Gay Marriage

[Seagoon]

Hi Thrila,

I hope you don't mind if I address your points to Gunslingr as well. I apologize for butting in...

Originally posted by thrila
Gunslinger, I disagree that it is against nature.  Homosexuality exists amongst animals,

"Nature is", as the saying goes, "red in tooth and claw." While homosexual behaviors amongst animals are far less common than you seem to be implying, that animals do it is no argument for the acceptability of any behavior amongst humans.

Animals also routinely practice or engage in acts of cannibalism, incest, infanticide, have sex in public, urinate or defecate to mark their territory, and routinely eat one another alive. I don't believe that the fact that they do these things "in nature" is a good argument for judging them to be good and acceptable behaviors for humans and legislating accordingly. People, by the grace of God, are different from the animals and we have historically striven not to take our legal standards from them.

Seagoon i don't see the devauluation of marriage exclusive to homosexuals.  The divorce statistics of hetero couples is no doubt appalling too.  It probably doesn't help that all the hollywood role models have many, short term marriages.

I'll agree with you there, marriage has suffered across the board, but I would strongly argue that this has happened as a direct consequence of our abandonment of our former standards regarding marriage. This is actually a much better argument for strengthening our current philosophy regarding marriage not further weakening it. Since marriage is the primary building block for society, the collapse of marriage is something that will inevitably affect us all.

I agree the real argument is with the use of the word marriage.  The meanings of words is dependant on the agreement of their use between people.  The problem is that there currently is no agreement.

Only to a degree, you and I can argue about the meaning of a word, and we can both be wrong, but we can't both be right. Additionally, we need to discern that marriage is not just a word, it is an institution. I am obviously arguing that this institution had a divine author and that he fixed the defintion for that institution simply but exactly: One woman and one man for life. Attempts are currently being made to massively redefine the parameters of that institution, but if there is a fixed standard, then the more we redefine the less we have a "marriage" and the more we have something else entirely. {please note that "love" is not actually part of the definition of marriage, it should be a component to a healthy marriage, but it is not part of the definition}

I would argue that 2 men temporarily in a non-exclusive sexual relationship for a period of time meets none of the criteria for marriage and that to call it such is to negate the original meaning of marriage and come up with an entirely novel term. It would be like my saying, "I don't like the exclusivity of the definition of "charity"" - I want it to mean my having good intentions towards the poor. There, now I can be charitable while simultaneously doing and sacrificing nothing.

- SEAGOON

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Nash
Again, you say you don't want "special rights" granted to them, but are all for the granting of "special rights" as long as they are called something different.

It's a name thing with you.

Because those rights would be the same. The only difference is the name. What is it about the name?

Again,

There are no "special rights" being created in my ideas about civil unions.  ANYONE could get a civil union, gay strait lesbian transgender it wouldnt matter who you were everyone would be created equally, nothing is redefined, everyone should be happy but everyone knows the gays wouldn't like it.

(i'm just ranting now this has nothing to do with the point I just made) They are a minority group and like most minority groups they crave special rights and special attention.  If gays were treated just like everyone else they'd scream they were being "normalized" or something and cry foul just to cry.  A famous black woman can't even speak at an Ivy league school about her life experiences with out the local gay group making up a stupid word like "gnedernormative discrimination" and complaining about it.  I don't condone gay bashing or hate crimes, I wish everyone was treated as equally worthless as they actually are in real life.(/rant)

[Nash]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Again,

There are no "special rights" being created in my ideas about civil unions.  ANYONE could get a civil union, gay strait lesbian transgender it wouldnt matter who you were everyone would be created equally, nothing is redefined, everyone should be happy but everyone knows the gays wouldn't like it.

Do these civil unions repleat with all these new rights between gays currently exist? No?

Then it's new. It'd have to be created.

The only difference it seems is that these exact same sets of rights be called a different name. It's the only difference I see here, Gunslinger.

A name thing with you.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Nash
Do these civil unions repleat with all these new rights between gays currently exists? No?

Then it's new. It'd have to be created.

The only difference it seems is that these exact same sets of rights be called a different name. It's the only difference I see here, Gunslinger.

A name thing with you.

no I'm not dispermitting a strait couple from having a civil union either.  What I like about my idea is that it creats something for EVERYONE instead of redfine marriage for a few people who don't fit the mold for it.  

again no "special rights"  <--when I say this I mean that we arent legislating for the sake of ONE group.

[Nash]

If you make your "civil unions" a law encompassing gays, then you are indeed talking about the creation of new legislation based on the wishes of that minority.

No way around that.

And you have trouble with doing this as it relates to the word "marriage," but are comfortable doing it (and exactly the same thing), if it were named "civil unions."

It's a name thing.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Nash
Seagoon, it would seem that your entire argument relies upon your belief that the Government was founded upon and serves to protect theocratic doctrine.

Because if you take that idea way, what's left of your words?

And where does that leave your argument?

We must assume that foundation to be true, but I do not. Quite the contrary, in fact. Therefore, what results doesn't amount to much I'm afraid.

Hi Nash,

This will probably be my last post on this subject for tonight. I have to get ready for tomorrow, so apologies if I don't reply for a while.

Actually Nash, even as a non-theist, your life and liberty are best protected in a society that adheres to the principle that there are inalienable rights and laws that devolve from a benign creator, a society that believes that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

This means, for instance, that even if I disagree with your beliefs, your right to life and the law "you shall not murder" means I cannot, indeed MUST NOT, kill you for them. You will not get the same assurances in atheistic societies founded on Marxist or Nietzschian principles.

- SEAGOON

[Manedew]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
You're the one telling me I ignore love then say love isn't quite applicable in your example....

I'm no zoologist but one could probably surmise that the monkeys elnarged testicals came are the cause of their bi-sexuality and not a product of.  IE: the bigger testies make them  produce more testosterone hence the increased sexual activity or need for there of.

I'm sorry but I really don't see how gender on gender procreation is helpfull to a species as a whole.  Your analogy of the huged testied monkey fails to bring up or show applicablity/example of lesbian monkeys as well.

You try to point out that homosexuilty doesn't ouccur in nature ... I happen to agree with that in some respects  ..... rarely do you find an animal that's ONLY homosexal ... what you will find pleanty of is Bi-sexual behavior like with these monkies......

Human's are much more complex and have emotions like love.

You used the arguement that it's aginst nature .... I feel that it doesn't hold water ....   Love is just another reason why...

apples and oranges...  with human's and animals .... but pleanty of diversity, bi-sexuality and asexuality in nature .... so ethier way I see it as a moot point.

However we have love, and with it comes marriage..... most animals don't have monogomus relationsships, but they do exsist......

You can define to me the average human 'male'... as a statistic..... we are too diverse to say anything otherwise.....

So does you definition of marriage only include the average 'male' and average 'female'?  Or do you make room for diversity?

lets be clear here.

what if a 'woman' clearly looks female, can reproduce, but has a bit of a Y chromsome with her two XX's?  Is she allowed to marry a 'man'?  or does that Y make her a 'Man' who can only marry a 'Woman'?

Do you just want to call tho's people freaks and move on?  Sorry but they are as Natural as YOU.  I've spelled the reasons for it quite well I think.  And if you define them ... where does it start and stop?  

_____________________________ ______

I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself, did 'God' tell you?  The only reason I see from most people who fight this is some religous beliefs.  All the other points I've seen are false and moot, just as religion is moot.... or do you want to move back to a society where you have to be a certain religion?  ... noone expects the Spanish Inqustion.

I don't think we live in a black and white, discrete world.  Would be kind of boreing if we did IMHO.

[Nash]

Hey Seagoon.

Well, I too believe in inalienable rights. That have existed, forever.

But just because a belief about those rights rose up, does not mean that this belief and its believers can now presume to call them their own. And then to talk to me about how, if I don't particularly care for those beliefs, that I must not care about those inalienable rights.

Nobody owns them. That includes the church.

That's what makes them inalienable.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Manedew
So does you definition of marriage only include the average 'male' and average 'female'?  Or do you make room for diversity?

Sure.  Marriage also includes not so average as well.  In the "pioneer" days woman married at 14 or 15.  Now a days that's not so acceptable.

lets be clear here.

I never said homosexuality does not occure in nature I was arguing against your post that made it sound as if it was the cornerstone of nature.  I don't think animals are homos I think they have same gender sex because it's instict to stick their u-know-what's somwhere and they can't control themselves.

what if a 'woman' clearly looks female, can reproduce, but has a bit of a Y chromsome with her two XX's?  Is she allowed to marry a 'man'?  or does that Y make her a 'Man' who can only marry a 'Woman'?

Do you just want to call tho's people freaks and move on?  Sorry but they are as Natural as YOU.  I've spelled the reasons for it quite well I think.  And if you define them ... where does it start and stop?  

look I'm not trying to be rude but we could play "what ifs"  what if she had man boobs 1 testicle, 1 ovary an inverted noodle and a uteris all at once.

well what is she?  I don't know in some cases of mutation (wich isn't too harsh, these people arent exactly NORMAL but I wouldnt be so rude as to call them freaks and brush them off) there has to be some scientific method to define gender.  If they feel a certain way and their birth certificate says they are a certian way and they are attracted to the opposite of what they think they are I guess we could call it all good.  If not who knows.

yes were does it start.  don't discount animal marriage or even multiple wifes and incest.  If these people "feel" the way they do, by "gay marriage" attitude we have to apease them or we are violating their civil rights.

I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself, did 'God' tell you?  The only reason I see from most people who fight this is some religous beliefs.  All the other points I've seen are false and moot, just as religion is moot.... or do you want to move back to a society where you have to be a certain religion?  ... noone expects the Spanish Inqustion.

I don't think we live in a black and white, discrete world.  Would be kind of boreing if we did IMHO.

my faith is none of your business!  I didn't bring up God or the fact that homos are an abomination before him.

You still havn't even tried to counter any of my points.  They do not defy logic and are really simple.

  Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate.  It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity.  Thus I think it is UNATURAL to be gay.

[Manedew]

Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate. It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity. Thus I think it is UNATURAL to be gay.

I just think your liveing in a defined world, when things are much more complex.

there has to be some scientific method to define gender.

I guess you agree then there is not a tried and true way to define gender?

What does gay even mean if you can't define the sexes?

Mutations are a part of evolution.  Maybe one day we'll evolve like the seahorse and the 'Male' will get pregnant.

it's not so simple to me ..... but that's my POV

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Manedew
I just think your liveing in a defined world, when things are much more complex.



I guess you agree then there is not a tried and true way to define gender?

What does gay even mean if you can't define the sexes?

Mutations are a part of evolution.  Maybe one day we'll evolve like the seahorse and the 'Male' will get pregnant.

it's not so simple to me ..... but that's my POV

I don't disagree with you about the species evolving but I do not beleive being a homo is some sort of "evolved" man while the rest of us chasing the girls are just dragging our knuckles.  

but you are getting ahead of yourself.  The sexes are clearly defined.  Those that dont fit either of them are anomolies or defined differently.  How they equate to partnership and marriage I DONT KNOW that's a whole nother topic that i wont even get into.  

I disagree with you synopsis that there's male and female and many levels of variations there of inbetween.

[Manedew]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't disagree with you about the species evolving but I do not beleive being a homo is some sort of "evolved" man while the rest of us chasing the girls are just dragging our knuckles.  
 

I never said that...

Evolution is about what works best.... mutations allow for the options.  Some are bad options.... others work and become the norm, because they survive, and reproduce better.

I really don't think you understand me, or evolution ... you countuinely repeat yourself IMHO and defeat your own reasoning in the end

point and case

The sexes are clearly defined. Those that dont fit either of them are anomolies or defined differently. How they equate to partnership and marriage I DONT KNOW that's a whole nother topic that i wont even get into.

I honestly don't beleive people that are gay can help it and they very well may be born that way.

So what exactly do you think a gay person is?

You say you don't want to get into the topic ... this is the topic if you want to get scientific about it.

it doesn't count because it's 'just in your head'?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nature has it in the cards for us humans to reproduce sexually.  To me when a couple wants to conceive a child any other way it is "un-natural"  (not to say that's a bad thing cause it's not) but it doesnt go along with the natural order of things.

I'm sure nature would evolve and survive if every man on earth turned into elton John but compared to humans of today it would be unatural.

What if homosexuality was a way to increase the chances of a family group procreating successfully?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Manedew



So what exactly do you think a gay person is?

You say you don't want to get into the topic ... this is the topic if you want to get scientific about it.

it doesn't count because it's 'just in your head'?

Now you are reaching here.  You want to go into what exactly is a gender and some thing about not having ANY genders?

Male and Female are clearly defined in human biology.

anyone who doesnt fit male or female gender by birth defect is a seperate topic all together.

A gay person, to my knowledge goes for the same sex.

I am failing to see your point in any of this.  I have made my case for my opinions and all you want to do is bring up what ifs and extremly grey generalizations.  I still have the same contention from when I started:

You still havn't even tried to counter any of my points. They do not defy logic and are really simple.

Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate. It seems that only when a species is thriving can it afford such vanity. Thus I think it is UNATURAL to be gay.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Homosexuality has no place in a species trying to survive or propigate.

What if homosexuality was a way to increase the chances of a family group procreating successfully?