrary.
>
>As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and
>difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also
>imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the
>past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To
>finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and
>steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking
>in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and
>women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my
>child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe.
>Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have
>taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and
>tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the
>beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon a?" 51 years
>together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you
>know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this
>love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children
>about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San
>Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils,
>horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the
>likes of which this society has never seen.
>
>This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief
>transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I
>watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the
>thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish
>to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you
>take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the
>true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What
>is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to
>Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you
>so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and
>hold their love to a higher standard?
>
>Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me
>that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to
>ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your
>love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and
>Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business,
>as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity
>of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more
>than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on
>all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over
>the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set
>aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe
>that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon
>thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.
>
>You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr.
>President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples
>of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who
>embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love,
>and hold them up before our children as role models for their own
>futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about
>far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to
>believe.
>
>Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society,
>for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the
>guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of
>unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity,
>do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not
>encourage this amendment.
>
>Bette Midler

Panamah
03-16-2004, 02:08 PM
Wow.

Jinjre
03-16-2004, 04:58 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/midler.asp

While it wasn't written by Bette Midler, it is a very powerful letter indeed. Well done.

Panamah
03-16-2004, 06:22 PM
Well crap! I was impressed that for once a Hollywood icon didn't sound like a twit.

Galamar
03-17-2004, 01:39 PM
Curious. A national poll was done that asked almost this same question and the numbers were flipped - 70% against. Wonder what that says about druids? ;)

Panamah
03-17-2004, 03:33 PM
It's all those mid-summer orgies and blackberry wine speaking.

King Burgundy
03-17-2004, 08:41 PM
People that play or played Everquest and also read and respond on THIS messageboard are more open minded(or more decadent, depending on your side of the poll I guess) then the general populace polled in that particular national poll. Is that qualified enough? ;)

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-17-2004, 10:47 PM
I did not vote.

The institution is a farce.

If homosexuals want to **** up a good thing, they can have at it.

weoden
03-19-2004, 06:56 AM
"do gays and lesbians have the right to marriage"

I disagree with the premise of this statement. Marriage is a license with certain costs and benefits but not a right. Rights protect the individual and specific group functions. Individual rights have been based on discrimination based on genetic reason or unalterable events that physically damaged an INDIVIDUAL and prevented them from obtaining services. Examples might be African Americans or Spanish or Jews or those born with birth defects. All of these groups have individual protections due to discrimination that I believe do not apply to homosexuals who make a choice to be gay.

Choice is not protected in the same way that discrimination due to age or genetics. Choice to act in a certain way may or may not be allowed for various reasons. In addition since nature requires one man and one woman to produce off spring and since human children require more training than animals, I believe a man and a women is required to fully develop a child.

On the point of choosing to be gay. I see being gay as a choice and as a result of learned behavior through abuse or molestation or rebellion or insecurity.

Also on the point of choice, certain choices in life are allowed by society and others are tolerated and others are encouraged. Drinking Alcohol and smoking are tolerated by society while cocaine use is discouraged and marriage is encouraged. Tolerating an activity does not make the activity acceptable to all in that society. Tolerating certain activities typically occur since OTHERS are not affected in a permanent way by the activity. This is where I separate civil unions that cannot adopt and marriage where a gay couple can adopt. The individual affected is a child.

For my last point, my philosophy is based what I see as a tolerable activity and what is not. I see gay marriage as intolerable because this type of institutionalizing marriage will affect a child. A type of institution that I dislike but tolerate is registering to participate in the **** industry. I disagree with **** but recognize that by formally tracking the ages of individuals’ and assuring that the activity is consensual which makes the activity tolerated. Another example might be requirements to register for prostitution. This is another activity that I do not agree with but would protect those who wish to participate in this activity. As a last example of a tolerated activity that I do not agree with is State sanctioned executions. All of these activities I see as institutionalized sin. The basis of my point of view, morals and sense of right and wrong is all based on what I see as sin. This is, of course, individual and I have spent some time thinking about this.

Scirocco
03-19-2004, 09:09 AM
I disagree with the premise of this statement. Marriage is a license with certain costs and benefits but not a right. Rights protect the individual and specific group functions.


Weoden, you do realize that your argument weakens any stance against gay marriage, don't you?

If marriage is not a right, but merely a governmental license with certain costs and benefits, that undercuts the argument that marriage is such an important institution, with or without a religious background, that it deserves special protection. Moreover, it means that the government is violating the constitutional rights of individuals to equal protection when it discriminates in selecting to whom it will grant licenses.

Mannwin Woobie
03-19-2004, 11:26 AM
I see being gay as a choice and as a result of learned behavior through abuse or molestation or rebellion or insecurity

I wasn't going to bother to respond but....

As a homoesexual, I can tell you for a FACT that:

1. I did not "learn" to be gay. No one 'taught' it to me, and I certainly didn't copy it from watching the heterosexual-oriented world around me.
2. I was NEVER abused.
3. I was NEVER molested.
4. I do not consider myself a "rebel" (whatever that really means).
5. I do not consider myself insecure in my life, job, relationships, etc.

6. ** I did not CHOOSE to be gay **

This thread is supposed to be dealing with gay marriage, so I will not go any further. However, comments like the one above are very degrading/demeaning to a great many people.

Jinjre
03-19-2004, 01:35 PM
I see being gay as a choice and as a result of learned behavior through abuse or molestation or rebellion or insecurity


So I assume you chose to be heterosexual as a result of learned behavior through exposure to....playboy? Sex and the City? Melrose Place? How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? I'm curious because I don't seem to recall choosing my sexuality.

And all the other animals out there (non-human species) which have recorded incidents of homosexual behavior, they learned it from, um, what? precisely?

/soapbox off, now returning to your regularly scheduled thread.

For the record, I am a happily married heterosexual, so it's not like I'm defending my "lifestyle" or genetic predisposition, depending on which view you take of the issue.

Panamah
03-19-2004, 01:47 PM
All of these groups have individual protections due to discrimination that I believe do not apply to homosexuals who make a choice to be gay.

What makes you so certain they have a choice any more than a black person has a choice in their race, or a left-handed person has a choice in what hand they use to hold their fork?

On the point of choosing to be gay. I see being gay as a choice and as a result of learned behavior through abuse or molestation or rebellion or insecurity.

Would this apply to virtually every other animal species as well? If so, then it would seem that rams, dolphins, walruses, ostriches, apes are making these choices too based upon molestation and rebellion and insecurity.

In addition since nature requires one man and one woman to produce off spring and since human children require more training than animals, I believe a man and a women is required to fully develop a child.


Then I suppose this is why children are removed from the homes of single parents, since we don't allow children to be raised without both a man and a woman in the home.

Jinjre
03-19-2004, 01:50 PM
In addition since nature requires one man and one woman to produce off spring and since human children require more training than animals, I believe a man and a women is required to fully develop a child.


Then I suppose this is why children are removed from the homes of single parents, since we don't allow children to be raised without both a man and a woman in the home.

I suppose that means that my husband and I should not be allowed to be married since we can't have children. Infertile people, old people and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry if the only purpose of marriage is the procreation of the species.

Panamah
03-21-2004, 11:19 AM
Nature or nuture?
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dcalwhit/pics/cats/threesome.jpg

weoden
03-21-2004, 01:00 PM
I disagree with the premise of this statement. Marriage is a license with certain costs and benefits but not a right. Rights protect the individual and specific group functions.


Weoden, you do realize that your argument weakens any stance against gay marriage, don't you?

If marriage is not a right, but merely a governmental license with certain costs and benefits, that undercuts the argument that marriage is such an important institution, with or without a religious background, that it deserves special protection. Moreover, it means that the government is violating the constitutional rights of individuals to equal protection when it discriminates in selecting to whom it will grant licenses.

Each license has requirments such as passing the bar exam or being able to see well enough to drive or not having a criminal offense to own a hand gun. Take two homosexual couples. One couple enters and attemps to obtain a marriage license. Then the second couple enters and trys to obtain a marriage license. Both are rejected from the license. Now the gay couple talks to the lesbian couple and each pair up to obtain a license where one male and one female are applying for the license. Assuming there are no other requirments, two licenses should be granted.

I do not see how constituional rights are being violated but the requirments for marriage are not being met.

Assuming that a pairing has benefits and that pairing promotes the health of individuals through love or what not then licenses such as civil unions should be allowed since this, I believe, meets the equal protection requirement.

weoden
03-21-2004, 01:12 PM
I wasn't going to bother to respond but....

As a homoesexual, I can tell you for a FACT that:

1. I did not "learn" to be gay. No one 'taught' it to me, and I certainly didn't copy it from watching the heterosexual-oriented world around me.
2. I was NEVER abused.
3. I was NEVER molested.
4. I do not consider myself a "rebel" (whatever that really means).
5. I do not consider myself insecure in my life, job, relationships, etc.

6. ** I did not CHOOSE to be gay **

This thread is supposed to be dealing with gay marriage, so I will not go any further. However, comments like the one above are very degrading/demeaning to a great many people.

I am sorry if I insulted you with my opinion.

weoden
03-21-2004, 01:16 PM
So I assume you chose to be heterosexual as a result of learned behavior through exposure to....playboy? Sex and the City? Melrose Place? How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual? I'm curious because I don't seem to recall choosing my sexuality.

And all the other animals out there (non-human species) which have recorded incidents of homosexual behavior, they learned it from, um, what? precisely?

/soapbox off, now returning to your regularly scheduled thread.

For the record, I am a happily married heterosexual, so it's not like I'm defending my "lifestyle" or genetic predisposition, depending on which view you take of the issue.

I would say that heterosexual behavior occurs through the natural desire to further ones genes. This can be demonstrated from the increasing human population. Choosing to ignore this natural selection is a choice.

Jinjre
03-21-2004, 01:42 PM
The question still stands: at what age did you decide you had a desire to further your genes? By your statement, one either chooses to be heterosexual or one chooses to be homosexual. When did you choose?

weoden
03-21-2004, 01:48 PM
What makes you so certain they have a choice any more than a black person has a choice in their race, or a left-handed person has a choice in what hand they use to hold their fork?.

Being black can be proved through genetics. There is a direct relation of parents to off-spring. I have yet to see genetic proof that someone gay yeilds gay off spring. Maybe natural selection has eliminated that possiblity, however, until there is proof that is provable and repeatable through genelogy then I have to keep my opinion.



Would this apply to virtually every other animal species as well? If so, then it would seem that rams, dolphins, walruses, ostriches, apes are making these choices too based upon molestation and rebellion and insecurity.


The difference between animals and humans is having the consiciousness to be able to make the repeated and sustained decision to engage in a relationship that is solely homosexual in nature. Being horny and jumping on the nearest creature of your species is not the same as the predeterimined decision to engage in homosexual activity and relationship.


Then I suppose this is why children are removed from the homes of single parents, since we don't allow children to be raised without both a man and a woman in the home.


Single parents are required to allow the other parent to be in the child's life where that parent wants to be in that child's life. A person's decision to take responsibility for their actions is a freedom that each of us can decide to take on. The government can only demand for people to meet financial responsibilities and provide as a neutral arbiter for the nurturing the next generation. The governement can not succesfully surpress rejection and rebellion toward their partner and the results of their past actions.

A child will lack an important aspect in their life if both parents are not involved much like a child will lack an important aspect in their life if they graduate from high school without being able to read. While not being able to read will not terminate the life of the child it will truncate that childs experience in a significant way and their ability to make decisions.

weoden
03-21-2004, 01:59 PM
I suppose that means that my husband and I should not be allowed to be married since we can't have children. Infertile people, old people and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry if the only purpose of marriage is the procreation of the species.

I draw my view of society's line between marriage and civil unions as having and adopting children. Where both licenses allows power of attorney and encourages constant and continous relationships but citing that it is my belief that a man and woman can only provide the needed understanding a developing child needs in this world. While I take a stance on homosexual activity, I also point out that it is a decision and for reasons of equal protection and other "good" reasons marriage/civil unions serves as an instution which can enhance individual lives.

weoden
03-21-2004, 02:02 PM
Nature or nuture?
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dcalwhit/pics/cats/threesome.jpg

If the photogapher had added a fourth cat, it would have been more interesting instead of placing just 3 in the picture.

weoden
03-21-2004, 02:16 PM
The question still stands: at what age did you decide you had a desire to further your genes? By your statement, one either chooses to be heterosexual or one chooses to be homosexual. When did you choose?

In my opinion,the choice is, by default, hetrosexual. Whether one thinks evolution required a male/female pairing over an asexual organizism or God designed humans to pair up as male/female, the default is hetrosexual and a homosexual pair in a conscious decision to rebel against what nature has provided as the best possible circumstances for the next generation.

Panamah
03-21-2004, 03:40 PM
If you know anything about how cats mate then you'd realize there is nothing posed about that picture.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-21-2004, 09:07 PM
"rebel against what nature"

/scratches head

Monogamy and pure heterosexuality are the rebellion against nature, not the other way around.

I thought that was the point. That humans can force their will over themselves and counterpose nature the way that it wants; and call it society or civilization or culture.

I thought everyone already knew that,

...already.

/shrug

Jinjre
03-21-2004, 10:15 PM
I'm just wondering how all those other species, which don't have 'rebellion' in their vocabulary, indeed don't have vocabularies at all, 'choose' homosexuality.

Humans don't have a lock on being homosexual.

Aside from which, who, in their right mind, would sit down one day and say "gee, you know what? Life is just far too dull, I think I"ll 'choose' to become a social pariah"

Now that I think about it, I used to have a friend whose Saint Bernard had a thing for their hammock and their lawn mower. He would 'choose' those two items over a female in heat when presented with one. (They finally had to give up on breeding him) I wonder what social influences made him rebel in such a manner.

Oh yeah....I never, not once, sat in their hammock either.

Panamah
03-22-2004, 11:01 AM
Now that I think about it, I used to have a friend whose Saint Bernard had a thing for their hammock and their lawn mower. He would 'choose' those two items over a female in heat when presented with one. (They finally had to give up on breeding him) I wonder what social influences made him rebel in such a manner.

Damn, that's kinkier than anything I ever did!

Was the lawnmower on? :p

Mannwin Woobie
03-22-2004, 01:00 PM
In my opinion,the choice is, by default, hetrosexual.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. It's either a choice, or it's not. There is no such thing as a default "choice".

What I think you are trying to say is that EVERYONE is really heterosexual and attracted to the opposite sex. However, homosexuals choose to ignore that innate attraction and have sex with people they aren't attracted too. Even on the surface, that doesn't sound very logical to me.

Jinjre
03-22-2004, 04:18 PM
Was the lawnmower on?

no, not on. But they always made sure they put it in the shed when they were done mowing. From what they told me, the odor of that particular substance burning as the engine heats up is somewhat nauseating.

/agree Mannwinn. I don't know anyone who would actively choose to have sex with people they aren't attracted to (barring prostitutes, which is a different scenario altogether). Being heterosexual, I can honestly state that there just aren't beer goggles strong enough to attract me to another woman in a sexual manner.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-22-2004, 11:37 PM
"It's either a choice, or it's not."

I remember distinctly being a child and thinking and saying(at the time)..."I sure hope I do not become a (insert anti-homosexual epithet) when I grow up".

While it is something that I could suppose many 5 year olds think. I have no evidence to support that supposition.

Clearly, negative social consequences were a very strong deciding factor on my sexuality as an adult. And as an adult, I have learned that thinking like a 5 year old is not a really good thing to do.

5 year olds are mean little ****s, sometimes.


"It's either a choice, or it's not."

I don't presume to speak for you in your sexuality anymore than you can in mine. But I don't doubt that I could construct, or they could construct themselves, a scenario where all but the most ardent homophobes would have sex with the same gender.

If the first thing you do is remove all negative stereotypes and all negative social consequences to sex itself, how many of your friends would be bi or gay? From the women I have spoken to, who are heterosexual, it is in the 35 to 80 percent range(with everyone who has answered me stating that they themselves would). That is anectdotal of course. I don't generally ask men that question.

But that is a far cry from the 9% Census stat. By a long shot.

Panamah
03-22-2004, 11:53 PM
I didn't think about such things at 5 years old. I was probably in High School before I first learned about homosexuality. You know... I probably read about it first in "The Happy Hooker", anyone remember that book? I probably learned most of what I know about sex from that book. :) Damn, I dating myself.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-23-2004, 12:14 AM
I did.

I found a copy of Anais Nin's Delta of Venus(I stole it from my mother's hiding spot) when I was 9.

I still have it in storage.

Mannwin Woobie
03-23-2004, 10:00 AM
Clearly, negative social consequences were a very strong deciding factor on my sexuality as an adult.

One problem in any of these discussions is interchanging/mixing "attraction" with "action". I do not define my sexuality by who I have sex with. I define it by who I am attracted to.

I would not consider a virgin to be a-sexual, simply because they have never actually had physical sex. Also, I would not consider someone who experimented once with homesexual sex in their 50 year life to be bi-sexual.

I think the "negative social consequence" have an impact on whether or not people act upon, reject, or hide their "true" feelings.

Maybe THIS is the concept of "choice" that people keep trying to bring up? If a man is only attracted sexually to other men, yet he decides to "force" himself to be straight because of society, I would consider him a homosexual who has "chosen" to have sex with women. That doesn't make him any less a homosexual in my book.

Kellory
03-23-2004, 02:18 PM
and pure heterosexuality are the rebellion against nature, not the other way around.

I thought that was the point. That humans can force their will over themselves and counterpose nature the way that it wants; and call it society or civilization or culture.


Arguably untrue.

There are many examples of animals in nature that also practice monogamy. That's one of the issues behind several endangered species. If the mate dies, the other will never mate and produce offspring again. Its not strictly a human practice.

Whether a species uses monogamy or polygamy, each carries its own genetic risk. The practice of monogamy, of course, means that a male can only spread his seed and genetic line so far. Typically through 1 female who will only mate once a year at most usually, and produce limited offspring. This in turn creates the risk that an accident or catastrophe may end an entire genetic line very easily. This risk is mitigated in species that dont practice monogamy. On the other hand, a chief advantage is that in general the male can guarantee that their female's offspring is theirs. Something that many non-monogamous species cant. Not strictly true...but generally.

Polygamy, on the other hand, does offer many disadvantages. Mainly that one never knows if their offspring really is their own. Obviously, this is mainly a male issue since the female generally knows that she is in fact the mother. So her genetic line will continue regardless. A main disadvantage though, is that the female probably wont know who the father is either. While it is hoped that the strongest seed will win, that isnt always the case. Also, in these cases, the female is typically left to raise the offspring on their own. This can lead to hardship. In the case of harems, it can also lead to genetic inbreeding.

In the end, neither is more or less successful than the other. Each mode of propogation carries its own risk and advantages. Many of which I never bothered to list. In the case of humans, monogamy is actually to the female's advantage in general.

None of which really addresses the issue here.

In the end, I'd say people's stance on this is not going to be driven by logic or argument so much as social and cultural and religious upbringing. Those raised in more liberal areas and households will be more tolerant. Those raised in more "traditional" environments will be less so. With religion tossed into the mix, even those who might be more tolerant in general will probably be swayed to one side or another based upon their convictions.

Personally I'd argue for a redefinition of the term marriage to mean a union performed by a recognized religious organization. And Civil Unions to be done by a state judicial body. Let the individual religions hash out the whole debate of homosexual marriages and let the state grant civil unions to all and stop calling it marriage regardless of if its gay, lesbian, or heterosexual unions performed in a courthouse.

The main issue with things as it stands is that I'll argree with homosexuals that Seperate But Equal (as is currently proposed) is rarely equal but almost always seperate. Anytime you make a legal distinction between 2 groups (At least here in the US) it will result in discrimination against one side or another. I think the government needs to get out of the whole marriage business and concentrate on just taxing people instead of trying to regulate them.

For myself, I dont really care one way or another really. As a practicing heterosexual male I care not if I am genetically predispositioned to that, or if I'm culturally brainwashed or whatever. Nor is my maleness threatened in any way by a lesbian or gay couple. Hell, every publiclly gay couple means 2 less guys that might have competed with me for some girl if they had remained in the closet. I can only win out there...

Panamah
03-23-2004, 03:07 PM
There are many examples of animals in nature that also practice monogamy. That's one of the issues behind several endangered species. If the mate dies, the other will never mate and produce offspring again. Its not strictly a human practice.


Actually, that's not true according to something I saw recently. The only species that truly mates for life is the flat worm. Everyone else is sneaking off for funsies.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-23-2004, 10:54 PM
"The practice of monogamy, of course, means that a male can only spread his seed and genetic line so far."

Vell, monogamy is equally advantageous to both male and female, actually.

Considering that it takes 7 years for a human to become self sufficient, and that child has to be taken care of for that time. That is what the female gets.

Monogamy gets the male a higher degree of probability that he is feeding his own progeny. (see related thread in this forum).

A male can spread his seed all he wishes, but if it not taken care of, it will perish. Kind of stupid to have 100 uncared-for children who all die because papa Uhg is not bringing home the mastadon meat, huh?

Not saying that a few did not survive. Considering the mating behaviours of some males(some will say most), that trait did succeed to our generation.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-23-2004, 11:08 PM
"Hell, every publiclly gay couple means 2 less guys that might have competed with me for some girl if they had remained in the closet. "

I am sorry to tell ya, Gilligan. Even if the Professor and the Skipper are doing the nasty...

Your odds of Ginger and Mary Ann are doing the same, are equal or higher.

The amount of male homosexuals in population are going to be balanced by female homosexuals, in terms of shaping the relative size of your prospective mating pool.

Panamah
03-23-2004, 11:45 PM
/chortle

Sounds like Gilligan's island wasn't much fun for Gilligan. Well, maybe Mrs. Howell took pity on him.

weoden
04-15-2004, 01:35 PM
Sorry for not posting more but I wanted to consider my position on this topic before posting further.

I want to take the position that being homosexual is not a genetic trait but a choice. In other words, I believe that genetisists will be unable to determine a consistent genetic trait which can offer a high enough probablity(90% or more) that would explain why someone "IS" homosexual. To further explain my point of view, I believe that being homosexual is either learned or a choice which has little to no relationship to a persons genetics.

Particually as this applies to equal protection, Equal protection applies to genitic differences and age. A person who is white, black, hispanic, oriental, retarded, brillant, young and old all have equal protection. This can lead into discussions of when a persons rights begin and end due to age or where equal protection is not actually equal protection such as when equal opportunity becomes quotas and not reward for excellence.

I want to add that IF a genetic consistency between homosexuals can be proven in a respected medical journal and the results repeated, I would reconsider my position. Until then, my personal religious views will guide my point of view.

Mannwin Woobie
04-15-2004, 02:14 PM
I want to take the position that being homosexual is not a genetic trait but a choice. In other words, I believe that genetisists will be unable to determine a consistent genetic trait which can offer a high enough probablity(90% or more) that would explain why someone "IS" homosexual.

Sorry, but don't forget the other side of this coin. I will simply take your statement and replace 'homo' with 'hetero':

"I want to take the position that being heterosexual is not a genetic trait but a choice. In other words, I believe that genetisists will be unable to determine a consistent genetic trait which can offer a high enough probablity(90% or more) that would explain why someone "IS" heterosexual."

NOW.....how does that make you feel? Do you honestly believe there was a point in your life when you CHOSE to be straight? If the vast majority heterosexuals can answer that honestly, and to the affirmative, maybe then I will re-consider your position.

The whole idea of this discussion is to point out the fact that one group of people is being treated differently than another. This type of argument seems to perpetuate that by putting one group under the requirements to "prove" something the other group does not have to "prove".

Panamah
04-15-2004, 02:24 PM
I'm not a Bible expert but it does seem like Christians do pick and choose who to punish for their practices. For instance, homosexuals as oppossed to fortune tellers. From what little I know, there's an awful lot of things written in the Bible about fortune tellers and the ilk being pretty bad. Yet, there's a lot of Christians that have no problem calling psychic hotlines or going to see their local palm reader or tarot card reader.

I've never seen Christians objecting to the practice of fortune telling with even a tiny fraction of the fervor they apply to homosexuals. I don't see them badgering their public officials to close them down, picketing outside their offices or anything that would remotely suggest taht fortune telling is bad and against God's wishes.

Why are modern christians so tolerate to one class of people and yet so intolerant of another?

weoden
04-15-2004, 02:35 PM
The whole idea of this discussion is to point out the fact that one group of people is being treated differently than another. This type of argument seems to perpetuate that by putting one group under the requirements to "prove" something the other group does not have to "prove".

The difference is having a gentic cause versus a matter of choice or opinion. Choosing to drive drunk or drinking or religion or political point of view or taking addictive drugs or breaking the law or obeying the law is different than being left without a choice. To assert that a person is homosexual because they are that way due to nature is different than choosing to be homosexual. Choosing to become involved in risky activity such as parachuting is different than risking the chance of chocking on food to feed yourself.

Flintwick
04-15-2004, 02:37 PM
Why are modern christians so tolerate to one class of people and yet so intolerant of another?

Because most people are hypocrites.


Hello, by the way. I finally felt I just had to join the community when I saw that they could have 20 page discussion without resorting to baiting, name-calling, or childish behavior. Kudos to y'all!

weoden
04-15-2004, 03:08 PM
Why are modern christians so tolerate to one class of people and yet so intolerant of another?

I think one difference is persistent behavior and the act of institutionalizing homosexual activity in society governmental law. If homosexual behavior is sinful and if one sin is as bad as any other sin in God's eyes then constant and persistent sin is more objectionable than occasional sin. Also to institutionalize sin is to acknowledge that homosexual activity is not sinful. The difference is between allowing the activity by not punishing and promoting the activity by allowing governmental organizations to issue certificates. This equivocates the status of a homosexual relationship with a heterosexual relationship that raises a sinful state to the same status as marriage.

Homosexual relationships are not viewed in the same way as a violation of the 10 commandments. The definition of marriage is between a man and woman. This comes from Jewish tradition and sexual activity outside of marriage is considered adultery. To change the definition of marriage is to change the meaning of one of the 10 commandments. The logic is that adultery is a sin -> only a man and woman may be married -> homosexual activity is adultery. Altering the meaning of marriage is to pervert the meaning of adultery as it is currently understood in society.

Panamah
04-15-2004, 03:36 PM
if one sin is as bad as any other sin in God's eyes then constant and persistent sin is more objectionable than occasional sin.

That's weak, Weo. Someone who makes their living as a fortune teller, does it every day. Fortune telling is not against the law, that I'm aware of. So the government doesn't really give a damn and Christians don't care.

Unlike homosexuality, playing with fortune telling is completely voluntary and optional and it isn't against any laws. Yet really if I were to go poll most people participating in the more conservative Christian churches, they'd probably tell me it isn't really a sin, even though the Bible says otherwise. That's my gut instinct. In fact, I'd probably find many of them had used the services of one or believed they had real abilities.

Erianaiel
04-15-2004, 04:21 PM
Re: Weoden


I would like to ask you who would choose to be gay in a country where it is prosecuted very harshly?

I would like to ask you which 6 year old boy or girl would choose to be gay when they do not even know the meaning of the word?

I would like to ask wny somebody would choose to be openly gay when it means he or she can loose their job, their house and opens up themselves to random harassment by total strangers?

And what animal chooses to be gay? There is after all plenty of documented evidence of homosexuality in many species (e.g .seagulls and lions).

And most of all I would like to ask why your religion and beliefs are so much more important than those of others that your religious doctrines should prohibit how they may live and love?


Eri

Aidon
04-15-2004, 06:20 PM
I think one difference is persistent behavior and the act of institutionalizing homosexual activity in society governmental law. If homosexual behavior is sinful and if one sin is as bad as any other sin in God's eyes then constant and persistent sin is more objectionable than occasional sin. Also to institutionalize sin is to acknowledge that homosexual activity is not sinful. The difference is between allowing the activity by not punishing and promoting the activity by allowing governmental organizations to issue certificates. This equivocates the status of a homosexual relationship with a heterosexual relationship that raises a sinful state to the same status as marriage.

The State isn't in the Sin business. That's the purview of Religion. Keep Sin out of State policies please.

Homosexual relationships are not viewed in the same way as a violation of the 10 commandments. The definition of marriage is between a man and woman. This comes from Jewish tradition and sexual activity outside of marriage is considered adultery. To change the definition of marriage is to change the meaning of one of the 10 commandments. The logic is that adultery is a sin -> only a man and woman may be married -> homosexual activity is adultery. Altering the meaning of marriage is to pervert the meaning of adultery as it is currently understood in society.

If you want to use the Jewish tradition...and then link things to Adultery...and thus the 10 Commandments, you should know that the technical definition of adultery as used in the Torah has nothing to do with sex outside of wedlock. Adultery is defined as sleeping with another man's wife (I suppose in deference to modern sexual equality we should expand this to sleeping with another woman's husband now). There is no religious ban extra-marital sex. There are rules regarding it though. Essentially, if I recall off the top of my head, if you sleep with a girl and don't want to marry her, you have to pay her father the price of her dowry to compensate for the fact that it'll be much harder to marry her off.

That isn't a "religious" law so much as one of the many societal laws encoded in the source code for Ancient Jewry ;) Yes, technically it could be considered a "sin", but so could building a 2nd floor balcony without a railing.

weoden
04-15-2004, 06:30 PM
I would like to ask you who would choose to be gay in a country where it is prosecuted very harshly?
Eri

I would not but I disagree with persecuting gays.


I would like to ask you which 6 year old boy or girl would choose to be gay when they do not even know the meaning of the word?
Eri

Sexuality and notions of sexuality, in my opinion, comes from observations and learned behavior but it also comes from natural drives. The natural drives comes from hormones but also is intertwined with chaos interjected into their family life. A person builds a life based on their childhood experiences and those experiences guide their future actions. Separating feelings of love and what is "normal" love and abnormal love and what is natural and unnatural are confusing. Why does a woman choose a husband that abuses here like her mother was abused? What is normal love and what is a normal loving relationship? I have my view on these questions I believe that past experience guides future behavior. (tough question!)


I would like to ask wny somebody would choose to be openly gay when it means he or she can loose their job, their house and opens up themselves to random harassment by total strangers?
Eri

I do not think a person should loose their job or their house but I looked up harass which seems to conflict with the word random. Harass has definitions that include exhaust, fatigue and to annoy persistently. I agree that total strangers can express their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech but this same freedom allows you to tell them what you think and where to stick there opinions. This opens up the possiblity for violence and violence I disagree with. However, if you mean critism from a variety of strangers that observe you in public then you need to view yourself as a majority of one.(http://www.generationterrorists.com/bio/thoreau.html) For society to surpress their opinions would create circumstances far more dangerous than critism from stangers which occurs often but each event is not persistent.


And what animal chooses to be gay? There is after all plenty of documented evidence of homosexuality in many species (e.g .seagulls and lions).
Eri

Is animal homosexuality activity random or persistent? If this is persistent then how does this species procreate? It seems that the act either occurs at that moment or is related to Greek homosexuality. Greeks had homosexual relationships but even those were ended when adulthood was reached. Are you asking if homosexual acts occur or why or why I think they should not?


And most of all I would like to ask why your religion and beliefs are so much more important than those of others that your religious doctrines should prohibit how they may live and love?
Eri

My religious point of view guides what I see as right and wrong. The difference between what I see is right and wrong is hypocrisy. In other words, society's laws may allow actions that are wrong in my point of view but I do not have to live that way either. To speak up loudly and assert that a certain act is wrong is my part of my freedom of speech. It is also my freedom of Religion.

You ask why my religious doctrines should prohibit how they may live and love. I do not advocate how they live and love but I do advocate how my governement views those relationships. The difference between living that way and allowing the government to certify those relationships as being both official and socially acceptable are different.

You ask why "my" religious beliefs are so much more important than others. I have two reasons. First, they are my beliefs and second I am a majority of one! *grin*

Homosexual marriage will open up other questions such polygamy and communal marriage. If two loving individuals can marry then what about 3? or 4? Particually when you consider the basis required for marriage. What are the conditions for marriage? If the basis for marriage is 2 loving individuals then why does equal protection not cover 3 or 4 loving individuals? The book "Stranger in a Strange land" describes a religion/communal marriage situation. What basis should society use for marriage and why?

Flintwick
04-15-2004, 07:37 PM
I think it would be easier simply to get out of the marriage/union business altogher, i.e., treat every person individually and not as a couple, thereby granting no special rights to anyone.

Just require people to fill out forms for probate, beneficiaries, hospital visitations, and all the rest of the assumed functions that they currently have marriage assigned to. You could prod them into it by saying if they didn't assign people for it, everything would go to the state.

Those are the benefits that G/L people want. It's difficult and expensive to set up these protections for them (it can be done, I've seen it), but any guy and gal can step off the street, get married, and have all these things immediately with just a marriage license (Britney did!). Hrmm, one certificate versus a 1"-2" book of documents... and even with the documents, some families will STILL fight the survivors, etc.

On the brighter side, if the government stopped recognizing couples, we'd finally be able to shut up the people complaining about the "marriage penalty", tax-wise. :grin:


re: marrying for "love"...
Until recently, that was an abberation. People married for money, for land, to seal treaties, etc. I always laugh when I see people wanting to "return to the way marriage was". What? You want women to be property, used as a house drudge, baby factory, and sex slave (don't kid yourself, that is exactly what women were, until quite recently... remember they didn't even get the right to vote until the early part of this century!)?
Don't know many women that will take you up on a marriage like that these days, Sparky.

Nowadays, marriage is like "going steady+" for many people. That is what is "endangering" marriage. If people really want to "protect" it, they'd make it near-impossible to get a divorce... or HERE'S A THOUGHT - Perhaps they'd require couples to get 6-12 months of marital counseling before getting married. But no, "we're in love, it'll be true always and forever"! :rolleyes: If it's really love, there shouldn't be a rush to get married. Most people who rush into it are just caught up in the hormones... they don't want to think things through because they know they're making a mistake. And after all, if you don't have a partner/spouse, there's something wrong with you, isn't there? /sarcasm (You'd be scared to realize how much of that attitude is prevalent in this country, though...)

I may be just a little bitter, but americans really do have totally unrealistic expectations about marriage. "Love is all we need" is a good soundbite, but in practice you need a hell of a lot more than love to make a relationship work. Like patience, understanding, the ability to compromise, and many other things (which I'm not going to go into since it's almost time to leave work!).

Don't even get me started on weddings...
(tip, girls - you're not princesses, you'll never be princesses, and wasting 30k+ on pretending seems a little stupid and wasteful, especially when you'll probably have that huge debt hanging over your first years of marriage. Instead of wasting time and money on "your one perfect day", why not invest it, so you'll have a secure future - regardless if the marriage works out or not? To repeat, YOU ARE NOT A PRINCESS. LIFE IS NOT A FAIRY TALE. $5000 for a dress you'll wear once, are you insane or just stupid? YOU ARE NOT A PRINCESS.)
(tip #2, don't film your wedding. No one will ever want to see the video, and inflicting it on others is very mean. The only time you'll ever even look at it is after the marriage dissolves, and you're sitting on the couch in sweatpants with fistfuls of bon-bons, crying and asking yourself where it all went wrong)
(tip #3, wedding photos the day before or the day after, NOT the day of. 'Nuff said.)
(tip #4, you'll waste thousands on flowers that'll be dead the next day, but won't bother to pay for a decent band that'll help give you memories for years? What's up with that? Bueller? Bueller?)
(tip #5, pay the officiant well. After all, do you think it's "fun" working at a wedding? "Your one perfect day" is just another day of drudgery to them...)

(okay, so I stayed a few minutes after and dove into the wedding thing. sue me.)

Flintwick the Verbose.

Mannwin Woobie
04-15-2004, 07:47 PM
To assert that a person is homosexual because they are that way due to nature is different than choosing to be homosexual.

And I totally agree! But, you are really contradicting youself by saying two things:

1. Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
2. Heterosexuality is GENETIC.

To me, that is just hypocritical. Either there is a choice or there isn't. You can't have it both ways.

If I was naturally sexually attracted to the oppsite sex, why in the world would I choose to have relations with those of my own sex, who I am not even attracted to???? Doesn't sound very logical to me.

Panamah
04-15-2004, 10:42 PM
IIs animal homosexuality activity random or persistent? If this is persistent then how does this species procreate? It seems that the act either occurs at that moment or is related to Greek homosexuality. Greeks had homosexual relationships but even those were ended when adulthood was reached. Are you asking if homosexual acts occur or why or why I think they should not?

Obviously not 100% of any animal group is 100% homosexual. There was actually a survey done by the government about rams that refuse to mate with females. However, they try to mate with other males. It was done at the behest of farmers that had invested a pile of money into stud sheep and they weren't mating. That'd be a pisser to spend $20,000 on a prize sheep and find it won't top your ewes. Of course, with artificial insemination, I can't see that they'd really care.

Although there is a monkey species that is 100% bisexual. It's how their society evolved. Is God going to send them to monkey hell?

My religious point of view guides what I see as right and wrong.

I only partly believe that. I think most Christians are pretty selective about which sins they really uphold as bad enough to be political about. Like we discussed earlier, fortune telling doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar. I remember the "Fundy Corral" at gay pride parades, they used to get a lot of TV coverage. But funny thing is, I can't recall a time I ever saw such an out pouring of hate and intolerance at a psychic fair.

It is also my freedom of Religion.

Lets not forget there's more than one religion in this country. And there's a few of us that hold freedom from everyone's elses religion to be important.

Homosexual marriage will open up other questions such polygamy and communal marriage. If two loving individuals can marry then what about 3? or 4? Particually when you consider the basis required for marriage. What are the conditions for marriage? If the basis for marriage is 2 loving individuals then why does equal protection not cover 3 or 4 loving individuals? The book "Stranger in a Strange land" describes a religion/communal marriage situation. What basis should society use for marriage and why?

I always like how people use the "slippery slope" argument to avoid doing anything that is right. Its the sort of "give 'em an inch and they'll ask for a foot" that people used against people of color, women and other minority groups in this country. Somehow those groups got their inch, blacks got to go to the same schools as whites, women got to hold jobs other than as nurses and secretarys, colored people got ordained as ministers, races intermarried, blacks could move into white neighborhoods and society pretty much hung together despite the folks saying that this would lead to all kinds of awful things. In fact, it got a lot better and we're standing on a firmer moral footing in this country than we ever have before. Why? Because we stopped denying the constitutional rights that are guaranteed to all individuals in the US, simply because someone was dark skinned, female and now... homosexual.

I don't know how old you are Weoden, or how much you're aware that this country has changed when it comes to civial rights for women and minorities. I get the feeling that young people today take it all forgranted. But a lot of what I mentioned in the preceding paragraph is new to the US in the last 45 years. I saw the intolerance, the hatred, the cross burnings, the lynchings on TV. And I don't see that this issue is all that much different.

Flintwick
04-16-2004, 12:09 PM
Lets not forget there's more than one religion in this country. And there's a few of us that hold freedom from everyone's elses religion to be important.

There's more than a few of us...

Mannwin Woobie
04-16-2004, 12:28 PM
And rightly so! One of the founding principles in this great country is the separation of church and state.

It is very scary to see our president advocating changes to our Constitution to protect the "sanctity" of anything.

Erianaiel
04-16-2004, 02:33 PM
This is going to be my last contribution to this particular discussion as I do not want to get dragged into an increasingly heated discussion. Feel free to dissect my points though.

I would not but I disagree with persecuting gays.

I would hope so :)

Sexuality and notions of sexuality, in my opinion, comes from observations and learned behavior but it also comes from natural drives.
The natural drives comes from hormones but also is intertwined with chaos interjected into their family life.

Unfortunately there is plenty of evidence that suggests otherwise. That homosexuality is in part a heriditary trait. This is born out by the many interviews where homosexuals say they knew of their preferences well before the onset of puberty, and that puberty (when those hormones begin to affect them) did not change their orientation. They do in general report being confused and unhappy about having feelings that are outside of the 'norm' and that can not be discussed.

A person builds a life based on their childhood experiences and those experiences guide their future actions. Separating feelings of love and what is "normal" love and abnormal love and what is natural and unnatural are confusing.

I am sorry, but this is just very wrong no matter how I look at it. If I understand you correctly you say here that homosexuality is 'abnormal' and then use that statement to explain that homosexuality is abnormal. I may be wrong in understanding what you mean, and no doubt you will correct my mistaken notions, but you will have a hard time to convince me that homosexuality is abnormal.

Why does a woman choose a husband that abuses here like her mother was abused? What is normal love and what is a normal loving relationship? I have my view on these questions I believe that past experience guides future behavior. (tough question!)

Please be careful here. You are in effect suggesting that every homosexual must have some kind of traumatic or warped childhood to become homosexual. While I do not doubt that you did not mean it that way, you are essentially trying to proof your point by claiming you are right.

I do not think a person should loose their job or their house but I looked up harass which seems to conflict with the word random. Harass has definitions that include exhaust, fatigue and to annoy persistently.

I do not want to mince words. If being gay means that you can be followed around by strangers, that they will phone you in the middle of the night, send you hate mail and dead rats, and in general are being made so uncomfortable that leaving seems a better choice, then you are in my opinion being harassed. You may find another word to describe this, but I think that most would agree with my choice of words here. And I am not even talking about the threat of random violence by gay bashers.

I agree that total strangers can express their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech but this same freedom allows you to tell them what you think and where to stick there opinions. This opens up the possiblity for violence and violence I disagree with. However, if you mean critism from a variety of strangers that observe you in public then you need to view yourself as a majority of one.(http://www.generationterrorists.com/bio/thoreau.html) For society to surpress their opinions would create circumstances far more dangerous than critism from stangers which occurs often but each event is not persistent.

I really only wanted to point out that the consequences of being openly gay tend to be so negative that I strongly doubted anybody would willingly 'choose' to be one. It strongly suggests that it is not a simple trained treat but a very real biological imperative for some men to find other men attractive.

Is animal homosexuality activity random or persistent? If this is persistent then how does this species procreate? It seems that the act either occurs at that moment or is related to Greek homosexuality. Greeks had homosexual relationships but even those were ended when adulthood was reached. Are you asking if homosexual acts occur or why or why I think they should not?

Observerd homosexual behaviour in animals was both incidental and persistent. Not in the same animals obviously. Some (male) animals mated with anything that was available. Others mated exclusively with other males.
This points out two things really. First is that homosexuality is not as 'unnatural' as its more vehement opponents like to argue. And second that there is obviously less choice involved in being homosexual. Very few people wake up one day and say to themselves: "today I will be gay"

My religious point of view guides what I see as right and wrong. The difference between what I see is right and wrong is hypocrisy. In other words, society's laws may allow actions that are wrong in my point of view but I do not have to live that way either. To speak up loudly and assert that a certain act is wrong is my part of my freedom of speech. It is also my freedom of Religion.

I was not saying you do not have your right to view homosexuality any way you want. I was asking why your apparently religiously based opinion that homosexuals should not marry holds more weight than other's belief they should be able to marry?

You ask why my religious doctrines should prohibit how they may live and love. I do not advocate how they live and love but I do advocate how my governement views those relationships. The difference between living that way and allowing the government to certify those relationships as being both official and socially acceptable are different.

Yes, but you still seem to say here that your beliefs are more important and should be enshrined in law over the beliefs and opinions of others.

You ask why "my" religious beliefs are so much more important than others. I have two reasons. First, they are my beliefs and second I am a majority of one! *grin*

In other words, there is no real reason for it, other than that you feel one way and in the past it has always been like that. I would like you to think about this.
As long as homosexual marriage does not harm others (and please do not try to argue that it harm the "institute of marriage" as the president does, because that is ultimately a circular proof), why should a sizeable minority be denied very real (legal) benefits that others can have without questions?

Homosexual marriage will open up other questions such polygamy and communal marriage. If two loving individuals can marry then what about 3? or 4? Particually when you consider the basis required for marriage. What are the conditions for marriage? If the basis for marriage is 2 loving individuals then why does equal protection not cover 3 or 4 loving individuals? The book "Stranger in a Strange land" describes a religion/communal marriage situation. What basis should society use for marriage and why?

Indeed, why should society impose one particular relationship on people? As long as all involved are consensual and able to make a conscious and well informed decision?
Islamic law allows a man to marry up to 4 women. Some tribes are matriarchical, or at least matrilinear. Some tribes have (had) a very loose definition of relationships without permanent one-on-one pairings in nucleus families. Raising children was a task for the entire tribe, not for a mated pair.
Now I am not advocating any of this, I am certainly not about to make any kind of moral judgement about which is 'better'. I just like to think that social law should not codify any one form of relationship as the norm and prohibit every other form that people can choose to live together in.


Eri

Panamah
04-16-2004, 02:49 PM
Even though it sounds like I have it out for Christians, I don't really. I just don't like it when someone tries to use their religious beliefs to deny civil rights to other people. You can deny religious rights to people you don't agree with all you want, civil rights is another matter.

There is a history of that happening in Christianity, and Islam and probably a few other religions. But some religions seem to be pretty pretty tolerant. I think most Jews are, orthodox probably excepted, Buddists seem to be very tolerant.

And this is where I don't understand the conflict between what Christians say about love and such and what they actually do. It makes me a little :crazy:

Jinjre
04-16-2004, 03:41 PM
I find the majority of the very vocal Christians to not behave very Christian at all. I find the majority of people who behave in a Christian manner to be quite enjoyable company. I am not Christian. I beleive that much of Christ's teachings (not the same as Leviticus or whichever other book you want to quote. Christ doesn't have a book in the bible. Christ actually never once said anything about homosexuals, anywhere in the bible.) are very good rules to live by.

Many of my Christian friends tell me I am a Christian based on my behavior. I think it makes them feel better about my soul.

Buddists are very tolerant primarily because their religion focusses on self, not on others. Zen Buddists are probably the most tolerant, as their fundamental tenet is that everything is nothing and nothing is everything, therefore none of it matters, while it all matters equally.

No matter how you look at it, we are not a theocracy. And if/when we become one, I will be moving to Canada.

Flintwick
04-16-2004, 03:54 PM
And this is where I don't understand the conflict between what Christians say about love and such and what they actually do. It makes me a little :crazy:

The vast majority of people are hypocrites. They try to justify it, but it just boils down to claiming to believe one thing and actually doing another.

In my personal experience, I know many pagan/wiccan/agnostic/atheistic people who are far more "Christian" than any of the Christians I know. I've run into too many Christians who apparently think "love thy neighbor" is a rule they can overlook... The bible is more a tool for those people to use to discriminate and harrass, rather than love.


minor off-topic point: I believe that there are, what, 3 to 5 passages that may mention homosexuality in the bible. How many are there about money? Thousands. Perhaps they were trying to say something there about the degree of sin? :)

re: using the bible as the infallible, literal "word of g-d"
No one ever thought of the bible as a literal document until the mid-1800's, when a literalist cult formed. People who consider the bible a literal work were and are considered heretics by the mainstream churches.

Unlike homosexuality, playing with fortune telling is completely voluntary and optional and it isn't against any laws. Yet really if I were to go poll most people participating in the more conservative Christian churches, they'd probably tell me it isn't really a sin, even though the Bible says otherwise.

Most Christians are outstandingly ignorant of what is actually in the bible. Churches realized a long time ago that if you kept the faithful ignorant, you could control them. For many centuries, the only people who could read/write were clergy. The faithful would listen to whatever the clergy said, because how were they going to dispute it? If you look at history, when moveable type allowed books to be mass produced, there was an explosion of learning and critical thought. The church was up in arms when the bible started being translated into english, french, german, etc., since it meant that people could read it for themselves and make their own opinions, which might contradict what the church had been telling them for centuries.

Most of the Christians I know think of the King James version of the bible as "the bible". That version, however, was altered to fit his whims and beliefs. He was witch-obsessed, for instance. The passage "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" actually, in the original koine greek, translates to "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". This brings back the whole "infallible word of g-d" concept... how can it be, if it was purposefully mis-translated and spun?

Aidon
04-16-2004, 04:00 PM
There is a history of that happening in Christianity, and Islam and probably a few other religions. But some religions seem to be pretty pretty tolerant. I think most Jews are, orthodox probably excepted, Buddists seem to be very tolerant.
:

Even the most orthodox of Jews have little interest on attempting to impose their views on other religions. The most intolerance you'll find is in the Israeli ultra-orthodox..and thats intolerance of less orthodox Jews. Jews have never been a prostlytizing (sp?) religions hehe. We don't have the numbers =P We just assume that eventually all you goyim will see the light on your own =D

Aidon
04-16-2004, 04:06 PM
Most of the Christians I know think of the King James version of the bible as "the bible". That version, however, was altered to fit his whims and beliefs. He was witch-obsessed, for instance. The passage "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" actually, in the original koine greek, translates to "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". This brings back the whole "infallible word of g-d" concept... how can it be, if it was purposefully mis-translated and spun?

original greek is a contradiction ;) Any greek version of the "old testament" was in fact a translation from the original aramean (or what they assume would be the original language. Conventional wisdom holds that it was aramean, but they cannot be positive).

Flintwick
04-16-2004, 04:56 PM
true, my bad. "Original" is a bad word to use when describing the bible ;)

I should have indicated translations from the koine greek versions of the bible, which I believe were taken from the earlier versions.

Erianaiel
04-17-2004, 06:04 AM
"The practice of monogamy, of course, means that a male can only spread his seed and genetic line so far."

Vell, monogamy is equally advantageous to both male and female, actually.

Considering that it takes 7 years for a human to become self sufficient, and that child has to be taken care of for that time. That is what the female gets.

Monogamy gets the male a higher degree of probability that he is feeding his own progeny. (see related thread in this forum).

A male can spread his seed all he wishes, but if it not taken care of, it will perish. Kind of stupid to have 100 uncared-for children who all die because papa Uhg is not bringing home the mastadon meat, huh?

Not saying that a few did not survive. Considering the mating behaviours of some males(some will say most), that trait did succeed to our generation.


Actually, with humans it is 4 yours not 7. After that time they do not need permanent supervision and are to a limited extend able to care for themselves when the mother is busy caring for another brat. It is speculated that this the reason the warm fuzzy feelings of love wear off after about this time. It garantuees that the child has protection for the crucial first few years but after that nature much rather has that both parents find new partners.

From a genetic point of view serial monogamy is much more preferable than life long monogamy.

Most of our closer primate relations have a pack for their social structure with one dominant male mating with all the females, a few younger males around who sneak their seed in if the can get away with. Any serious competition is driven off to live alone. Humans evolved from a similar society but are moving away to a more exclusive partnering as evidenced by the steady *decrease* of male mass and size compared to females. Early predecessors of the human species had males being more than half again as big as the females, similar to how male lions are much bigger than lionesses.

There is another side of the coin that tends to be overlooked in discussions like this. The pressure to ensure that he only cares for children of his own may exist in males, but in most social species that do not actually enforce a harem, it is insignificant. The driving factor is that by pooling their resources the group can ensure that all children are cared for. A few men and women can stay behind to care for and protect the children while the rest goes off to gather food. As such the group is much more important than the individual and certainty that one particular child is his has less relevance that at least some of the children who will be properly cared for are his.
In other words, given a social group and when any male has the opportunity to mate with some of the females it may be advantageous genetically to share the care of the offspring even if they are not their own.
There is (anecdotal) evidence of some cultures in the past who have actually organised themselves along these lines (notably the scottish picts and certain polynesian people), though I know not of any that has survived 2 millenia of aggressive patriarchical religion.

This has nothing to do with the rest of this thread, but I wanted to point out that there are (genetically) viable alternatives to life long monogamy that most of the world's religions are encouraging.


Eri

Panamah
04-17-2004, 10:42 AM
Not Bonobos though, and they're probably closer to us than chimps are.

They don't have a pack structure at all, it's more like a tribe.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-18-2004, 11:28 PM
"you are really contradicting youself by saying two things:"

I disagree.

Why do you think it can not be both?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-18-2004, 11:38 PM
"Actually, with humans it is 4 yours not 7."

It may be that young now. But I doubt it.

But consider a melieu where there are no shopping centers or malls or money.

A 7 year old can take care of themself(survive) in a hunter gather social system, as an orphan. I doubt most 4 year olds could.

If today you look at Brazilian or Vatican begger/thief children(self sufficient), I would find it highly unlikely that there are a huge number of 4 year olds. And in that system, survival is obviously much easier there than in when one that forced one to kill or gather his or her own food.

I also think that is the genetic reason for the phenomenon of 'seven year itch'. Which seems to be culturally across the board, for those groups of people who attempt to practice long term non-serial monogamy as a norm that is.

Mannwin Woobie
04-19-2004, 07:05 AM
Why do you think it can not be both?

Why would you think it IS both? If that is true, then EVERY human being is a natural heterosexual, and some of them have chosen to deny their natural instincts and urges and have sexual relations with people they are not even attracted to. In addition, they are inviting all the scorn, inequality, and life-threatening situations that go with that choice.

Do you honestly think that is the case? Why would someone CHOOSE to do that? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I am gay. I am a man who is attracted to other men. For me, it is NOT a choice. In addition, for me to CHOOSE to go against those natural instincts and have relations with a woman is not even an option. I am not attracted to them, and have no desire whatsoever to have sex with them. Sure, I could do the ACT, but the attraction is not there. For me it is unnatural. Which is probably the same type of response you will get from a heterosexual male when asked about having sex with another man.

Erianaiel
04-19-2004, 02:25 PM
"Actually, with humans it is 4 yours not 7."

It may be that young now. But I doubt it.

But consider a melieu where there are no shopping centers or malls or money.

A 7 year old can take care of themself(survive) in a hunter gather social system, as an orphan. I doubt most 4 year olds could.

If today you look at Brazilian or Vatican begger/thief children(self sufficient), I would find it highly unlikely that there are a huge number of 4 year olds. And in that system, survival is obviously much easier there than in when one that forced one to kill or gather his or her own food.

I also think that is the genetic reason for the phenomenon of 'seven year itch'. Which seems to be culturally across the board, for those groups of people who attempt to practice long term non-serial monogamy as a norm that is.


At four years old children are not self-sufficient, and neither are all but a few 7 year olds (especially outside an industrialised society).

The point is that 4 year old children are mobile, have developed sufficient speech that you can talk to them some. I.e. they can actually explain what is bothering them and understand you when you talk to them (to a certain extent anyway).
This means that by 4 years a child does not need to be closely supervised at all time. They need a babysitter, obviously, but they do not need to be constantly mothered. This frees up the mother to do other things than taking care of the child. Like finding a new mate, or getting pregnant again.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread :)


Eri

Panamah
04-19-2004, 04:06 PM
Assuming that at many of the same people voted in this poll as in the Bush/Kerry poll, I'm guessing this matter it isn't a deal-breaker for the Bush supporters, eh?

Funny thing, I heard the Log Cabin Republicans are debating whether or not to support Bush. They're the gay republicans. It sort of sounds like they're pretty pissed at him and aren't going to support him. But it isn't clear cut with them at all.

Flintwick
04-19-2004, 06:30 PM
The Log Cabin Republicans are basically fiscally conservative, socially mixed. They just want a smaller, less intrusive government (something that Shrub has NOT done), which the mainstream Republican party used to give lip service to, before it was taken over by fundamentalists.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-20-2004, 01:35 AM
"then EVERY human being is a natural heterosexual,"

Again, why would you think that?

It is perfectly acceptable that most people are naturally bi-sexual. And what you see with social conformations is a sliding spectrum of acceptability and arousal. You obviously have a few people at the far extremes.

I had a friend whose ex was so anti-homosexual he never maturbated, he did not even hold for aiming when urinating. The poetic justice(if there is such a thing) was that he raised 2 homosexual sons.

I have lesbian friends who, though having intimated sexual fantasies/arousal about certain male/female sex acts, have a big huge neon "no boys allowed" sign blinking above them. Going so far as to attempt(through negative social interaction) to keep their peers pure of penile interaction.

I know it sounds cliche and sophmorish, but every heterosexual who has ever masturbated has had sex with someone of the same gender.

Mannwin Woobie
04-20-2004, 07:38 AM
Again, why would you think that?

I DON'T think that! Am I really not being clear in my comments?? Here, I will try to sum it up in one sentence:

True homosexuality is not a choice. It is as natural for that person as breathing.

Is my position clear enough now?

I do not understand how people can say that Homosexuality is a choice, but Heterosexuality is not a choice. THAT is my big problem. And that is the only way anti-homosexuals, anti-gay marriage people, etc., can justify their positions.

Panamah
04-20-2004, 09:38 AM
"then EVERY human being is a natural heterosexual,"

I had a friend whose ex was so anti-homosexual he never maturbated, he did not even hold for aiming when urinating.

ew! I'd hate to clean his bathroom.

Actually, I remember a study that was done of heterosexuals that there was an indication that the ones who were most adamantly against homosexuals were actually the ones most arousesd during a homosexual **** movie. So perhaps your friend's ex was really fighting with something inside himself. Doesn't sound like it improved him as a person to fight against it.

Flintwick
04-20-2004, 11:41 AM
Actually, I remember a study that was done of heterosexuals that there was an indication that the ones who were most adamantly against homosexuals were actually the ones most arousesd during a homosexual **** movie. So perhaps your friend's ex was really fighting with something inside himself. Doesn't sound like it improved him as a person to fight against it.

/nod A latent.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-20-2004, 03:35 PM
"Doesn't sound like it improved him as a person to fight against it."

He is the only person that I have ever met who I have no problem with calling homophobic.

Homo - same
Phobic - fear

Homophobic means fear of the same.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-20-2004, 03:42 PM
"It is as natural for that person as breathing."

That may be true. Like I have said previously, I will not define your sexuality for yourself.

But, there are all kinds of natural behaviors that social groups do not condone...

"Homosexuality is a choice, but Heterosexuality is not a choice."

They both are. Just like monogamy or polygamy or celibacy or promiscuity are choices. But, they are all greatly influenced by social pressures and outcomes. And the willingness of yourself to accept the negative social effects on your life because of them.

Panamah
04-20-2004, 04:50 PM
Hmmm... Do animals choose their sexuality?

Mannwin Woobie
04-20-2004, 06:24 PM
Well, OK, if you are willing to admit that you believe BOTH are by "choice", I will not deny you your opinion.

However, I would venture to say that the vast majority of heterosexuals would not agree with you. And neither would most homosexuals.

If it's all just 'choice', then there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality and all this fuss is about nothing.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-20-2004, 08:54 PM
"...and all this fuss is about nothing."

Of course it is.

/smile

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-20-2004, 08:59 PM
"Hmmm... Do animals choose their sexuality?"

I don't know.

But all the female dogs I have ever had, have tried(tried, only because they did not have penises) to hump other dogs(male and female) and my leg(if I let them).

Would that make them gay, straight, bi, or leg-o-sexual?

Most animals don't have a social order that will ostracize, or worse, if they poke the wrong end. edit: Or get poked in the wrong end.

Panamah
04-20-2004, 10:29 PM
There's quite a lot of monkeying around in the ape world. I thought Bonobo's had a corner on the market, but it turns out that female apes spend a lot of time monkeying around with one another. So what does that mean? Does it mean that monkeys tend to have sexual relations with other monkeys they are close to? Do they just like having orgasms and really don't distinguish or care what the source of them are? Or is it a part of their society like friendly hugging and kissing is in ours?

Maybe you're right. Maybe it is choice as much to be heterosexual as it is to be homosexual. Maybe its like color preference. I like green much more than yellow, but I suspect if I were going to be harrased over my color preference, I might tell everyone yellow is the better color, if that was what I had to do. Was I born with that color preference? I think green and blue are the most popular colors, so perhaps that is programmed into us to some extent. But I'd still be damned fond of green. And I'd be repressed and frustrated by my yellow walls, yellow chair and yellow floors.

Yellow is a fine color, but only as accents to green and blue. :)

weoden
07-30-2004, 12:59 PM
I draw the line at gays adopting minors. I view homosexuality as either learned or a choice... Other than that, our gov't is not a theoracacy and therefore having shared spousal benefits seems reasonable. This may include inheritance or "importing" more gays from off shore via marriage.

I do see as wrong is the judicial view that gay marriage is "equal protection". This makes me livid. These judges have bypassed the entire legislative process and made law themselves... which is out of their area of responsibility.

Frankly, I consider myself a log cabin Rep ... or lazier faire Rep. Low taxes, small gov't, and low international invlovement is what I want. However, 9/11 has thrown that out the window. Regan era deficits look to be the spending path from this point forward...

That said, I saw a TV new article about why Reps are spending so much... Basicly, they are able to keep borrowing so they do... This iritates me and other Reps that don't want to see large deficits.

Margate Thacher was referenced and she said something to the effect: I stopped the over spending eventhough the common point of view was to continue borrowing so that other polititcians will not benefit from my savings...

The process Congress appropiates money needs to get revamped. I do not think a balanced budge amendment is the way to address the problem... I do think a combination of "sunsetting" and making a difference between required gov't functions like congress and the military versus social programs is the best solution. That is, constutionally mandated programs get voted on and funded first... Then nonConstutionally mandated gov't spending gets authorized next. Finally, deficit spending requires a 2/3 vote for the spending to pass.

Panamah
07-30-2004, 01:11 PM
I really need new glasses... I read your first sentence as:

"I draw the line at gays adopting mirrors."

Mannwin Woobie
07-30-2004, 02:26 PM
I do see as wrong is the judicial view that gay marriage is "equal protection". This makes me livid. These judges have bypassed the entire legislative process and made law themselves... which is out of their area of responsibility.

That is NOT what the judges did. We can say it over and over again, but some people just don't get it. We have three branches of government as a system of checks and balances. It is the judicial branch's RESPONSIBILITY to review and dtermine the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislative branch. That is just what the Mass. Supreme Court did. They said that the opposite-sex-only restriction was unconstitutional. They did not write any new laws.

You may not agree with their interpretation, but I hope you can at least understand the process.

And, the gay marriage issue is not about homosexuality, per se. It IS about equal rights. It is about legal rights and benefits being given to one group of citizens and excluding them from another group of citizens. Homosexuals do not want 'marriage'. They do, however, want equal rights and opportunities.

Panamah
07-30-2004, 02:47 PM
There does seem to be a surprising amount of ignorance about the function of courts in making sure that legislators and voters don't pass laws that violate constitutions (state or federal).

Galadwen
08-02-2004, 11:10 AM
It's so so sad to read such things...

I think that there are to many problems in the world to make this question such important.
2 persons are in love, they live together, want to marry : juste let them marry. Who am I to stop an union ?

But our world is sad....

Gneaus
08-03-2004, 02:30 PM
ew! I'd hate to clean his bathroom.

You think it'd really be any worse than those of men who 'try to keep a grip on things'?
:)

I'm a man and deep down where I'll never admit to it in person, if I manage to keep my feet dry I consider it a successful mission. :p


As for the topic of this thread - I can't see where it is anyone's business other than mine who I am sleeping with and who I wish to share my life with. Making it illegal for same sex marriages is not that far different from basing the same judgment calls on skin color. Most of the counter arguments I hear to this are just sophistry or blatant poorly reasoned logic chains. You are taking an external characteristic that has no ill effect on any person or on society as a whole and using that as a basis to qualify that person(s) as second class. In other words, you're finding something different about people, using that shared characteristic to lump them together into one big group, then justifying discrimination against them by whatever means makes you feel the most comfortable.
BTW, this is a good synopsis for the KKK too.

It seems to be the nature of mankind to look down upon and try to feel superior to those that are either physically or philosophically different.

Panamah
08-05-2004, 01:55 PM
I'd hope so, Gneaus! I'd hope y'all lean how to aim that thing.

Stewwy
08-05-2004, 02:20 PM
I'd hope so, Gneaus! I'd hope y'all lean how to aim that thing.
You mean you've never heard a guy tell you it has a mind of its own?

Panamah
08-05-2004, 02:54 PM
Well yeah, but the context was a little different. :p