Homosexual Marriage

[Jaaaman]

Quote by: Matt W marriage between one man and one woman is not exactly....the definitive version, is it?

Actually, it is the definitive version. Men and women were created to procreate and marry (become one flesh) Other marriage arrangments are absurb and are not part of the natural order of things.

[Jack]

Men and women were created...

Theistic, I disagree. Men and women evolved due to sex. Marriage is a man-made institution subject to the whims and attitudes of the society in which it's practiced. Marriage and sex are not necessarily intertwined.

become one flesh

If you take that literally, I don't know what to say. If you interpret that figuratively, there's no reason it can't happen between two people of any sexual orientation.

Other marriage arrangments are absurb and are not part of the natural order of things.

Absurd is in the eye of the beholder. I consider your point of view absurd. Does that mean it shouldn't be allowed to be expressed?
First you argue from a theistic POV and now you talk about the "natural order". Well, nature includes homosexuality. Nature makes no moral judgments about natural processes. Marriage itself is not natural. How many other animals practice marriage the way we do?

[Osborn F Enready]

Using the law to define marriage is a mis-use of law, in my opinion.

Remove the financial gains for marriage, or give all people who wish to get married the same gains.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Jaaaman Actually, it is the definitive version. Men and women were created to procreate and marry (become one flesh) Other marriage arrangments are absurb and are not part of the natural order of things.

Would you require procreation among married heterosexual couples?

[belverron]

If two men live together and love one another, and perhaps raise a child together, I don't see how that's different from the heterosexual version. What is the difference, and why is it important?

[RickSp]

Quote by: belverron If two men live together and love one another, and perhaps raise a child together, I don't see how that's different from the heterosexual version. What is the difference, and why is it important?

Up until a relatively few years ago the bigots claimed that white and black folks shouldn't get married. After all nothing was worse than race-mixing!

Now the bigots makes silly claims about how being raised in a loving family will be ruinous to chldren if the parents are the same sex. Equally ridicuous.

Of course they also claim that gay marriage will ruin marriage for straight people which, as a happily married father of two, I find frankly bizarre. It makes as much sense as the claim also made by anti-gay marriage types that if gay folks are allowed to marry that we will all be having sex with our pets.

I am just glad that bigotry is not one of my family's values.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp Up until a relatively few years ago the bigots claimed that white and black folks shouldn't get married. After all nothing was worse than race-mixing! Now the bigots makes silly claims about how being raised in a loving family will be ruinous to chldren if the parents are the same sex. Equally ridicuous. Of course they also claim that gay marriage will ruin marriage for straight people which, as a happily married father of two, I find frankly bizarre. It makes as much sense as the claim also made by anti-gay marriage types that if gay folks are allowed to marry that we will all be having sex with our pets. I am just glad that bigotry is not one of my family's values.

I think you have to look at the stats from countries that have gone to civil unions, and see what has happened to marriage and family structure.

You can say all day long how it is bigotted, but is it bigotry or common sense?

I think bigotry comes more from your peers than from your family. Life is all about acceptance and having friends, and friends teach you many bad things. This is the reality of life.

From what I've read on the stats many gays don't choose to marry, and now heterosexuals don't either. Many more women are having children out of wedlock.

Life with one parent and the other sometimes, isn't really good for kids. This is what is happening to marriage. It's going to become obsolete.

[RickSp]

Marilyn, heterosexual marriage rates in the US have been dropping for decades. Since 1970 the heterosexual marriage rate has dropped by 50%. To suggest that this has anything whatsoever to do with gay marriage is simply uniformed.

And no, I do not mistake bigotry for common sense. Bigotry is far too common, but it makes no sense.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp Marilyn, heterosexual marriage rates in the US have been dropping for decades. Since 1970 the heterosexual marriage rate has dropped by 50%. To suggest that this has anything whatsoever to do with gay marriage is simply uniformed. And no, I do not mistake bigotry for common sense. Bigotry is far too common, but it makes no sense.

What is bigotry to you?

[shawmutt]

I think gays should be allowed to marry, but didn't completely agree with the poll choices, so I picked other.

[Elminister]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Well, it’s actually not, since you haven’t proved that it doesn’t happen. Anyway, that’s not the issue; the issue was whether or not the concept exists. A search in; Google,Wikipedia,Dictionary dot com, reference dot com, Ask dot com for "voyeurism shown by animals" and "exhibitionism in animals" yields nothing. Nothing relating to our discussion,as it is, here. There was something stating that Elephants "watch" but we know that Elephants, as a group, are matriarchal and being such actions partaken by any female in the group is keystone to their social structure......"all hail the Queen" The article im talking about was wrought in of a Valentines Day outing partaken by two radio talk show hosts who went to a zoo with a group of other people to watch animals fornicate. In their wisdom these talkshow hosts dubbed this situation as being, Elephants watching driven by a notion of voyeurism. A proclamation lacking understanding, a common thing. Social dynamics may not allow it. This is a category, be more specific please. You can’t prove that they didn’t learn. The may have learned the concept through Pavlovian conditioning, as you claim animals do, I said it was a way to breach a communication barrier and/or to train an animal. Your Pandas did not learn,they reacted. Actually, the humans were the ones that better benefited from your example; no Pandas equals no Panda display at the Zoo. This is an example of human control over animals. Quote by: Wikipedia An unconditioned response is an automatic response brought forth by an unconditioned stimulus. These responses are automatic and require no learning and are usually apparent in all species. The relationship between the unconditioned stimulus and unconditioned response is known as the unconditioned reflex. The conditioned stimulus, is an initially neutral stimulus that elicits no response. However, when a neutral stimulus is paired with an unconditioned stimulus, learning occurs. The neutral stimulus, now known as the conditioned stimulus, brings forth the same unconditioned response, now known as the conditioned response, without being paired with the unconditioned stimulus. Conditioned stimuli are associated psychologically with conditions such as anticipation, satisfaction (both immediate and prolonged), and fear. Classical conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Exactly, which is why your 100% positive claim that homosexual behaviour between canines is about dominance was foolish. ...and I retracted. The fact that female dogs do it for dominance says nothing of why male dogs do it. Sure it does, it's the same form of contact. She goes thru the same exact motions. Mounting, for a male dog, is sexually pleasurable, so the issue of female mounting is not comparable. The reward,or pleasure, for the female is dominance.The pleasure is psychological. She has postured for rank and this rank gives her a higher social standing. It is comparable and even more lasting than just physical pleasure. Supreme law that cannot be repealed? Ah yes, Prohibition. A movement spearheaded by a minority to bring about a scenario that suits their moral "feel good". It was then repealed because of the negative financial impact on the majority it had. I stand corrected but I also stand with an example of case precedence. Homosexual Marriage Post number 3588, Item number 3. The only thing that could trump the Fifteenth Amendment would be another amendment. Would you like to talk about how that won't happen? Or how opposing the Fifteenth would be pointless? Your rationale for opposing this motion ...... You using the word "would" and myself using the word "would" falls into an entirely different perspective. I'm talking about probability and,by what you're saying, so are you. However, your probability in as you state it is already irreversable fact and therefore is not probability. It's like trying to paddle UP a waterfall LMAO. By the way, why do you assume I should oppose something I agree with? Yes, which is why you shouldn’t have made the positive assertion which you are unable to prove. Show me this one-hundred percent positive assertion, please. I’m not disallowing probability; I’m asking you to prove that this probability exists. United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Date: Feb 7 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Date: Oct 16 1962 If you cannot make the connection involving what I'm saying I will explain it to you. Quote by: Wikipedia Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel were American nuns, and Jean Donovan was a young laywoman doing a Catholic relief mission to provide food, shelter, transportation, medical care and burial to the poor. As such, like Archbishop Romero eight months earlier, they were targeted for assassination. El Salvador Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you cannot make the connection of this to what I'm saying, I will explain it to you. Quote by: CNN U.S. officials said the civilians were killed in a grenade attack by suspected insurgents. Afterward, residents cheered and pulled charred bodies from burning vehicles and hung them from a Euphrates River bridge. CNN.com - U.S. expects more attacks in Iraq - Mar 31, 2004 If you cannot make the connection I will explain it to you. Quote by: CBS News Holland was one of three civilians killed Tuesday after several gunmen posing as Iraqi police officers stopped her vehicle at a makeshift checkpoint near the town of Hillah, about 35 miles south of Baghdad. Slain Civilian Fought For Women, U.S. Lawyer Helped Write Women's Rights Section Of Iraq Constitution - CBS News Another reaction to US policy........September 11, 2001 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Some things are worth fighting for. Why should I join the fight for the will of the gay community? They can pay for it themselves; On what basis do you say this? No, but marriage to this woman is a choice. If you base allowance of marriage on whether or not it is natural (by your definition), you should not allow an infertile woman to marry. My basis is on the grievous stance held by these couples in question. The grievous stance does not exist in one of these cases......Nice try. Negative legislation already exists in this instance Example,please. Yet again you avoid the issue of equality. Yes, lets take a few steps back and look at the inequality...........................what am I supposed to be looking for again? We are talking about the allotment of a privilege, right? or a Right....wrong? I’m working from the dictionary definition of homosexuality as “Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.” That definition is independent of action. The definition has not come to be without action. Also, I’m not gay. Didn’t you get all pissy when someone assumed you were a Christian? Tell me,honestly..... Quote by: Elminister What does my stance herein deprive you of? Your direct reply Quote by: The Bacon Guy Equality. ......was I to assume differently?

....

[Elminister]

Quote by: Isherwood Sexual orientation relates to the natural preference for a partner. A homosexual has a natural attraction to others of their same sex, where heterosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite sex. This preference may never be acted upon. Many gay men marry women and lead lives that appear to be heterosexual from the outside. Some gay people never have gay relationships. Your fantasies and what arouses you indicate your orientation. That orientation does not require you to act upon it.

Natural preference as in the thoughts that dwell within ones own mind,sure, I agree. I also agree that this preference may not be acted apon however if it is not then you,me, society in general would have no indicator as to it acually existing. Mere thoughts alone have absoulutely no value at all unless they are manifest. In your case of a gay man who marries a woman and raises a family ect. is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If he spends his life in mental/moral agony because of his choice then it is my opinion that he has chosen poorly but ultimately it was his choice.

Quote by: jamesbdunn Many of the people I know, including myself, have gone through introspective periods in our lives where we are confused about our sexual orientation. We wonder, what if later in life I found men attractive sexually, does that make me gay now? I'm comfortable enough with my own sexuality to say that yes, I can identify another man as being attractive. For me however it would be a gauging of an appeal that would,as I project it, would relate to how a woman would desire him, say over myself. Being forced to have sex in prison and eventually having some joy in it because of a well-meaning protector provides you with some sort of emotional security, does that make you gay? Being forced to do something adds a whole new perspective to this scenario. If a man is raped by another man is he gay? I don't think so. If said man comes to be fond of it or justifies it,in his own mind, then yes, he is gay. A medical doctor at your birth discovers that you are hemaphrodite, and chooses for you to be a woman. You grow up and you genuinely love other women, does that make you lesbian? In hemaprodites there is alwas physiological traits of one sex that outweighs the other. "Nature" has already made "its" choice. Genetically within our brains there is only a small difference in what makes us a man or a woman, we don't understand it, but politicians will certainly legislate it to gain power. ...And as Wikipedia points out there is no physiological difference between heterosexual and homosexual females but there is a difference between the men of the same study. Perhaps it has something to do with the adrenal gland. I'm not sure I haven't scoped this prospect yet. Who is to say that ALL gay men are not women trapped in mens bodies, and all lesbians are not men trapped in womens bodies? Would that make same sex marriage more comfortable for the populace? A strictly psychological approach? Could pose problems. I think it is all absurd. If you have a loving relationship with another person you should be afforded the same rights as any other person, hetero, homo, or otherwise. What about hemaphrodites, are they allowed to marry?

Everybody is allowed to "marry"

[Dirty Name]

Remove the financial gains for marriage, or give all people who wish to get married the same gains.

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

You are actually advocating for the abolition of marriage. This is the logical conclusion of your statement. Keep in mind we are talking about the LEGAL institution of marriage, not the mindset of two people who want to spend their lives together. Thus, if you remove the financial advantages of marriage, or make marriage freely available to anyone, regardless of circumstances, you effectively destroy the inherent advantage and it becomes pointless.

Of course, we've been through all of this before. I note in my absence you just revert back to your old, flawed thinking.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Elminister A search in; Google,Wikipedia,Dictionary dot com, reference dot com, Ask dot com for "voyeurism shown by animals" and "exhibitionism in animals" yields nothing. Nothing relating to our discussion,as it is, here.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You claimed to have absolute proof that voyeurism doesn’t happen in non-human animals. You do not.

Quote by: Elminister This is a category, be more specific please.

I have no need to do so. You claimed that animals do not possess the concept of erotica. There could be a social reason that they don’t act upon this concept; similar to why humans don’t generally practice voyeurism. Do you honestly know enough about the social dynamics of pandas to say categorically that this is not the case?

Quote by: Elminister I said it was a way to breach a communication barrier and/or to train an animal. Your Pandas did not learn,they reacted. Actually, the humans were the ones that better benefited from your example; no Pandas equals no Panda display at the Zoo. This is an example of human control over animals.

I’m aware of how classical conditioning works, thank you. In this case, the unconditioned stimulus would be the sexual arousal, and the unconditioned response would be the sexual pleasure upon relief of the arousal. The neutral stimulus, soon to become the conditioned stimulus, would be the “panda porn”.

Quote by: Elminister ...and I retracted.

I must have missed that.

Quote by: Elminister Sure it does, it's the same form of contact. She goes thru the same exact motions.

It’s the same form of contact, but with different anatomies involved. You can’t infer something about one form of mounting from the other.

Quote by: Elminister The reward,or pleasure, for the female is dominance.The pleasure is psychological. She has postured for rank and this rank gives her a higher social standing. It is comparable and even more lasting than just physical pleasure.

Right, so the pleasure for females is psychological, whereas for males it is physical. This is why they are incomparable.

Quote by: Elminister The only thing that could trump the Fifteenth Amendment would be another amendment. Would you like to talk about how that won't happen? Or how opposing the Fifteenth would be pointless?

This isn’t about whether it will or won’t happen; it’s about whether you would support it if it was to happen. To simplify matters, so we aren’t distracted by constitutionality, I’ll change my question. Do you support blacks’ right to marry, knowing (or assuming) that the probability of your being caught up in a white supremacist attack will be increased in doing so?

Quote by: Elminister You using the word "would" and myself using the word "would" falls into an entirely different perspective. I'm talking about probability and,by what you're saying, so are you. However, your probability in as you state it is already irreversable fact and therefore is not probability. It's like trying to paddle UP a waterfall LMAO.

Probability can easily be proved, provided you know the factors involved. You don’t in this case and therefore can’t claim the the probability in question to exist.

Quote by: Elminister By the way, why do you assume I should oppose something I agree with?

You mean equal rights for blacks? You would oppose it because it supposedly puts you in danger; something which you are willing to deny equality on the grounds of.

Quote by: Elminister Show me this one-hundred percent positive assertion, please.

That the probability of being attacked is increased by legalisation of gay marriage.

Quote by: Elminister United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Date: Feb 7 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Date: Oct 16 1962 If you cannot make the connection involving what I'm saying I will explain it to you. El Salvador Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you cannot make the connection of this to what I'm saying, I will explain it to you. CNN.com - U.S. expects more attacks in Iraq - Mar 31, 2004 If you cannot make the connection I will explain it to you. Slain Civilian Fought For Women, U.S. Lawyer Helped Write Women's Rights Section Of Iraq Constitution - CBS News Another reaction to US policy........September 11, 2001 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of these relate to homosexual marriage.

Quote by: Elminister Some things are worth fighting for. Why should I join the fight for the will of the gay community?

The same reason you would, I assume, do so for the black community.

Quote by: Elminister On what basis do you say this?

The basis that one can get a job, earn money and pay for health insurance.

Quote by: Elminister My basis is on the grievous stance held by these couples in question. The grievous stance does not exist in one of these cases

What exactly do you mean by grievous stance?

Quote by: Elminister Example,please.

Allowing non-procreating and infertile couples to receive the marriage benefits which you claim are intended for use in raising a family.

Quote by: Elminister Yes, lets take a few steps back and look at the inequality...........................what am I supposed to be looking for again? We are talking about the allotment of a privilege, right? or a Right....wrong?

The allotment of privilege is granted to some couples but not to others, with no good reason. Therein lies the inequality.

Quote by: Elminister The definition has not come to be without action.

What’s your point? I’m not claiming that homos don’t act on their desires; I am simply saying that to disadvantage them simply for being born or conditioned with homosexual desires is unjust; every bit as unjust as disadvantaging someone born infertile.

Quote by: Elminister ......was I to assume differently?

It would have been better not to assume at all. There are orientations other than gay and straight.

[Dirty Name]

Allowing non-procreating and infertile couples to receive the marriage benefits which you claim are intended for use in raising a family.

Generally speaking, it is impossible to determine non-procreative and infertile couples without an invasion of privacy. The same cannot be said of same-sex couples.

Further, the status of either non-procreative and allegedly infertile couples may change without notice at some point in the future. Once again, the same cannot be said of same-sex couples.

Either we are to draw a line somewhere and discriminate against some couples for some reason, or we are to abolish the legal recognition of marriage altogether. It is pointless to make benefits available to anyone who wishes to raise their hands and say, "Yes, give me some free money." At least with heterosexual couples, the possibility of pregnancy and childbirth exists, putting the female at risk financially and medically.

Put me in the camp that believes legal recognition of heterosexual couples serves a legitimate state interest, where there is a significantly reduced interest in the encouragement of same-sex relationships.

[Jack]

Put me in the camp that believes legal recognition of heterosexual couples serves a legitimate state interest,

Actually, they present more of a liability in their tax breaks and reduced burden. Prove that inequality isn't the core issue here and support removing all financial incentives to marriage for anyone. Level the playing field by denying everyone the same rights. A couple gets treated like two people. Simplifies the tax situation as well. So I'd almost agree with you when you say,

Either we are to draw a line somewhere and discriminate against some couples for some reason, or we are to abolish the legal recognition of marriage altogether.

Except we could care less about legal recognition. It's a benefits issue. Remove all the benefits and no one can claim favoritism. It would benefit the separation of church and state, as well.