Homosexual Marriage

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pikatore But I'm not christian, and i am kind of hesitant about it. why?

I don't know, you tell us. We can't introspect for you

Seriously, though, perhaps it has something to do with a personal preference or past experience? Think hard here, becasue I really would like some answers as to why someone irreligious would be adverse to homosexuality on an emotional or intuitive level.

[pikatore]

Hmm... that is a real pickle. allow me to brainstorm.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Runa216 Frankly, for the life of me, I can't see why this is still a debate. I think it's childish and Narrowminded to not allow those who wish to marry do so. Yes, I am aware that it is a church thing, but the world is changing, it's diverse. Gays marrying should in no way impact on your precious christian beliefs. if you still want to stay hetero and 'traditional' then do so. don't deny others the right to do what they want. we have a freedom of religion, so allow others to practice it.

It's a moral issue. Separating religion and morals is kinda tough to do.

This is one of the most debated topics because there is no bell that goes off on it. It's a confusing issue. It could set the stage for generations.

Everyone as it stands has a right to be with whomever they please to a degree, but there are limits on what we can and can not do to each other. Gays want the same benefits. Our government has worked and established laws based on the one man, one woman unit. A polygamist wouldn't be able to get benefits for all of his wives. There's no company, no government that could afford this. If gays were let into the fold even when legitimate, they would put a huge burden on all systems that give benefits to spouses. Social Security is already screwed up. Gays getting in would make it necessary to evaluate fraud, and you can believe there would be fraud. To me it wouldn't work out for the country financially to change marriage, or civil unions unless all the hand out programs were abolished. More than anything it's a matter of money, but also what is best for all the citizens, not just some. This is the problem. It might hurt more than it would help. I'm not speaking against gays here, just the problems that could arise from them receiving all the same benefits as one man, one woman. The one man, one woman has been a problem benefit-wise, so you know if we start letting other groups in, it will be disastrous.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe The one man, one woman has been a problem benefit-wise, so you know if we start letting other groups in, it will be disastrous.

Sounds like a great reason to get the govt out of the marriage business altogether.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Everyone as it stands has a right to be with whomever they please to a degree, but there are limits on what we can and can not do to each other. Gays want the same benefits. Our government has worked and established laws based on the one man, one woman unit. .... More than anything it's a matter of money, but also what is best for all the citizens, not just some. This is the problem. It might hurt more than it would help. I'm not speaking against gays here, just the problems that could arise from them receiving all the same benefits as one man, one woman. The one man, one woman has been a problem benefit-wise, so you know if we start letting other groups in, it will be disastrous.

Disastrous? Really? Would you care to back up these claims with figures or even a fact or two?

The marriage rate is .. on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, The reality is that the rate of marriage has been declining steadily.

Divorce declining, but so is marriage

Gay folks constitute no more than 5% of the population. Even if the majority of gay folks choose to get married, it will have a marginal impact at best and would still be far smaller than the far larger number of straight couples who are choosing not to marry. Your claims of "disastrous" consequences of gay marriage are imaginary.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp Disastrous? Really? Would you care to back up these claims with figures or even a fact or two? Divorce declining, but so is marriage Gay folks constitute no more than 5% of the population. Even if the majority of gay folks choose to get married, it will have a marginal impact at best and would still be far smaller than the far larger number of straight couples who are choosing not to marry. Your claims of "disastrous" consequences of gay marriage are imaginary.

It's not so much the future, but the past that is disastrous for SS.

I don't have numbers on it, but I did see a lot of numbers about the baby boomers, and how disastrous this is going to be when they all start to retire.

There's already a ton of fraud, so you can only imagine the IRS, and SS will be so swamped they won't be able to handle it if you get another fairly large group in there.

I notice the number of gays seems to fluctuate depending on the argument.

I would guess it will increase significantly when people can get money out of it.

[turningitred]

123

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe It's not so much the future, but the past that is disastrous for SS. I don't have numbers on it, but I did see a lot of numbers about the baby boomers, and how disastrous this is going to be when they all start to retire. There's already a ton of fraud, so you can only imagine the IRS, and SS will be so swamped they won't be able to handle it if you get another fairly large group in there. I notice the number of gays seems to fluctuate depending on the argument. I would guess it will increase significantly when people can get money out of it.

You are still claiming that some percentage of the 5% of the folks who are gay are going to cause a some sort of financial burden, while even greater numbers of straight folks have been passing on marriage entirely? Do the math. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

[Anna]

I will admit that I have not bothered to read all 176 pages of this debate, but I imagine it is running pretty m,uch along the same lines as all other debates around this issue everywhere else.

One statement that did intrigue me above though, by Marilyn Monroe...

It's a moral issue. Separating religion and morals is kinda tough to do.

Hmmm, very curious statement. Methinks that this implies morals and ethyics did not exist prior to the INVENTION of religion. I think it quite easy to have a basis for detirmining right and wrong without the need for opiates of any description. However, I digress....

I simply wish to ask one simple question of all those who oppose homosexual marriages... Who creates all the unwanted children that later suffer through neglect and brutality, or who become tremendous burdens upon the resources of society?

It would appear that homosexual couples certainly play no part in the answer to this question, yet, these are people who are often quite eager to adopt these unwanted products of the heteronormalistic world and inject their own compassion, time, energy, and resources into attempting to stabilise and reverse the damge wrought by the hetero couples that produced the children.

My 2 cents worth. But, quite frankly, the whole issue is rediculous... who should ever have the right to tell me who I can or cannot love?

[Elminister]

Homosexuality,as it is defined,is a consious decision to scoff at the fundamental purpose of life. That purpose is to continue on, a process that has been around for quite some time.

Homosexuality is un-natural and a same sex marriage should not be endorsed by any religious or govrnmental institutions.IMHO Nobody has the right to tell me what I need to accept as "normal/natural" when in fact it is not.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Anna One statement that did intrigue me above though, by Marilyn Monroe... Hmmm, very curious statement. Methinks that this implies morals and ethyics did not exist prior to the INVENTION of religion. I think it quite easy to have a basis for detirmining right and wrong without the need for opiates of any description. However, I digress....

That wasn't what I meant about morals and religion. I never said there were no morals before religion, although possibly if you look at some of the pagan crap it was a pretty barbaric world. All the religions have had some brutality in them either directly, or indirectly, but you can't separate the people from the religion is what I was saying, it becomes a part of you just as everything you come into contact does.

[pikatore]

Quote by: RickSp You are still claiming that some percentage of the 5% of the folks who are gay are going to cause a some sort of financial burden, while even greater numbers of straight folks have been passing on marriage entirely? Do the math. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

even 5% can make a bigger difference than you think

[dilligras]

Quote by: Anna Hmmm, very curious statement. Methinks that this implies morals and ethyics did not exist prior to the INVENTION of religion.

Have 'they' ascertained a general date as to the first occurance of the invention you mention?

I simply wish to ask one simple question of all those who oppose homosexual marriages... Who creates all the unwanted children that later suffer through neglect and brutality, or who become tremendous burdens upon the resources of society?

Errrr........illegal aliens?

It would appear that homosexual couples certainly play no part in the answer to this question, yet, these are people who are often quite eager to adopt these unwanted products of the heteronormalistic world and inject their own compassion, time, energy, and resources into attempting to stabilise and reverse the damge wrought by the hetero couples that produced the children.

Bravo.

You've done it. Was the idea your own, or did you read or hear it somewhere? I ask not in order to accuse the parrot, but rather to give credit "unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's"........so to speak.


I mean, the way you take the very argument of the dread enemy (the one where they say that gays will kill off DNA strains by not joining the gene pool, thereby jeopardizing our culture in the face of overwhelming reproduction by immigrant cultures, both legal and illegal--but mostly illegal? Yeah, THAT argument) and turn it on its ear by characterizing children of the evil heteros as unwanted, and heterosexuality as the obvious cause.


Brilliant!! [/Guiness]

Never mind that one cannot name one culture, including the homosexual one, where one may guarantee the safety of children in a private home.

My 2 cents worth. But, quite frankly, the whole issue is rediculous... who should ever have the right to tell me who I can or cannot love?

And a well stated one it is, too. The logic is a bit off, but that's normal among us "liberals", so what the hey.

For example, when you ask who should "have the right to tell you who you can or cannot love", the question assumes that love = marriage, which is clearly not true.

If someone tells you that you may not marry (none of their business, but hey, folks never mind their own business, no matter their ideology) they are not discussing who you may or may not love, only whether you may marry them, n'est pas?

Go ahead and love their brains out.

Just work on getting legal equity and leave them friggin' church folks alone, a'fore ye get 'em all riled up and they go messin' with my Constitution, dammit.



As you were

[turningitred]

Homosexuality is un-natural and a same sex marriage should not be endorsed by any religious or govrnmental institutions.

And just who are you to say that one thing is natural and another is not? I'm going to assume that you would take this information from the bible.. Well does the bible also not state that no man shall pass judgement? Only God shall do such a thing? And considering that the only people who ever 'conversed' witht he almighty are no longer around, it leads me to say something that may very well upset you.. But I must argue that the bible is fallible.. Consider that the bible was written and translated time and time again by our very own race.. A race of complete imperfection.

But not to stray too far from the topic at hand, I must ask you Elminister, who are you to pass judgement on another human being only for who they love and want to spend the rest of their life with? Just as I don't have the right to say what you should accept, you have no right to tell me that my life is 'un-natural'.

Besides the point that our consititution clearly states that there should be a definate separation of church and state. Granted, this is unfortunately not really the case, but times have changed quite a bit since this country was born, and the country itself needs to change along with it.. Rules and all!

[pikatore]

Man put penis in womans vagina natural. Make babies.

Man put penis in mans bum unnatural. Poo on willy.

It's not a very abstract concept, you know. If it is natural, then everyone would be going same sex, which would defy the point of having two sexes in the first place.

[belverron]

Quote by: pikatore Man put penis in womans vagina natural. Make babies. Man put penis in mans bum unnatural. Poo on willy. It's not a very abstract concept, you know. If it is natural, then everyone would be going same sex, which would defy the point of having two sexes in the first place.

What a simplistic idea.

Kin Selection.

[italiangm]

Quote by: pikatore Man put penis in womans vagina natural. Make babies. Man put penis in mans bum unnatural. Poo on willy. It's not a very abstract concept, you know. If it is natural, then everyone would be going same sex, which would defy the point of having two sexes in the first place.

Is this your best argument?

You've completely glossed over the millions of opposite sex humans that enjoy penile-anal sex. The fact that it feels good to both parties makes it entirely natural.

I would imagine any theory that suggests homosexuality exists as an evolutionary advantage would also be met with your infantile "poo on willy" philosophy of life. Too abstract for you, I suppose.

[pikatore]

Quote by: belverron What a simplistic idea.

Yes. A very simplistic idea indeed. Unreasonable? I don't think so.

Natural things usually arent hard to understand.

Men and women were obviously biologically designed to couple to further the species. HENCE, natural. No natural concept I know of serves to do jack all when it comes to furthering the species.

Quote by: belverron Kin Selection.

Social evolution is a fair enough comeback. But do realise there is a difference between a male dog doing another male dog, and a male dog doing another male dog when there are FEMALES present.

[pikatore]

Quote by: italiangm I would imagine any theory that suggests homosexuality exists as an evolutionary advantage would also be met with your infantile "poo on willy" philosophy of life. Too abstract for you, I suppose.

Yeah, it is a bit too abstract for me. You are going to have to spell it out. You aren't gay yourself, are you?

[italiangm]

Quote by: pikatore Yeah, it is a bit too abstract for me. You are going to have to spell it out. You aren't gay yourself, are you?

Yes, I am gay.

But on to more important issues (your enlightenment):

In the Darwinian view of natural selection, individuals should seek to maximize reproductive success. Humans are a sexually reproducing species, so offspring occur when members of the opposite sex mate. Homosexuality appears to be a biological dead-end.

What if homosexual behavior occurs through individual selection for reciprocal altruism? Same-sex alliances have reproductive advantages, and sexual behavior at times maintains these alliances. Same-sex alliances help individuals survive and subsequently reproduce.

Nonhuman primates use homosexual behavior in same-sex alliances, and such alliances appear to have been key in the expanded distribution of human ancestors during the Pleistocene era. Homosexual emotion and behavior are, in part, emergent qualities of the human propensity for same-sex association.

Hetero behavior serves non-conceptive functions such as the maintenance of long-term bonds. If homosexual behavior also serves non-conceptive functions, such as the maintenance of same-sex alliances (long-term supportive relationships) that aid in resource competition or in cooperative defense, homosexual behavior is considered a positive selection. Homosexual behavior is a survival strategy, not a reproductive strategy.

Homosexuality has persisted for thousands of years because there's a payoff. It is an evolutionary adaptation that has improved species survival. It creates a less aggressive, more compliant, more creative male exhibiting positive female traits without the biological imperative to reproduce, whose genes are coded specifically to aid and support heterosexual reproduction.

Example: We know that the likelihood of producing a male homosexual increases with each male birth to the same mother, regardless of father. Therefore, mom's genetics controls the "switch".

One theory states the increase in homosexual expression occurs because a pre-programmed shift in hormones is triggered by the stress of managing a multiple offspring household. That shift is thought to impart yet undefined female characteristics, that are probably linked to behavior.

If true, it's not surprising homosexual male offspring develop behavior that emphasizes nurturing and frequently assists in supporting a multiple offspring household and continues in support roles as an adult.