# About married couple between the same sex...



## weird

Hello, everybody!

What do you say about the marriage between people the same sex?

Spanish Government is about to allow it. 

Is it possible in your countries?

I'd thank you very much your opion.

Bye!

(I try to write in English. Please, correct me!!)   (to me???)


----------



## Artrella

weird said:
			
		

> Hello, everybody!
> 
> What do you say about the marriage between people the same sex?
> 
> Spanish Government is about to allow it.
> 
> Is it possible in your countries?
> 
> I'd thank you very much your opinion.
> 
> Bye!
> 
> (I try to write in English. Please, correct me!!)   (to me???)





Hi Weird!  
Wow, what a subject!  Here in Argentina it is only allowed in Capital Federal.
My best male friend is gay and he has been married for 5 years now.   I am happy he is happy now that he has found what he needs. I like them to be married, however I always think, what about children?  What if they want to have kids, (of course we are talking about adopting)?
I always have discussions about this with hubby, I tell him... there are so many kids alone in the world, without a house or food or love...  But then when I think it twice... not that I prefer kids to be in the streets dying of cold and hunger... but would a homosexual couple be good for them?  Would they be a nice example to them? Could it be "contagious"?  I want to clarify something: I'm not against homosexuals, I don't like nor dislike them more than any other person, but I have doubts because I'm ignorant as regards this subject, that's why I keep wondering ....
I don't like people being alone... and if they find a partner who fills their life with happiness, well that is what is important... after all... we all will end the same way...


----------



## Outsider

The Wikipedia has an explanation of what kinds of same sex unions are allowed, and where.


----------



## weird

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi Weird!
> Wow, what a subject!  Here in Argentina it is only allowed in Capital Federal.
> My best male friend is gay and he has been married for 5 years now.   I am happy he is happy now that he has found what he needs. I like them to be married, however I always think, what about children?  What if they want to have kids, (of course we are talking about adopting)?
> I always have discussions about this with hubby, I tell him... there are so many kids alone in the world, without a house or food or love...  But then when I think it twice... not that I prefer kids to be in the streets dying of cold and hunger... but would a homosexual couple be good for them?  Would they be a nice example to them? Could it be "contagious"?  I want to clarify something: I'm not against homosexuals, I don't like nor dislike them more than any other person, but I have doubts because I'm ignorant as regards this subject, that's why I keep wondering ....
> I don't like people being alone... and if they find a partner who fills their life with happiness, well that is what is important... after all... we all will end the same way...



Hi, Art!!

My husband works as psychologist. 

He says that is well-known (for them, of course!), that there isn’t any problem with this issue.

Government studies very hard to the couples. If they are suitable to adopt there isn’t any problem. The most important is to be able to take care of the children.

Nowadays there are different family ways.  A mother that has got children and she is alone. Children that have got news relatives from the couple of their parents, etc…

I have read in the newspaper that children from a homosexual couple (they belong to one of the couple), don’t have any problem about the sex, for instance.

Although, I think the same as you.  It is a delicate matter.

Cheers!!

(¡¡Excuse me, I try to write in English but it is very difficult for me!!)


----------



## weird

Outsider said:
			
		

> The Wikipedia has an explanation of what kinds of same sex unions are allowed, and where.



It is fantastic!!, thanks a lot


----------



## cuchuflete

This is a major political issue for some people in the U.S.  They claim that same sex legal unions will "undermine marriage".   I think that such statements are absurd.

I never ask my neighbors about the legal status of their relationships.  For all I know,
the man and woman who live in the house next to mine may be any of ....
1. legally married
2. living together as a committed couple, without being married
3. living together as friends or housemates
4. Each married to another person  etc.

It doesn't matter to me, and unless they choose to tell me, it's none of my business.

Let's assume that they are legally married.  Their marriage may be one of...
1. Happy and enduring
2. "on the rocks" or in danger of ending
3. a union that has good years and bad years, or good days and bad ones.
4. One that exists *only in a legal sense*; they have long ceased to care for one another, and remain together "for the children" or out of habit, or for some other reason.

What difference might it make to these people if two men marry or if two women marry?    I fail to understand how another couple's marital or legal status can possibly have any effect whatsoever on what goes on under my own roof, or that of my neighbor!

With happy indifference,
Cuchu


----------



## weird

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> What difference might it make to these people if two men marry or if two women marry?    I fail to understand how another couple's marital or legal status can possibly have any effect whatsoever on what goes on under my own roof, or that of my neighbor!
> 
> With happy indifference,
> Cuchu



Hello, 

If they live like a couple and one of them pass away. 

What about their legal rights? For instance, inheritance or allowance.

If they don't get married, they haven't got any right, have they?

Cheers!!

(Excuse me. My written English is very bad!!!)


----------



## Benjy

mmm for mee this question only really has much sense in a religious context.. the reason being that if you take away the idea of some supreme lawgiver or arbiter of juctice then really the only logical thing to say is that people should do whatever they feel makes them happy as long as it doent encroach upon other peoples freemdoms.

throw the idea of God into the question and it becomes just as simple... in every religion that i have ever studied some revelation is in place dictating the rights and wrongs and basis of our relationships with others.


----------



## Becky85

weird said:
			
		

> Hello, everybody!
> What do you say about the marriage between people *of* the same sex?
> 
> *The* Spanish Government is about to allow it.
> 
> Is it possible in your countries?
> 
> I'd thank you very much *for* your opi*n*ion. _or '*What are your thoughts on this issue?*' or '*I'm curious as to what other people's opinions are about this issue*' or something like that!_
> 
> Bye!
> 
> (I *have* tr*ied* to write in English. Please, correct me!!)     (to me???)






			
				weird said:
			
		

> Hi, Art!!
> 
> My husband works as *a* psychologist.
> 
> He says that is well-known (for them, of course!), that there isn’t *a* problem with this issue.
> 
> *The* Government studies *the couples* very hard _(changed the sentence round a bit, and you didn't need to write *to* the couples!)_ If they are suitable to adopt there isn’t *a* problem. The most important *thing* is *that they are able to take care of the children* (again, changed the sentence round a bit!).
> 
> Nowadays there are different family ways.  A mother that has got children and she is alone (*single mothers*). Children that have got news relatives from the couple of their parents (*half-brothers/sisters?*), etc…
> 
> I have read in the newspaper that children from a homosexual couple (they belong to one of the couple), don’t have any problem about the sex, for instance. _*- (not quite sure what you mean here?)*_
> 
> Although, I think the same as you.  It is a delicate matter.
> 
> Cheers!!
> 
> (¡¡Excuse me, I try to write in English but it is very difficult for me!!)



I think your English is excellent! Almost perfect! But I just corrected a few minor errors because I noticed you had asked people to do so. Hope it helps!


----------



## weird

Becky85 said:
			
		

> I think your English is excellent! Almost perfect! But I just corrected a few minor errors because I noticed you had asked people to do so. Hope it helps!




Thanks a lot. I love learning English. I need your corrections.

I wanted to say that children that have been brought up by a homosexual couple aren't homosexual for this reason.  They are open-minded and they can understand the most situation on their life.

(Is very difficult for me to explain it in English!!!)

Saludos.-


----------



## Becky85

Oh OK I think I understand what you mean...that homosexuality isn't '*contagious*'?


----------



## weird

Ohhh, excuse me everybody!!

I don't want to say this idea in bad way!!

But people think that children inside a homosexual family aren't going to have the model MAN-WOMAN, and perhaps they are going to be homosexual as well. 

But my husband says that there isn't any influence in their future choise.

Cheers!!


----------



## cuchuflete

weird said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> If they live like a couple and one of them pass away.
> 
> What about their legal rights? For instance, inheritance or allowance.
> 
> If they don't get married, they haven't got any right, have they?
> 
> Cheers!!
> 
> (Excuse me. My written English is very bad!!!)



Good question Weird,
I suppose that's why I don't object to any couple enjoying the same legal rights and obligations as any other.  
Cuchu


----------



## Becky85

No I'm not suggesting you meant to offend anybody, quite the opposite! I was saying that the idea you were trying to put across was that homosexuality is NOT contagious, that just because a child is adopted by a homosexual couple doesn't necessarily mean they will be homosexual when they're older too. They are just as open-minded as a child in man-woman household, and are free to feel however they feel when they're older, whether that be gay or straight.


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> mmm for mee this question only really has much sense in a religious context.. the reason being that if you take away the idea of some supreme lawgiver or arbiter of juctice then really the only logical thing to say is that people should do whatever they feel makes them happy as long as it doent encroach upon other peoples freemdoms.
> 
> throw the idea of God into the question and it becomes just as simple... in every religion that i have ever studied some revelation is in place dictating the rights and wrongs and basis of our relationships with others.



Based on your first paragraph, a country in which there is a separation of the powers of the state and of religious authority would be properly indifferent to the entire question.  People would be free to follow the dictates of their individual religious beliefs, if any.  That sounds sensible.

Per your second paragraph, people could either stay within the bounds of their religion(s), or acknowledge that their religion does not have supremacy over their personal preferences.  A religious institution may either try to invoke the power of the political state as an enforcement mechanism, or depend on the faith of its members.

I remain convinced that neither I nor my legislators are wise enough to tell people in general what the nature of their personal relationships ought to be.  After all, those same legislators seem to be quick to send the sons and daughters of other people's families off to fight in wars, while their own offspring seem to find other ways to occupy their time.


----------



## fetchezlavache

weird said:
			
		

> But my husband says that there isn't any influence in their future choise.
> 
> Cheers!!




you don't _chose_ to be a homosexual. you just are, plain and simple.


----------



## weird

Becky85 said:
			
		

> No I'm not suggesting you meant to offend anybody, quite the opposite! I was saying that the idea you were trying to put across was that homosexuality is NOT contagious, that just because a child is adopted by a homosexual couple doesn't necessarily mean they will be homosexual when they're older too. They are just as open-minded as a child in man-woman household, and are free to feel however they feel when they're older, whether that be gay or straight.



I am whole agree with you. 

My problem is that it is very difficult for me to explain my ideas in English!!

I said open-minded because his/her education will be inside a situation that would be very difficult to understand by some people. And this and other difficult situation would be natural for her/him. 

I don't know if I am able to explain myself!!!


----------



## weird

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> you don't _chose_ to be a homosexual. you just are, plain and simple.



Hi, 

Like I said before, it is very difficult for me to explain myself in English.

I agree with you, you don't chose to be a homosexual.

But sometimes something makes you do a thing or another one.

Something can pushs you towards a way.

Why does a child that has been raped could be a rapist in the future?

Cheers!


----------



## cuchuflete

Weird,

No te preocupes chica, te entendemos bien./Don't worry, we understand you well.

Consider this:  The huge majority of homosexual people in the world were probably raised by heterosexual parents.  One could draw the logical conclusion [patently absurd, of course] that growing up in a home with heterosexual parents leads to homosexuality!  There is no causal relationship between the sexual orientation of parents and that of the children raised by them.


Saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## weird

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Weird,
> 
> No te preocupes chica, te entendemos bien./Don't worry, we understand you well.
> 
> Consider this:  The huge majority of homosexual people in the world were probably raised by heterosexual parents.  One could draw the logical conclusion [patently absurd, of course] that growing up in a home with heterosexual parents leads to homosexuality!  There is no causal relationship between the sexual orientation of parents and that of the children raised by them.
> 
> 
> Saludos,
> Cuchu



Oh my god!!  Thanks a lot!! You are very good at English!!
It is what I wanted to say.

Bye.-


----------



## lsp

Becky85 said:
			
		

> Oh OK I think I understand what you mean...that homosexuality isn't '*contagious*'?


Apparently, along the lines of what Cuchuflete has offered, neither is heterosexuality. I also have not heard a convincing argument about how homosexual marriage threatens traditional/heterosexual marriage. The gay guy on the block isn't going to marry the girl in the house on the right because he can't legally marry the boy next door on the left.

The relationship itself can't be effectively allowed or prohibited legally. The question of "rights" as weird introduced is what is currently legislated to the detriment of loving partners who have shared their lives, their affections, and their support, financial and emotional, until poor health or death change their situation.


----------



## lauranazario

lsp said:
			
		

> The relationship itself can't be effectively allowed or prohibited legally. The question of "rights" as weird introduced is what is currently legislated [...]


I disagree with the first sentence (laws against "sodomy" barely disguising their anti-gay intent come to mind)... but agree with the second one.

We simply cannot escape the fact that marriage is a *social contract* and as a contract, it has *legal standing* and legal definitions as well. The definition of marriage is based on socially-accepted principles that undergo legislation and if they pass, they ultimately establish law. 
That is why same-sex marriages are legal in some places and not in others; why in certain locations same-sex spouses have legal rights and are not recognized in others. It's all because their respective societies have different definitions (legally-binding definitions) of what constitutes a marriage.

In the emotional sense, nobody can legislate love... but as a society we can certainly shape public policy and ultimately influence legislation geared at defining what constitutes a "marriage"... with all its pros and cons

Saludos,
LN


----------



## lsp

lauranazario said:
			
		

> I disagree with the first sentence (laws against "sodomy" barely disguising their anti-gay intent come to mind)... but agree with the second one.


I said "effectively" because the existence of the law doesn't alter the commitments of the individuals who consider themselves life partners. But the law can prevent health insurance rights, long term care, inheritances, etc.


----------



## Lancel0t

weird said:
			
		

> What do you say about the marriage between people the same sex?
> 
> Is it possible in your countries?




Here in the Philippines in which the Majority of the people are Catholics don't agree with that kind of marriage because most of us believe that only man and women should be married (based on the teaching of the church). Also our culture is somewhat conservative when it comes to this matter.

Here, the separation of powers by the state and the church is very evident. So everytime there are some bills that are being submitted in the congress and to the senate, and that bill/s happened to oppose the teaching of the church or will affect the morality of the people, the church will act immediately in order to stop it.


----------



## lsp

Lancel0t said:
			
		

> Here in the Philippines in which the Majority of the people are Catholics don't agree with that kind of marriage because most of us believe that only man and women should be married (based on the teaching of the church). Also our culture is somewhat conservative when it comes to this matter.
> 
> Here, the separation of powers by the state and the church is very evident. So everytime there are some bills that are being submitted in the congress and to the senate, and that bill/s happened to oppose the teaching of the church or will affect the morality of the people, the church will act immediately in order to stop it.


Morality and religions differ among the people even in the Phillippines, no matter which has the current majority share. That's why we should ALL be more vigilant to uphold the separation of church and state. When the time comes that the pendulum swings and another religion has the statistical edge, even the Catholics will then be grateful that we have established that here on earth, religion is religion and man's laws are man's laws.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum
In Australia the vast majority of people could not give a tinker's damn about what you do in your bed or even up against the wall.  The only limitation would be a lack of informed consent.  It is aggressively illegal to allow sexuality to be questioned or limited.

Certain religious cults will not sanctify marriage but civil celebrants regularly perform marriage ceremonies for all commers.

To a certain degree this reflects our almost secular society and times have changed here vastly since I was a child.

In the 1950s and to a lesser extent the 1960s priests held vast power and could send a person to Coventry but now most are viewed with tolerance and allowed to mumble their jumble when they rage on about homosexuality causing the end of the world or whatever.  I have not seen or heard one negative comment made about homosexuality that was not faith based.  Methinks he doth protesteth too much

My country and society did not slide into anarchy when people were allowed to be people.  This decade did not invent differing sexuality nor did the last millenium show us anything new.  Were I to hazzard a guess I would think that homosexuality has existed since Adam's mate met Steve and the world still hasn't gone into that hellhole

We are no more than what we do
With time joy pain and tears
Love lives completely proud and true
Or exists behind bleak fears


Robert


----------



## Everness

Benjy said:
			
		

> mmm for mee this question only really has much sense in a religious context.. the reason being that if you take away the idea of some supreme lawgiver or arbiter of juctice then really the only logical thing to say is that people should do whatever they feel makes them happy as long as it doent encroach upon other peoples freemdoms.
> 
> throw the idea of God into the question and it becomes just as simple... in every religion that i have ever studied some revelation is in place dictating the rights and wrongs and basis of our relationships with others.



I'll take your argument a step further. Erich Fromm wrote about the universal need for a "system of thought and action shared by a group which gives the individual a frame of orientation and an object of devotion." We all have an object of devotion and a corresponding frame of orientation, even non-believers. We all believe in someone or something. If you believe in God, your theology informs your ethics. If you don't believe in God, your ideology informs your ethics. One is not better than the other one. 

However, in our Western post-Christian world, any attempt to universalize traditional religious belief systems and ethical principles (e.g.: matrimony is between a man and a woman) arguing that everyone should embrace them is considered an infringment on people's rights.  On the other hand, any attempt to universalize non-traditional belief systems and ethical principles (e.g.: matrimony is between two individuals regardless of their gender or sexual orientation) arguing that everyone should embrace them is considered acceptable. 

We are combating intolerance with intolerance and we are assuming that non-religious positions are per se more sensical than traditional religious positions. My point? 1. Secularism is being embraced with a religious zeal in the best tradition of Pat Robertson! "This is true because it's true. Period." 2. Let's put dogmatism aside and argue passionately yet rationally in favor or against positions.


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> ... On the other hand, any attempt to universalize non-traditional belief systems and ethical principles (e.g.: matrimony is between two individuals regardless of their gender or sexual orientation) arguing that everyone should embrace them is considered acceptable....


I don't think 51% of Americans would agree that it's considered acceptable.


----------



## cuchuflete

May I differ with a few things you've said?  





			
				Everness said:
			
		

> We all believe in someone or something. If you believe in God, your theology informs your ethics. Only if you limit belief in God to a religious context.  Theology is a creation of religious institutions.  It is not a prerequisite for faith, any more than buildings and hierarchies are. If you don't believe in God, your ideology informs your ethics. One is not better than the other one. Try telling that to religious fundamentalists, whether Christian or Islamic or whatever.  The statement you have made--I happen to agree with it--is an expression of your own ideology, whatever your faith or religion may happen to be.
> 
> However, in our Western post-Christian world, any attempt to universalize traditional religious belief systems and ethical principles (e.g.: matrimony is between a man and a woman) arguing that everyone should embrace them is considered an infringment on people's rights. On the other hand, any attempt to universalize non-traditional belief systems and ethical principles (e.g.: matrimony is between two individuals regardless of their gender or sexual orientation) arguing that everyone should embrace them is considered acceptable. Such a sweeping generalizing is difficult to prove.
> Both religious people and ethical agnostics might find grounds to disagree with you.  If you are trying to argue that the hold of traditional religions has diminished, you are on less shakey ground.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Everness

What does ethics have to do with becoming married

Robert


----------



## cuchuflete

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Everness
> 
> What does ethics have to do with becoming married
> 
> Robert



Everness is off being ethical at the moment, so I'll presume to answer you.
With a question:  Would you marry an unethical person?

cheers,
Cuchuflete


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Cuchuflete
How can you answer a question with a question

The original post and my reply to that quote regarded the legal institution or the ceremony of marriage.

To ask if I would marry an unethical person steps very close to a presumptive question and I'm damned if I see how it can advance the discussion.

Robert


----------



## CLEMENTINE

Hi here!

Well in France, marriage is not allowed for people of the same sex.

However, a couple of years ago, the government created the famous PACS (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) which gives the 2 "suscribers" _kind of _ same fiscal advantages than the married couples - but it is not only for homosexuals, but also for heterosexuals who do not want to get married, or even a brother and a sister, or two friends who are living under the same roof.
A couple of months ago, a French mayor celebrated a gay wedding - huge success - he got suspended for a while and the marriage is not valid...


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Clementine

If that is the case it is simply one more reason that I am happy that France is in France and Australia is here.

Robert


----------



## CLEMENTINE

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Clementine
> 
> If that is the case it is simply one more reason that I am happy that France is in France and Australia is here.
> 
> Robert


 
G'day OZ Robert!

Countries are different and cultures too - do not forget that France is a latin country, ie highly influenced by the Roman Catholic religion - and the French culture is therefore impregnated of religious "customs" and ways of thinking.
However, it does not mean that all the French are thinking the same way as the Church today. Spain is also influence by religion, and see what they want to vote? Minds are changing, they are evolving ... 
I guess that Australians are more free in their heads - have less religious influences...
I wish I were in Australia today, just to be under the sun and not getting wet coz of the rain...

Have a good evening


----------



## fetchezlavache

i was never able to understand marriage in the first place, so i have trouble understanding what the big fuss is about. live (together or not) and let live !

now regarding the right for homosexual couples to adopt, _that'_s the real serious question.. in my book, i mean.


----------



## Becky85

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> now regarding the right for homosexual couples to adopt, _that'_s the real serious question.. in my book, i mean.



Some lesbian couples can get round the laws of their country, though, by 'getting pregnant the gay way'. Does this unfairly discriminate between gay men and gay women as a result? Are two gay women going to be better parents to a child than two gay men?

And there is another issue. Why is it OK for the most unbelievably unfit parents to have and bring up children whilst gay couples who would be willing to show their children so much love and affection, bringing them up in happy households, are legally prevented from doing so? Is this moral? Does it have the children's best interests at heart? And then to play the devil's advocate to myself (!), would there really be any possible way of properly policing this kind of thing?


----------



## kodansha

I have got nothing against gays, but I do disagree about them adopting children, you can't compare between a single mother (like somebody, can't remember her name, has put in a message before) bringing up her kid, then a couple of gays. It's not the same finding you mother and father in bed together than two guys or girls. The child might take this attitude as normal and thinks that doing the same is normal. Well I don't believe that it is very normal.

That is my opinion.


----------



## Becky85

kodansha said:
			
		

> I have got nothing against gays, but I do disagree about them adopting children, you can't compare between a single mother (like somebody, can't remember her name, has put in a message before) bringing up her kid, then a couple of gays. It's not the same finding you mother and father in bed together than two guys or girls. The child might take this attitude as normal and thinks that doing the same is normal. Well I don't believe that it is very normal.
> 
> That is my opinion.


That's fair enough, but what I'm trying to emphasise here is the difference between irresponsible and unloving straight parents and responsible, loving gay parents. When you say finding your mother and father in bed together compared to two gay people, well what exactly do you expect to find them doing? When I stay at my parents' house, if I walk into their bedroom in the morning, I find them sitting or lying in bed together, having a chat. I don't see them kissing and touching. Wouldn't the same be true for two gay people? Surely that's a question of each individual set of parents and how they interact with each other around their children. My parents choose to save the lovey-dovey stuff to their private time, when the children aren't around. Gay people are unlikely to feel too differently about this.


----------



## Everness

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Everness
> 
> What does ethics have to do with becoming married
> 
> Robert



Legislation passed by the legislative branch is a way of regulating human institutions such as marriage and family. Legislation should focus on legality and not on morality. However, both are connected and feed off each other. For instance, if you have sex with your own child that is illegal and unethical. There are other behaviors that are legal and maybe unethical for some and ethical for others. For instance, watching soap operas.   

Massachusetts is the only state in the US where gay couples can marry. Why do some object to this? Because deep down they believe that homosexuality is ethically wrong. They might try to give it a more politically correct spin but that's the bottom line. My point? If homosexuality isn't illegal, why would homosexual marriage be illegal? A full and passionate discussion of gay marriage was a matter of time. Now it's happening. In the US there's a strong push to ammend the Constitution to establish that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Well, my dear politicians: it's too late!


----------



## mnzrob

kodansha said:
			
		

> I have got nothing against gays, but I do disagree about them adopting children, you can't compare between a single mother (like somebody, can't remember her name, has put in a message before) bringing up her kid, then a couple of gays. It's not the same finding you mother and father in bed together than two guys or girls. The child might take this attitude as normal and thinks that doing the same is normal. Well I don't believe that it is very normal.
> 
> That is my opinion.


 
I knew a guy in high school that was gay, and he was convinced that all gay people are born gay, even if they don't realize it until later. So if this is the case, I don't think a child that is adopted by a gay couple, would turn out gay, just because he's not taught that it is wrong. In the same way, I don't think most heterosexuals would say that they're only hetero, because they were taught to be. 

Rob


----------



## Becky85

mnzrob said:
			
		

> I knew a guy in high school that was gay, and he was convinced that all gay people are born gay, even if they don't realize it until later. So if this is the case, I don't think a child that is adopted by a gay couple, would turn out gay, just because he's not taught that it is wrong. In the same way, I don't think most heterosexuals would say that they're only hetero, because they were taught to be.
> 
> Rob


To add to that, my mum and her two brothers were born of the same parents, grew up in the same household, went to the same school and were taught the same life lessons by their parents (my grandparents). But one of my mum's brothers is gay, and has been with his partner for twenty years. The other brother is happily married to a woman, and together they have two daughters. My mum is also happily married to my dad and together they have me and my four brothers! The environment that my mum and her brothers grew up in was exactly the same, and as it happened, homosexuality was never really discussed and certainly not taught. I suppose to a certain extent, heterosexuality was taught, or at least demonstrated as being 'normal'. So if one child from that family is gay, and the other two are straight, this seems to disregard the possibility that homosexuality or heterosexuality can be taught, encouraged or set as an example that the children will necessarily follow.


----------



## Artrella

Becky85 said:
			
		

> To add to that, my mum and her two brothers were born of the same parents, grew up in the same household, went to the same school and were taught the same life lessons by their parents (my grandparents). But one of my mum's brothers is gay, and has been with his partner for twenty years. The other brother is happily married to a woman, and together they have two daughters. My mum is also happily married to my dad and together they have me and my four brothers! The environment that my mum and her brothers grew up in was exactly the same, and as it happened, homosexuality was never really discussed and certainly not taught. I suppose to a certain extent, heterosexuality was taught, or at least demonstrated as being 'normal'. So if one child from that family is gay, and the other two are straight, this seems to disregard the possibility that homosexuality or heterosexuality can be taught, encouraged or set as an example that the children will necessarily follow.




Becky, you know, when I studied psychology at the Profesorado, the teacher told us that homosexuality is not inborn.  She said that environment has influence in the development of such behaviour in a person.  I will try to find some material on this subject.


----------



## Everness

Natura vs. nurture: How heredity and environment shape who we are? This is a hot topic. Each side comes up with scientific facts, stories and anecdotical data, and their own unacknowledged prejudices to support their position about homosexuality. I think that we are at the beginning of a long pilgrimage that will eventually revolutionize current ideas about sex and gender. Unfortunately (or not) most of us won't be able to witness how things will look like.


----------



## Phryne

Nature vs Nurture is such a controversial topic. I always believed that nurture shaped people's sexuality. Now, I'm not so sure since there are known cases of people that proved that wrong. For instance, in the 1960s a couple of twin boys were born. One of the boys lost his penis due to a severe burnt during circumcision, when he was still a baby. So, somehow, the case was brought to this doctor Money (I swear to God that's his name), head of Johns Hopkins' Pyschohormonal Research Unit and a very popular psychologist of those days. Money, who was an advocate of "sex reassignment" for infants born with ambiguous genitalia, suggested to the parents to raise this baby as a girl, and perform all type of surgeries needed, in addition to give him/her hormones so that s/he would develop as a girl. So Bruce was raised as Brenda.
The experiment didn't work at all. Although Brenda didn’t know that s/he was born as a boy, she never showed any signs of so-called "femininity", quite the contrary. Later on in his/her life s/he, I think s/he was in his/her late teens, s/he was told about his/her real identity. S/he changed his/her name to David (I'm not sure) and reclaimed his lost identity. He married but was never able to have children. 

This is a real story that took place in Canada in the 60s and 70s.

I recommend a great book about gender issues and sexuality. "Sexing the Body" by Anne Fausto-Sterling.


----------



## Everness

Maybe someone will soon suggest an ammendment to the 10 Commandments. 

Current version of the 10th commandment: "You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's." 

Ammendment: "Nor your neighbor"


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Everness

If the neighbour owns their own body the concept is already covered by your quoting of the 10th commandment.

Robert


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> Natura vs. nurture: How heredity and environment shape who we are? This is a hot topic. Each side comes up with scientific facts, stories and anecdotical data, and their own unacknowledged prejudices to support their position about homosexuality. I think that we are at the beginning of a long pilgrimage that will eventually revolutionize current ideas about sex and gender. Unfortunately (or not) most of us won't be able to witness how things will look like.





I think that homosexuality possibly develops from a non-resolved Oedipus to begin with.  Then if the person in charge of a child, does not provide them with what a child needs, that is care and attention, they will develop as a person without self-confidence.  In some cases this leads to homosexuality.
The case I commented about my friend, well he was raised by his mother, grandmother and two sisters.  His father died when he was 3 years old.
I cannot think it is something genetic, but ... I don't know anything about this.  This is just my opinion.  I don't have the knowledge to discuss this subject.  But from what I have been taught in Psychology at school, I am inclined to the nurture aspect more than to the nature one.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum
Whenever I am absolutely positive I know an answer to anything I think of Charles Darwin

Robert


----------



## Phryne

Artrella said:
			
		

> I think that homosexuality possibly develops from a non-resolved Oedipus to begin with. Then if the person in charge of a child, does not provide them with what a child needs, that is care and attention, they will develop as a person without self-confidence. In some cases this leads to homosexuality.
> The case I commented about my friend, well he was raised by his mother, grandmother and two sisters. His father died when he was 3 years old.
> I cannot think it is something genetic, but ... I don't know anything about this. This is just my opinion. I don't have the knowledge to discuss this subject. But from what I have been taught in Psychology at school, I am inclined to the nurture aspect more than to the nature one.


 
I think that's the Freudian theory. With all due respect, a theory is a theory, is a theory.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Phryne
A theory is a theory but a psychological theory is a theory based on the study of a mind by a mind and if the mind of the examiner is less than optimal the theory following is theoretically as sound.  Who has an optimal mind?  Who knows what is normal?  Does normal exist?  

Who feels confident that they know enough answers to make enforceable laws in the area of consenting adult sexuality.  Kinsey had a mind I don't want but it worked for him.

Robert


----------



## te gato

Hey Art..GF;

I don't know on this one...if it is in-born, or picked up later...
all I do know is that in my mothers family..out of..hang on..one, two...ok twelve kids..one uncle is gay...all were brought up the same..ate the same...went to the same schools...went to the same church...
so if it was by an out-side force...why only one out of all twelve?
Like I said I have no Idea...and of my friends..some who are gay..(and very good looking male models)..have always said that they did not 'feel' right in their own bodies..and even the thought of them being with a woman..had them confused beyond words...some even said 'the idea grossed them right out'...

te gato


----------



## Phryne

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Phryne
> A theory is a theory but a psychological theory is a theory based on the study of a mind by a mind and if the mind of the examiner is less than optimal the theory following is theoretically as sound. Who has an optimal mind? Who knows what is normal? Does normal exist?
> 
> Who feels confident that they know enough answers to make enforceable laws in the area of consenting adult sexuality. Kinsey had a mind I don't want but it worked for him.
> 
> Robert


 
Of course you're right! However, psychology is one of those extremely debatable fields that even psychologists themselves can't agree on. Different schools only seem to agree that there is a thing called _sexuality_, but what is _hetero_ and what is _gay_ is a very very delicate subject to begin with. So, to assert what causes lead to homosexuality it’s kind of flimsy.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Phryne
The only people trying to find the cause of homosexuality are trying to cure homosexuality as though homosexuality were a disease or illness.

Sexuality is not cut and dried and I definitely do not want my sexuality cut and dried by someone who does not even know me.

Robert


----------



## Artrella

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Phryne
> The only people trying to find the cause of homosexuality are trying to cure homosexuality as though homosexuality were a disease or illness.
> 
> Sexuality is not cut and dried and I definitely do not want my sexuality cut and dried by someone who does not even know me.
> 
> Robert




Yes, I agree with you, most people think homosexuality is abnormal, and it has to be cured.  Now, I don't know... but is it abnormal?  Aren't we supposed to procreate? Is that what is normal? I am speaking from a "scientific/ practical" point of view.  I'm ok with gays.


----------



## Phryne

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Phryne
> The only people trying to find the cause of homosexuality are trying to cure homosexuality as though homosexuality were a disease or illness.


 
I never thought about it that way!!!   You're sooo right.



> Sexuality is not cut and dried and I definitely do not want my sexuality cut and dried by someone who does not even know me.
> 
> Robert


 
100% with you.


----------



## te gato

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Phryne
> The only people trying to find the cause of homosexuality are trying to cure homosexuality as though homosexuality were a disease or illness.
> 
> Sexuality is not cut and dried and I definitely do not want my sexuality cut and dried by someone who does not even know me.
> 
> Robert


Hey Robert;
You are correct and I agree with you 100%...

te gato


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

Anybody feeling threatened by homosexuality are invited to not participate in homosexuality.

Robert


----------



## Phryne

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree with you, most people think homosexuality is abnormal, and it has to be cured. Now, I don't know... but is it abnormal? Aren't we supposed to procreate? Is that what is normal? I am speaking from a "scientific/ practical" point of view. I'm ok with gays.


 
Scientifically? Animals show homosexual behavior as well. Furthermore, what is gay, what is straight? There's no thin line that separates them. Actually it’s more like a continuum between the two and we are all somewhere in there.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Phyrne

So gay has shades of grey

Robert


----------



## Phryne

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Phyrne
> 
> So gay has shades of grey
> 
> Robert


 
I think everybody--gay, straight, bi, whatever--is always in the continuum, what you called gray.



Also, our definition of homosexuality is quite modern. Foucault--a recommended reading on this--claims that homosexuality was "invented" by capitalism after the Industrial Revolution as a form of control over people. Furthermore, in different societies and different times there had been relations within the same sex and were never considered to have a category of their own (gay, bi, etc), or  at least didn't have the same categories as they do today. The Romans used to believe that young men should inaugurate their sexuality with older men. It was regarded as normal and desirable. 



So... what is gay, what is straight?

MJ


----------



## Silvia

lsp said:
			
		

> When the time comes that the pendulum swings and another religion has the statistical edge, even the Catholics will then be grateful that we have established that here on earth


 What does that mean? What should Catholics be grateful for? Who are "we"? What should be established?

To me the issue about homosexual marriage is not different from polygamy. If you're pro the former, you must be pro the latter, that's pure logic.


----------



## abc

weird said:
			
		

> Hello, everybody!
> 
> What do you say about the marriage between people the same sex?


 
Yes, God created Adam and Eve (two different gene pools???). Yes, human beings cannot reproduce asexually. Yes, homosexuals are queer folks just like many heterosexuals are (results of the mixing of different gene pools???). Yes, human beings are intrinsically kind and good. Yet, some of us are denying our fellow human beings the right to pursue their personal happiness. ??????????


----------



## Artrella

I think being homosexual is ok, but why then if we are so open-minded, if you say you are gay you are not allowed to a lot of things?  Marriage? Jobs? Military?   You have to keep it secret as if you had murdered someone ....  
There was once in my country, a ... I don't know how to qualify him... clergyman who said "we have to enclose all the gay people in an island"


----------



## cuchuflete

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> Who feels confident that they know enough answers to make enforceable laws in the area of consenting adult sexuality.
> 
> Robert


Lot's of people do.  Typically they are so adament in their beliefs that they like to shove them down everyone's throat, using legislators as the ramming device.  They can be very tedious company.  They generally fail at making anything enforceable,  which to me is a good thing.


----------



## abc

Art,

That clergyman really didn't read history.


----------



## Benjy

Silvia said:
			
		

> What does that mean? What should Catholics be grateful for? Who are "we"? What should be established?
> 
> To me the issue about homosexual marriage is not different from polygamy. If you're pro the former, you must be pro the latter, that's pure logic.



hate to be a party pooper but whereas Paul basically condemns gays to hell in romans God commanded Abraham to take an extra wife. i guess the bible once again defies logic eh?


----------



## abc

I can only get the answer from God after I die, but since He's not giving me a direct answer, I have to do a little guessing.  God forgive me!

I think God put a few droplets of queer genes in Adam's and Eve's chromosomes.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day abc

You appear to have more humanity than many of the gods readily quoted and I don't forgive those gods.

Robert


----------



## LV4-26

I don't understand why homosexuals absolutely want to marry. I'm not married (though living with the mother of my three children) and I don't feel the need to be. I don't know why, I feel this quest for marriage a little disappointing from the gay community. Why do they want to do like everybody else ?


----------



## Becky85

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I don't understand why homosexuals absolutely want to marry. I'm not married (though living with the mother of my three children) and I don't feel the need to be. I don't know why, I feel this quest for marriage a little disappointing from the gay community. Why do they want to do like everybody else ?



Maybe it's not a case of them wanting to be like everybody else, but of having the option just like everybody else. Even if marriage between gay people were made legal worldwide, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there would be a rush of gay people wanting to get married.

I think the issue here is that unlike heterosexual couples, they don't have the same choice when it comes to marriage.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day LV4-26


> Why do they want to do like everybody else?


Because they are us and them and me and you and we will not be free while we think we are better than them.

Robert


----------



## Silvia

Benjy said:
			
		

> hate to be a party pooper but whereas Paul basically condemns gays to hell in romans God commanded Abraham to take an extra wife. i guess the bible once again defies logic eh?


 What does the Bible have to do with marriages between homosexuals and logic? I thought we were talking of civil marriage, not religious one.


----------



## Benjy

but what i don't understand (and i think this is what lv4-26 is getting at) what is the point is attemping to conform to the norms of "christrian" society. marriage is something that to me seems to have a religious basis, it was a commandement for men and women to get married so that they could "multiply and replenish the earth" (aside: what about in the far east? where do thier marriage tradititon come from? i have to confess my total ignorace on the matter..). i don't see why a gay couple would feel the need to have a ceremony to commit to one another, or that their love needs to be validated by an institution? like i said in my first post the question doesn't seem to make much sense to me (from a moral/ethical point of view), then again, i'm on the outside looking in


----------



## Becky85

Benjy said:
			
		

> but what i don't understand (and i think this is what lv4-26 is getting at) what is the point is attemping to conform to the norms of "christrian" society. marriage is something that to me seems to have a religious basis, it was a commandement for men and women to get married so that they could "multiply and replenish the earth" (aside: what about in the far east? where do thier marriage tradititon come from? i have to confess my total ignorace on the matter..). i don't see why a gay couple would feel the need to have a ceremony to commit to one another, or that their love needs to be validated by an institution? like i said in my first post the question doesn't seem to make much sense to me (from a moral/ethical point of view), then again, i'm on the outside looking in


I need to go to bed but these discussions are just too interesting!

In all honesty, I doubt many gay people would actually want to have a religious marriage because it is religion that has been a major factor in the way they have been shunned in society for hundreds of years. Religion seems to be, to a certain extent, an enemy to gay people because of its complete unacceptance of them.

The kind of marriage I was referring to was more of a civil union, which actually seems to be becoming more and more popular amongst straight couples these days! 

I'm not particularly religious, but I regard marriage, whether it be in a church or in a registry office, as being a way of pledging your commitment to another person in a ceremonious form, surrounded by family and friends. That is my view of it anyway.

There are other obvious advantages that come with marriage, many of which are financial, and if these are the primary reasons behind gay couples wanting to be married, perhaps an adoption of a system such as the French PACS would be more appropriate.


----------



## fetchezlavache

Silvia said:
			
		

> What does that mean? What should Catholics be grateful for? Who are "we"? What should be established?
> 
> To me the issue about homosexual marriage is not different from polygamy. If you're pro the former, you must be pro the latter, that's pure logic.




care to expand that logic silvia please ? tia.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

I have no concept of the link between polygamy and homosexual marriage but may I gently offer that I consider homosexual marriage of no actual interest to me in about the same way that I have no actual interest in polygamous unions but...

I can see no danger to society or structure or oppression of the individual by the union of equals even if the equals are a little too equal for your particular orientation.

I can envisage significant social and economic problems stemming from the progeny of polygamous unions.  Most significantly is my inability to view such a union as being between equals.

Most people are a little less than perfect and I am a perfect example of that.  Too much of me would rapidly grate and the concept of my wife being required deal with multiples of me and my faults boggles my already boggled mind.  The idea of sharing my wife with another does not exactly fill me with joy and I suspect that such unions would have a tendency to dominance of one over another or the other.

I do not believe that we or anyone can thrive and fulfill their life if they are dominated by their partner while they wind their way through the maze called time.

Robert


----------



## Everness

Benjy said:
			
		

> hate to be a party pooper but whereas Paul basically condemns gays to hell in romans God commanded Abraham to take an extra wife. i guess the bible once again defies logic eh?



I'm sorry but I don't see your logic. You are talking about biblical characters who lived in different times and therefore reflected different mores. It's true that there are biblical verses that would support your assertion that the early church condemned the practice of homosexuality. However, those verses should be understood in the context of all biblical teachings on sexuality. Jesus has strong statements about sexuality that are very difficult to interpret. Moreover, we tend to emphasize sexual shortcoming over other ones. Some of us seem to believe that all sins are sinful but sexual sins are more sinful.


----------



## lsp

Silvia said:
			
		

> What does that mean? What should Catholics be grateful for? Who are "we"? What should be established?
> 
> To me the issue about homosexual marriage is not different from polygamy. If you're pro the former, you must be pro the latter, that's pure logic.


Answers: In the event that Catholics (or any religious group), find itself outnumbered by people who are governed by different religious beliefs, then Catholics (or any other religious group) would not want that religion to have legal rights to impose its ethics on civil law. We, the people, should establish a clear separation of church and state. Please tell me if this my meaning is still unclear to you.

Your statement comes from the blue. I have no idea what would make you write it at all, much less in response to my post. Feel free to explain it or not, but without additional comment (and maybe with it) it is utter nonsense to me.

In response to other posts not quoted, I think gays would find the idea that they want to commit formally and legally to a lifelong partnership just to be like the rest of us a very condescending, disparaging concept. Some people, gay and hetero, believe in marriage, religious and/or civil. There is also the matter of their legal rights as next-of-kin to be considered.


----------



## Everness

Silvia said:
			
		

> To me the issue about homosexual marriage is not different from polygamy. If you're pro the former, you must be pro the latter, that's pure logic.




You appear to equate homosexual marriage and polygamy, and state that if you support the former you support the later. Right? I'm sorry but your statement  sounds more illogical than logical. Would you care to explain your assertion?


----------



## Benjy

Everness said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I don't see your logic. You are talking about biblical characters who lived in different times and therefore reflected different mores. It's true that there are biblical verses that would support your assertion that the early church condemned the practice of homosexuality. However, those verses should be understood in the context of all biblical teachings on sexuality. Jesus has strong statements about sexuality that are very difficult to interpret. Moreover, we tend to emphasize sexual shortcoming over other ones. Some of us seem to believe that all sins are sinful but sexual sins are more sinful.



mmmm.. i was more arguing against the fact that silvia said it was illogical to make distinction between gay and poligamous marriages from what i assumed to be a catholic point of view. in hindsight it would have probably been better to leave specifics (and erroneous assumptions) out of the thread because things very quickly get bogged down with specifics, which im sure isn't really what we want


----------



## Artrella

lsp said:
			
		

> In response to other posts not quoted, I think gays would find the idea that they want to commit formally and legally to a lifelong partnership just to be like the rest of us a very condescending, disparaging concept. Some people, gay and hetero, believe in marriage, religious and/or civil. There is also the matter of their legal rights as next-of-kin to be considered.



I agree with you lsp, every human being has the right to have legal rights, as basic as medical insurance.  Here if you are married, and your husband has a job immediately you and your kids have medical insurance (the coverage given by the labour relations/ contract (?).  But if you are not married, although you are not gay, you don't have those rights.  This is just to mention one.  So leaving aside the fact that one person is or not gay, there is the legal aspect of that.  I would also leave religion aside , since this thread was supposed to give our opinions about "marriage between homosexuals and if it is legal this in your countries".  
Another thing I don't agree with is that of if you support homosexuality you support polygamy? If this is the case ... I couldn't quite understand it... well I don't think they are related...They have no point of comparison.


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> i don't see why a gay couple would feel the need to have a ceremony to commit to one another, or that their love needs to be validated by an institution? like i said in my first post the question doesn't seem to make much sense to me (from a moral/ethical point of view), then again, i'm on the outside looking in



Your statement has a logical, or to me an illogical, corollary: Why would people who don't share your religious foundation feel a need to have a ceremony to commit to one another?

While a great many of the people in this forum may share your beliefs, in some general sense, a great many people do not. Their own traditions may allow for or encourage marriage as well. And that may occur with no hostility towards, but with total indifference to, your religious beliefs.

I am also on the outside looking in, and further, I am on the outside of other peoples' moral and ethical viewpoints at times, at least in terms of their sources.

Sorry for all the convoluted writing. I'll try to simplify it. Gobs of people are either raised without religious training, or choose consciously to abandon religion. They may remain nominal members of some religion, but do not practice it.

Suppose these people want to marry, whether in or out of a church, for whatever social or legal or economic reason? Suppose they do it to humor their parents or other relatives? Suppose they do it to be conventional and avoid flack from the majority that surrounds them? 
It's simply none of my business. I am not so wise or smart that I should sit in judgement. Further, as their actions do not affect me, and the status of any relationship I may have with a partner, I have no logical right to
interfere, either to encourage, discourage, forbid or reward others for the way they may wish to commit to their own partnerships.


----------



## Lancel0t

Since the discussion is getting bigger and better and we already tucked some aspects that are affecting the said issue, I would like to raise these questions to widen our discussion further so that we could come up with a good conclusion (if it is possible):

1. When and Where marriage originates?
2. What is the main purpose of marriage?
3. Does marriage between the same sex will fulfill the original purpose of marriage? Why?


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

Perhaps a narrow minded gay person might respond


> i don't see why a straight couple would feel the need to have a ceremony to commit to one another, or that their love needs to be validated by an institution?



No one knows the answers for sure until after they shuffle off the coil.

Robert


----------



## kathy_wylie

marriage is a religious things. It's first origins are in the bible. It's a ceremony between two people of different sexes, before God, declaring their love for eachother and saying they will be with each TIL DEATH PARTS THEM.

Thats why so many marriages are done in churches. God condems homosexuality, He says it's wrong in the Bible. Therefore a homosexual wedding is wrong.


----------



## Agnès E.

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Suppose these people want to marry, whether in or out of a church, for whatever social or legal or economic reason? Suppose the do it to humor their parents or other relatives? Suppose they do it to be conventional and avoid flack from the majority that surrounds them?
> _*It's simply none of my business. *_I am not so wise or smart that I should sit in judgement. Further, as their actions do not affect me, and the status of any relationship I may have with a partner, I have no logical right to
> interfere, either to encourage, discourage, forbid or reward others for the way they may wish to commit to their own partnerships.



Bravo Cuchu!
I fully agree! This is the reason why I have not posted in that thread. I just came in to support you (just in case you might feel a bit lonely...  )


----------



## lsp

kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> marriage is a religious things. It's first origins are in the bible. It's a ceremony between two people of different sexes, before God, declaring their love for eachother and saying they will be with each TIL DEATH PARTS THEM.
> 
> Thats why so many marriages are done in churches. God condems homosexuality, He says it's wrong in the Bible. Therefore a homosexual wedding is wrong.


You presume everyone believe in God? And the Bible? And a single interpretation of it?


----------



## cuchuflete

Please do not take my comments in a personal way. I respect your viewpoint. I do not share it. I believe there is room enough on the planet for more than one way to perceive things. 





			
				kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> marriage is a religious things. For some, but not all people. It's first origins are in the bible. Whose bible is this? The Koran? What of those billions of inhabitants of this planet who have never heard of this 'bible' thing? Are they not allowed to marry? and what of those who don't believe what it says? and those who don't care about it? It's a ceremony between two people of different sexes, before God, declaring their love for eachother and saying they will be with each TIL DEATH PARTS THEM. That's fine for those who agree with your basic premises.
> 
> Thats why so many marriages are done in churches. And what about those that are done elsewhere? Don't they count? God condems homosexuality, He says it's wrong in the Bible. I've heard that it was written by lots of different men, in different times and places. Then it was translated, many times. We know that translations often make subtle or major changes to texts and their meanings. Therefore a homosexual wedding is wrong. Within your own viewpoint, and based on the assumptions you believe in, it is wrong. There are other viewpoints and assumptions.



Your right to hold these beliefs and to act in accord with them is, in my own view, a wonderful thing. Were you to try to impose them on those who have other beliefs, that would be, in my own view, tragic. 

"saying they will be with each TIL DEATH PARTS THEM" I've heard that said at many weddings. Millions of people who have vowed to honor such committments get divorced every year. Should divorce be made illegal? It seems to be out of accord with your basic principles.


----------



## Artrella

Lancel0t said:
			
		

> Since the discussion is getting bigger and better and we already tucked some aspects that are affecting the said issue, I would like to raise these questions to widen our discussion further so that we could come up with a good conclusion (if it is possible):
> 
> 1. When and Where marriage originates?
> 2. What is the main purpose of marriage?
> 3. Does marriage between the same sex will fulfill the original purpose of marriage? Why?




If we take into account Christian marriage, the main purpose of it is procreation, and of course this is impossible between people of the same sex.

Simple... so if you want to follow Christian marriage, we can say that "gay couples" are not Christian.  Just a silogism.  

I am not as simple as this silogism.  But I respect religions and people who respect religion.


----------



## kathy_wylie

no no, if you are a christian and think you are gay (or know) then you are still a christian. you can be both a christian and gay. It's just, homosexuality in the eyes of christianity is wrong.

Just to clear that up!!!!!!!!

P.S. what I have originally said is what I believe, my beliefs. I don't expect everyone to agree with them.


----------



## Leopold

kodansha said:
			
		

> I have got nothing against gays, but I do disagree about them adopting children, you can't compare between a single mother (like somebody, can't remember her name, has put in a message before) bringing up her kid, then a couple of gays. It's not the same finding you mother and father in bed together than two guys or girls. The child might take this attitude as normal and thinks that doing the same is normal. Well I don't believe that it is very normal.
> 
> That is my opinion.



So what's the comparison here? A single mother and a gay couple? A hetero couple and a gay couple?? A natural child and an adopted child?

It's not quite clear. And there are no evidences that gay couples bring up gay children. 

Anyway, think that any homosexual can adopt children, at least here. But just if they do it individually. That's legal, no one cares for you sexual orientation if you're alone. So, a gay can adopt and then have lots of different couples, or just one. 
What I mean is, children are being already adopted by "single" gays. 
So preventing gay couples from adopting children is kind of stupid. It's just nagging. I would rather worry about hetero couples where killers and alcoholics or unhappy children are brought up.



			
				Silvia said:
			
		

> To me the issue about homosexual marriage is not different from polygamy. If you're pro the former, you must be pro the latter, that's pure logic.



Still waiting for a rational explanation of this, S. As many others, it seems.

Regards,
Leo


----------



## Artrella

Leopold said:
			
		

> It's just nagging. I would rather worry about hetero couples where killers and alcoholics or unhappy children are brought up.
> Leo



Yes, Leo you are right.  You can see here in my country lots of kids, asking for money in the streets, barefoot, with running noses, some of them smoking, drinking, and even smelling glue.  Some of them are prostitutes, they are raped, they are used and then disposed of.
If you think about this for a while... I agree in that adoption, I have my doubts, of course out of ignorance.  But those kids would be in a cozy home, with food and what is most important of all they will be LOVED!!!


----------



## Everness

kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> no no, if you are a christian and think you are gay (or know) then you are still a christian. you can be both a christian and gay. It's just, homosexuality in the eyes of christianity is wrong.
> 
> Just to clear that up!!!!!!!!
> 
> P.S. what I have originally said is what I believe, my beliefs. I don't expect everyone to agree with them.



Question: if in the eyes of Christianity homosexuality is wrong, how can you say that someone can be a Christian and gay? You can't have your cake and eat it! 

I know that some people separate being homosexual (ok) from living out your homosexuality (not ok). I personally have problems with that distinction. It's purely theoretical. There are churches that accept you if you are gay (for instance, the United Church of Christ in the US) and other ones that will make sure that you know you aren't welcome yet in a subtle way because no one wants to be sued.


----------



## Becky85

kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> marriage is a religious things. It's first origins are in the bible. It's a ceremony between two people of different sexes, before God, declaring their love for eachother and saying they will be with each TIL DEATH PARTS THEM.
> 
> Thats why so many marriages are done in churches. God condems homosexuality, He says it's wrong in the Bible. Therefore a homosexual wedding is wrong.



What about weddings between people who have had sex before marriage? The bible condemns this, so are their weddings wrong too?


----------



## Everness

kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> P.S. what I have originally said is what I believe, my beliefs. I don't expect everyone to agree with them.



It's unfortunate that you have to include this disclaimer. Some people complain about conservatives being intolerant. In my experience, the worst offenders are the open-minded liberals! 

Here's a link I think you'll like and that might give you some extra ammunition in arguing your case. 

http://learnv.ycdsb.edu.on.ca/lt/FMMC/hpteacher.nsf/Files/mcmanad/$FILE/same_sexpakaluk.html


----------



## Phryne

Why are we mixing marriage with the Christian religion? Marriage exists before Christianity and exists outside Christianity--any culture in the world celebrates some sort of marriage ceremony! Also, homosexuals are fighting for legal marriage; so far I have never heard of them being interested in getting married in Church. What's the big fuzz if they want to be legally together, considering they are together anyway!

Further to that, most of us, at least, live in countries with a secular state, so why the biblical references? Why keep imposing religious ideas that not all of us share? I might be burnt in hell in the eyes of some Christians, I don’t care, but it’s time to allow people to be spiritually free and let them choose their own destinies.


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> Further to that, most of us, at least, live in countries with a secular state, so why the biblical references? Why keep imposing religious ideas that not all of us share? I might be burnt in hell in the eyes of some Christians, I don’t care, but it’s time to allow people to be spiritually free and let them choose their own destinies.



What is a secular state? Are you saying that Christianity hasn't had or continues to have an influence on Western civilization? Are you arguing that some of our mores aren't based (maybe loosely) in Christian values? Why is it ok to have values that aren't rooted in the Bible inform the lives of people who live in a "secular" society but it's not acceptable to have values based on the Bible do the same? Are the non-biblical values better than the biblical values? Shouldn't we examine all values --religious or not-- and adopt the ones that make more sense. I still believe that the 10 Commandments --a religious document-- are valuable to inform the way people relate to each other. If you think otherwise, let citizens of any Western country have a discussion about it. By the way, God didn't intend that the 10 Commandments be exclusively for Jews or Christians. They are for all humankind.


----------



## Becky85

Everness said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I don't see your logic. You are talking about biblical characters who lived in different times and therefore reflected different *mores*. It's true that there are biblical verses that would support your assertion that the early church condemned the practice of homosexuality. However, those verses should be understood in the context of all biblical teachings on sexuality. Jesus has strong statements about sexuality that are very difficult to interpret. Moreover, we tend to emphasize sexual shortcoming over other ones. Some of us seem to believe that all sins are sinful but sexual sins are more sinful.





			
				Everness said:
			
		

> What is a secular state? Are you saying that Christianity hasn't had or continues to have an influence on Western civilization? Are you arguing that some of our *mores* aren't based (maybe loosely) in Christian values? Why is it ok to have values that aren't rooted in the Bible inform the lives of people who live in a "secular" society but it's not acceptable to have values based on the Bible do the same? Are the non-biblical values better than the biblical values? Shouldn't we examine all values --religious or not-- and adopt the ones that make more sense. I still believe that the 10 Commandments --a religious document-- are valuable to inform the way people relate to each other. If you think otherwise, let citizens of any Western country have a discussion about it. By the way, God didn't intend that the 10 Commandments be exclusively for Jews or Christians. They are for all humankind.


Do you mean *morals*?


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> By the way, God didn't intend that the 10 Commandments be exclusively for Jews or Christians. They are for all humankind.


Written as if the writer had heard this from god herself!
I wonder how arrogant this might sound to someone from an older religion than those cited, perhaps one with an entirely distinct notion of "god".


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> What is a secular state? Are you saying that Christianity hasn't had or continues to have an influence on Western civilization? Are you arguing that some of our mores aren't based (maybe loosely) in Christian values?




You are quite right to make me notice that Christianity is rooted to the bone (a rotten bone, btw). But I'm not a Christian, and it annoys me that *today* the Church has such a terrible influence on our everyday lives, mores, and decisions. Don't forget that I come from Argentina, where we were able to divorce only since the 80s, and a year ago a raped 14 year old was forced to give birth to her father's son, after she begged for mercy and psychologists recommended an surgical procedure for the mother's health. All these decisions were made by the State, but guess what, it is the Christians and the Church who fight constantly against these two.






> Why is it ok to have values that aren't rooted in the Bible inform the lives of people who live in a "secular" society but it's not acceptable to have values based on the Bible do the same?Are the non-biblical values better than the biblical values? Shouldn't we examine all values --religious or not-- and adopt the ones that make more sense.


 .

All of us should question all values and as a matter of fact I do. I criticize the government quite often, you'll see. But I guess the problem here is that religion is not followed by everybody. Not all of us believe in it and for that reason we should not all be affected by their standards. Also, you're mentioning values that make sense, well, a lot of Christian values don't make sense to me or many others. 





> I still believe that the 10 Commandments --a religious document-- are valuable to inform the way people relate to each other. If you think otherwise, let citizens of any Western country have a discussion about it.




I don't believe in the ten commandments. I will not kill, steal or do other things just because I think they're not right. Also, those values are universal not Christian. 






> By the way, God didn't intend that the 10 Commandments be exclusively for Jews or Christians. They are for all humankind.


 
I'm sorry, I'm an atheist. To me there's not such a thing as God or god, or gods. And if Christianity thought of the 10 commandments to be observed by everybody, it seems to me as an example of the evangelizing crusade that Christianity has always encouraged.


----------



## Artrella

I think that many non convenient things are banned on behalf of Religion.  
I am not tied to any religion, I believe in God, but God doesn't say to me, that he is against gay marriage.  I respect people who are religious, I feel that Religion is something of the past.  There is not pure religion now, just the Church, which is not religious but power and business biased, well in fact I think Church has been created to submit people, to make them afraid of everything and to say to them "look do it, suffer, because if not you are not going to go to Heaven when you die".    My opinion.  That's why I'm not baptized, nor have I had my communion, and I never go to Church.  I tell my kids if you want to go to Church or learn about Christianity I will support you, it's your decision.


----------



## Everness

Becky85 said:
			
		

> Do you mean *morals*?



Definition
mores   [Show phonetics]
plural noun FORMAL
the traditional customs and ways of behaving that are typical of a particular (part of) society:
middle-class mores
the mores and culture of the Japanese

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=51915&dict=CALD


----------



## Fernando

Sorry, I have not read the complete thread and maybe I have lost something, but I am a bit confused.

I am a Christian but I don't think that the major problem for same-sex marriage is religion. 

Let's take only the civil marriage. We had the man-woman marriage. This institution is quite clear. Civil 'marriages' were held much before Christ or Kung Fu Tse. Civil codes in the 19th centuries took this contract, very influenced by religious marriage.

A marriage: Two guys say in front of a community they intend to stay together for ever (this is their intention, many times (50%) things go worse). As a consequence, the State (and the society) gives them rights and obligations: they share their goods, they have the obligation to care their children, they have fiscal deductions,... Society gives them these rights and obligations mostly because of their capacity of having children and founding a family, given a society formed by families is better than a society when children go without a mother and a father.

Now we have the gay marriage. Two gays in front ...etc. To me the problem is: why the society should grant them more rights than, let us say, 34 people that, in front of the community,...? What the society takes from a gay marriage?

Most of the problems that the gay marriage tries to solve (for example, inheritance) would be solved by a civil union. If gays are more taxed when inherits from their couple is the same than when a soul friend inherits from another.


----------



## Fernando

Everness said:
			
		

> Definition
> mores   [Show phonetics]
> plural noun FORMAL
> the traditional customs and ways of behaving that are typical of a particular (part of) society:
> middle-class mores
> the mores and culture of the Japanese



O tempora, o mores

Quite proper for this thread.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day mates

A number of people have questioned the constant biblical and religious references and appear to be wondering what have those two concepts to do with gay marriages.  There also appear to be questions of the self contradictory statements contained within that tome.

The only reason that religion is cited is that it is only the god botherers who want to ban homosexuality.

I was as happy as larry to look around at gay blokes when I was young and considered that every gay bloke left one extra girl for those of us interested.  Yeah I know that I forgot about the gay girls balancing the gay boys.  

The point is that I don't feel threatened at all by the sexuality of anybody other than my partner of which I have only one and we seem to fit each other quite comfortably.

I am scared of big 4x4s full of small egos
I am scared of guns with loose nuts behind the trigger
I am scared of politicians with kangaroos loose in the top paddock

These things can kill me stone dead so I want them controlled

A couple of blokes or birds mixing it up in whatever combination of plumbing moves they choose holds absolutely no interest for me because they can't hurt me and from a survival viewpoint can be safely left alone to their own devices.

As to all this abberant nonsense relating to the bible telling me or you what to do or how to live.  The bible or the quran or the uppercumbuctawest collection of spirit guides probably contain some pretty good ideas but in the case of religious books were written thousands of years ago.

I am terrified of small minded zealots who KNOW what is right and want to scream at me what is UTTERLY WRONG about my life and the way I live.

There is only one rule to follow and there is no possibility of confusion if you simply follow the Golden Rule.  I read it in a book somewhere 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

If you can look in your hearts and see that you really do know the answer and are really sure that homosexual marriages should be banned you have my deep and unabiding pity.

Robert


----------



## Fernando

Thanks for your pity. I would prefer your respect, but well, pity is OK.



			
				Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day mates
> 
> I was as happy as larry to look around at gay blokes when I was young and considered that every gay bloke left one extra girl for those of us interested.  Yeah I know that I forgot about the gay girls balancing the gay boys.
> Robert



Given that, consistently in History Gays = Lesbian * 2 (to say the least) I would be glad the gays number grows. Let us have Spain. 20 million - 1 (me) gays / 2 = 9,999,999 lesbians, what results in 10,000,001 women with one bitter option: Me or Me. Marvelous!


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Written as if the writer had heard this from god herself!
> I wonder how arrogant this might sound to someone from an older religion than those cited, perhaps one with an entirely distinct notion of "god".



What if I told you that God spoke to me and told me that the 10 Commandments are for everyone and everybody? Why would I care about how you or other people react to my statement? I believe in God the way I choose to believe and make the statements I choose to make. I'm not in the business of political or theological correctness. I don't police myself on this topic either. If someone doesn't like it, it's not my problem. I respectfully share my opinions or convictions and expect the same treatment. That's all. We are not here to change our theological or ideological assumptions. It's clear that people follow different books or no books at all. I can live with that.


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> You are quite right to make me notice that Christianity is rooted to the bone (a rotten bone, btw). But I'm not a Christian, and it annoys me that *today* the Church has such a terrible influence on our everyday lives, mores, and decisions. Don't forget that I come from Argentina, where we were able to divorce only since the 80s, and a year ago a raped 14 year old was forced to give birth to her father's son, after she begged for mercy and psychologists recommended an surgical procedure for the mother's health. All these decisions were made by the State, but guess what, it is the Christians and the Church who fight constantly against these two.



I respect your opinion. However, I have to point out a couple of things. First, you are equating Christianity with a particular group: the Catholic Church. I'm not here to pass judgment on the Catholic church in Argentina. It's clear that your experience wasn't positive. But again, there are other Christian churches in Argentina that might have other takes on issues of divorce and rights of victims of rapes. Wouldn't you agree? Second, I know that Christianity can be easily picked as a scapegoat for all the bad things that happen to our society or for all the good things that don't happen. It's a fact. There might be some truth to it but I'm sure that there are other culprits!


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> I respect your opinion. However, I have to point out a couple of things. First, you are equating Christianity with a particular group: the Catholic Church. I'm not here to pass judgment on the Catholic Church in Argentina. It's clear that your experience wasn't positive. But again, there are other Christian churches in Argentina that might have other takes on issues of divorce and rights of victims of rapes. Wouldn't you agree?


 
Yes, I very much agree (Artrella expressed it quite right) but historically both existed hand in hand.



> Second, I know that Christianity can be easily picked as a scapegoat for all the bad things that happen to our society or for all the good things that don't happen. *It's a fact*. There might be some truth to it but I'm sure that there are other culprits!




Well I think that's quite an exaggeration considering the amount of power that Christians had in all times. Ask the American Indians about Christianity; that's no scapegoat.



I don't want to pick on Christianity, I just want Christianity to leave people's private affairs alone. This thread for instance began discussing about gay marriage and a few people quoted the Bible or gave other religion arguments to be against. So, I would say that it is Christianity what puts its nose on things and not the other way around. Some people's arguments are "the Bible says... " I don't know if I'm being clear ....



saludos


----------



## LV4-26

Phryne said:
			
		

> I don't believe in the ten commandments. I will not kill, steal or do other things just because I think they're not right. Also, *those values* *are universal not Christian*.


Well, I'm willing to have that proved to me. Isn't this some kind of faith, of religious belief ? Isn't that a bit religious for an atheist ?
I may agree that they're universal *now*, but they've not always been. (And even now...think of how many countries or states are still enforcing the death penalty ?)
Are you sure Christianism has played no role whatsoever in making those values universal ?


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day again

Anyone using the bible or similar as a reference must remember that the documants were originally written by men so long ago that the blokes what wrote it were so iggorant that they didn't know to wash their hands after they wiped their bum.

I prefer observation and analysis rather than rooted superstition.  One test of sanity is to ask the subject if they believe that they can converse with others over vast distances or do they hear voices in their head or do they receive instructions to do things from a supernatural source.

Robert


----------



## Silvia

Hi tia (that's your signature, but I'm not sure it's your name )


			
				lsp said:
			
		

> Answers: In the event that Catholics (or any religious group), find itself outnumbered by people who are governed by different religious beliefs, then Catholics (or any other religious group) would not want that religion to have legal rights to impose its ethics on civil law. We, the people, should establish a clear separation of church and state. Please tell me if this my meaning is still unclear to you.


 No, now it's clearer. You mean that the minority wouldn't accept the values held by the majority. I guess it's not a matter of numbers, it's a personal choice. Historically, people have always loved to make up new religions, even these days sects grow year after year, that means they don't care about being a minority, though they might aim to be the ones (one and only).



			
				lsp said:
			
		

> Your statement comes from the blue. I have no idea what would make you write it at all, much less in response to my post. Feel free to explain it or not, but without additional comment (and maybe with it) it is utter nonsense to me.


 No, it doesn't. It was not in response to your post, it was a different paragraph. I took a comment by benjy, which gave me the idea of a term of comparison.

Think about it. Let (Christian) religion aside. Why are you against polygamy? List your reasons. If you are pro it, then you should be pro gay marriages. If you're against it, then you should be against gay marriages. The way of reasoning should work for both.


----------



## Phryne

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Well, I'm willing to have that proved to me. Isn't this some kind of faith, of religious belief ? Isn't that a bit religious for an atheist ?
> I may agree that they're universal *now*, but they've not always been. (And even now...think of how many countries or states are still enforcing the death penalty ?)
> Are you sure Christianism has played no role whatsoever in making those values universal ?


 
I took this idea from philosophy. It seems to be just a part of human nature. Also, as an eternal student of anthropology, I can tell you that all cultures have and had a concept of "right" and "wrong" and consider "wrong" to "steal", "murder", etc. I'm including cultures that have never been in contact with Christianity, or a stage before encountering the Western world.



The death penalty is a different issue. Although to me is murder, if in their minds it's not, then they are not violating any ethical thought. Think about very "religious" Dubya and Texas.


----------



## Benjy

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day forum
> 
> Perhaps a narrow minded gay person might respond
> 
> 
> No one knows the answers for sure until after they shuffle off the coil.
> 
> Robert



many of them don't. marriage (at least in western society) seems to have lost the religious connotations...

this is the thing i don't understand: from a totally neutral point of view, why does anyone care? if people want to shack up together go for it :s if the want to draw up some kind of leagal document as to the sharing of their goods i'm sure they can. so much fuss over so little it seeems to me.

as for militant christians arrogance etc etc.. having spent a while presenting what i think about stuff to other people and listening to other peoples points of veiws i have come to the conclusion that there are two types of people and i only really have time for one of these groups.

1) the i'm right and you're wrong group
2) the people who believe that happiness stems from what they believe and thus are motivated by love to share it with others.

some might say both amount to the same thing, i think its fundementally different 

at the end of the day i think it would be sad to see an interesting discussion like this one finish up in one of those bitter religious arguments where everyone goes away thinking that the other is ignorant. it always seems to end that way =[


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Benjy

Is that because any argument shored up by religion and beliefs is beyond analysis and as soon as a logical response is placed to an illogical religious fundamental their argument disappears up their fundament.

I would suggest that religion is a very dangerous basis for logical discussion.  So many religions are so different so some of them must be wrong.

Robert


----------



## LV4-26

Benjy said:
			
		

> 1) the i'm right and you're wrong group
> 2) the people who believe that happiness stems from what they believe and thus are motivated by loved to share it with others.


I feel that something is missing there. I don't think I fit in either category.
You said it : it's an interesting discussion. So I think "curiosity" should be there somewhere in one of your categories. Otherwise, I would add a third one :
3) the people who aren't really sure they are right but think they see the matter from an angle which the others *may* have missed and are interested in just "trying their angle" on others.


----------



## Benjy

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Benjy
> 
> Is that because any argument shored up by religion and beliefs is beyond analysis and as soon as a logical response is placed to an illogical religious fundamental their argument disappears up their fundament.
> 
> Robert



i would disagree. but you can believe that if you choose. a freedom we all have


----------



## timpeac

Wow what an interesting thread I've managed to miss up to this point! Here are some of my thoughts (not necessarily new given the volumes above! but mine nonetheless).

Nurture or nature - what difference does it make, either way it's not a choice, and even less a "lifestyle choice" as you hear from time to time.

Gay marriage - I don't think that gay people necessarily want to ape heterosexuals (although some might). I think it's inate in many people to want to commit publicly to the one they love. On top of this, there are many tax benefits which up til recently (until partnership bills, pacs etc) were only the preserve of married (and therefore heterosexual couples).

Why should gays be able to "marry" and therefore get these tax benefit whilst old spinster sisters can't? Fair question, but why should straight couples? Why should this evident injustice be extended to gay couples? Better, surely, to extend the law to any loving relationship, even non-sexual, rather than simply deny gay couples.

The bible contains lots of advice that most chose to ignore, such as dietry advice. Why pick on the homosexual references only?

Gay people don't want equality (after all it's not just gay people who aren't allowed to marry the same sex, it's everyone!) they want fairness. If straight people are allowed to declare publicly their love (and get tax benefits) why shouldn't everyone? After all straight people wouldn't want to marry someone of the same sex any way, so the fact that they can't is pretty much irrelevant to them.

Just a few thought above, I'm sure I'll think of more.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Benjy

Is that the same freedom of gays to marry?

Robert


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day timpeac
Was Mr. Zimmerman referring to the bible when he eloquently sang


> A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.



Robert


----------



## timpeac

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day timpeac
> Was Mr. Zimmerman referring to the bible when he eloquently sang
> 
> 
> Robert


 
G'day Rob, or rather G'night as it very much is here now!!

I don't know, perhaps. I must say I have always loved the lyrics of that song. Is there any particular reason you ask this to me? I hope you don't think I've been reading past other peoples opinions?


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day timpeac

You alluded to a graphic tendency of certain folk who decide to use part of the bible and ignore the rest.  Simply comparing your opinion to the art of the Man Along The Watchtower.  Compliments are very difficult to deliver in this forum with an incredible amount of paranoia swirling.

I thought that I saw a little peek inside your mind and I liked what I saw.

Mellow man

Robert


----------



## Benjy

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Benjy
> 
> Is that the same freedom of gays to marry?
> 
> Robert



*sigh*

i guess you must have missed my first post on the subject  i believe all men are free to choose. its the most fundemental freedom we have and we should seek to exercise it and profit thereby. if gay people want to marry its their affair and who am i to say they cannot. i cannot say as a christian that from my point of view that i think that it is right. but thats me.


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> Well I think that's quite an exaggeration considering the amount of power that Christians had in all times. Ask the American Indians about Christianity; that's no scapegoat.
> 
> 
> saludos



This is exactly the type of scapegoating I was talking about. Christianity, not people who professed to be Christians, is responsible for the destruction of a culture and a people.


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> I don't want to pick on Christianity, I just want Christianity to leave people's private affairs alone. This thread for instance began discussing about gay marriage and a few people quoted the Bible or gave other religion arguments to be against. So, I would say that it is Christianity what puts its nose on things and not the other way around. Some people's arguments are "the Bible says... " I don't know if I'm being clear ....
> 
> 
> 
> saludos



So what do you people in this forum to do? To share their opinions without making reference to their Christian values or to the Bible? Is this the type of dialogue you'd like us to have? So atheists can state their positions and quote scientists or philosophers but participants who are Christians can't do the same?


----------



## Everness

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day again
> 
> Anyone using the bible or similar as a reference must remember that the documants were originally written by men so long ago that the blokes what wrote it were so iggorant that they didn't know to wash their hands after they wiped their bum.
> 
> I prefer observation and analysis rather than rooted superstition.  One test of sanity is to ask the subject if they believe that they can converse with others over vast distances or do they hear voices in their head or do they receive instructions to do things from a supernatural source.
> 
> Robert



See Robert, this is the great thing about not being religious. You can display a perfect mixture of intolerance and bad taste and get away with it. If a religious member of this forum would have said something like this, he/she would have already been torched alive.


----------



## lsp

kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> no no, if you are a christian and think you are gay (or know) then you are still a christian. you can be both a christian and gay. It's just, homosexuality in the eyes of christianity is wrong.
> 
> Just to clear that up!!!!!!!!
> 
> P.S. what I have originally said is what I believe, my beliefs. I don't expect everyone to agree with them.


But should your personal beliefs be my law?



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> If we take into account Christian marriage, the main purpose of it is procreation, and of course this is impossible between people of the same sex.
> 
> Simple... so if you want to follow Christian marriage, we can say that "gay couples" are not Christian.  Just a silogism.
> 
> I am not as simple as this silogism.  But I respect religions and people who respect religion.


What about a barren woman who can't procreate, would she not be Christian when married?



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> ... Are the non-biblical values better than the biblical values? 1 Shouldn't we examine all values --religious or not-- and adopt the ones that make more sense. 2 I still believe that the 10 Commandments --a religious document-- are valuable to inform the way people relate to each other. If you think otherwise, let citizens of any Western country have a discussion about it. By the way, God didn't intend that the 10 Commandments be exclusively for Jews or Christians. They are for all humankind. 3


1.Yes, in that it is only fair to apply them to people of other faiths who live in your same country.
2. Make sense to whom? If this could be decided by all people, gays would be allowed to marry, at least in civil ceremonies, as that is the only solution that would make sense to gays.
3. And what do you think we should do with people who don't believe in God at all?



			
				Silvia said:
			
		

> Think about it. Let (Christian) religion aside. Why are you against polygamy? List your reasons. If you are pro it, then you should be pro gay marriages. If you're against it, then you should be against gay marriages. The way of reasoning should work for both.


That is ridiculous. But again I am no closer to understanding, you merely restated the exact same thing without further explanation.


----------



## Benjy

just so we keep on track i started another thread about logic and religions  
have fun


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm glad that people in this conversation have the right to disagree with me.  I'm glad for them, but not for me, that some choose to ignore my points of disagreement.  I love a good argument without personal recriminations.  I hold out the hope that they will teach me something, show me something I hadn't thought about before, and should think about.

I especially liked Benjy's last post about the open and shut minds, and the nice addition from LV4-26.    

As to the original topic, I continue to believe that it should not be up to me to tell anyone else anything about their marital status, neither encourage nor restrict others from living their lives in the company they choose.  

Those who hold sincere beliefs, whether founded in religion, philosphy, or as a result of personal thoughts and feelings, should be able to apply those beliefs to their very own marital choices, while not imposing them on those who hold different beliefs.


----------



## Everness

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Benjy
> 
> Is that because any argument shored up by religion and beliefs is beyond analysis and as soon as a logical response is placed to an illogical religious fundamental their argument disappears up their fundament.
> 
> I would suggest that religion is a very dangerous basis for logical discussion.  So many religions are so different so some of them must be wrong.
> 
> Robert



This is getting interesting. So according to you, we should refrain from drawing upon our belief systems when discussing gay marriage. Now, if we leave out our beliefs systems (religious beliefs or ideologies), what could we utilize that won't hurt your anti-religious prejudices? So far I've heard Robert's opinions conveyed in a cute Australian accent. You appear to suspend any judgment on this topic and you think that people who aren't gay should leave gay people alone, and not tell them what to do or not to do. But that's your opinion. You might think that it's better than mine or someone's else. And you have the right to think that way. But unfortunately it's just that: an opinion. 

Someone started a thread on the issue of gay marriage and people are responding. If religious statements are going to piss you off, I'd suggest that religious people, out of love (agape) stop posting their ideas. By the way, I have non-religious friends who puke when we discuss gay marriage. Moraleja? You don't need to be religious to be intolerant!


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> See Robert, this is the great thing about not being religious. You can display a perfect mixture of intolerance and bad taste and get away with it. If a religious member of this forum would have said something like this, he/she would have already been torched alive.



Nice to find a few points on which we can agree Everness. Whether it's bad taste is subjective. That it displays gross intolerance ...well I suppose reading it is enough to see that:



> ...originally written by men so long ago that the blokes what wrote it were so* iggorant* that they didn't know to wash their hands after they wiped their bum.  That's a fairly sharp remark, from an advocate of "observation and analysis". Many of the writers were members of a religion that put a lot of effort into codifying and teaching rules of hygiene.
> I suppose if it's old, we should ignore it. Let's go out and burn Shakepeare's work, along with anything by Camoens and Cervantes...just too damned old to be trusted...
> 
> I prefer observation and analysis rather than rooted superstition. One test of sanity is to ask the subject if they believe that they can converse with others over vast distances or do they hear voices in their head or do they receive instructions to do things from a supernatural source. So shall we now assume that any person who meditates, or does not believe that humanoids are the beginning and end of intelligence and wisdom is a nut case?



Thanks for reading my iggorant thoughts.  And thanks for the well-placed typo...it was the only bit of charm in the post.


----------



## Robert Bennie

Hello forum

I will refrain from the spoken word form of written communication in order to ensure clarity.

How did I exhibit intollerance
I plead guilty to bad taste but who was hurt.  How prissy does a person have to be?  Do we all have to use the same voice?  
I referred to the almost certain fact that at the time of the writing of The Bible or any other significant religious book we as a people knew far less than we do now.  For example, we, as a people, did not know of the existance of germs hence personal hygiene practices of the day were somewhat ignorant.
I poked fun at myself and misspelled ignorant while mangling grammer and syntax allowing myself to be obviously viewed as obviously possessing less than perfect knowledge.
I have been told that I am able to say what I say because I am not religious.  How can that be said of me.
I am a practising Roman Catholic.  I have been Christened and Baptised and Confirmed and take the Blessed Eucharist with Joy and Jesus in my heart.  My wife and daughter have been Christened and Baptised and Confirmed and take the Blessed Eucharist.  I suspect that they also feel Joy and Jesus when they take the Blessed Eucharist to their heart but I'm not sure.  I do not ask them.  They seem happy and that is good enough for me.  My religious beliefs are my religious and my wife has her religious beliefs.  Between us we have instilled our daughter with religious beliefs so now my daughter has her religious beliefs.
They work for us and we are live well by following The Bible but not slavishly or blindly or just because we are told we have to do so.  I find certain parts of The Bible relevent and other parts so clouded and convoluted that I have no idea of the intent of the writer from so many years ago and through so many cultural and linguistic translations.
The positive logical parts of The Bible make a wonderful template for life and for people who are confused The Bible can bring solace and warmth and companionship and glory but I can't find the part that helps me to think logically or analytically.
The Bible teaches me to be kind and accepting and help the meek and feed the poor and stand up to the bullies.  The Bible says nothing to me about turning any other cheek.  The Bible tells me to stand up for my belief with my life.  I live my life as I live it not just because of The Bible.  The Bible helped but so did watching my mum and my dad as they lived their lives.  The Bible taught me but so did watching my sister and brother friend mother and lover.  I liked most of the things I saw and adopted them while rejecting those that I didn't understand from The Bible and from my family.  I don't understand what is the point of drinking alcohol so I don't.  I keep alcohol for my family and friends enjoy my ginger beer with them and everybody is happy.  The Bible told me so.
When I was being taught Science by Brother Bernard at Patrician Brothers Blacktown I asked why the grass was green and was told that it was because Jesus wanted it to be green.  My Christian examiners at numerous exams would have been confused if I had repeated that response and I suspect that they would have given me less than full marks.  I don't know as I didn't try it.
My point is that I have viewed numerous threads confused by the entry of religion because religion becomes the focus of the discussion and the religious person feels slighted and under siege and responds and the circle eats itself.
A logical discussion should be a logical discussion and I have never reverted to The Bible when I have been losing an argument.
I have honourably lost many arguments and I enjoy that more than winning an argument because I never learn anything by being right.
It is not fair to introduce The Bible or religion and then get huffy if the resopnse to The Bible or your religion is fulsome.
I discuss and speak with friends who receive Joy and Allah with their version of Communion and contact with their God.  I don't ask.. I know of their beliefs and they know of mine and they are remarkably similar.  I would not presume to interfere in the religious beliefs of another just in case they are right and I am wrong.  All I can do is live well and trust that this will be recognised when we are all called to account by whichever God is the right one and whatever Book is the right one.

This was a logical and fair question before someone's karma ran over the other's dogma.

Robert


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day cuchuflete

Come in spinner.

A bait is only effective after the fish takes it. The iggorant is obvious. On my keyboard the 'n' and the 'g' are operated by different fingers.

Does anybody understand irony?

Robert


----------



## mzsweeett

While I may disagree with or agree with whatever points have come into play in this discussion...one thing is clear.....Robert Bennie.....whew, can you write!! 
I admire the way you write, it's from your convictions. Not many people can give an opinion in that fashion. Many cloud and become "foufy", as in trying to agree with everyone or; they become belligerant and "huffy". Personally I can see virtue and value in a lot of what was said here...by _*EVERYONE*_!!!! I have learned alot from the suppositons given from so many places. I give respect and thanks to all who have written and contributed herein. I wish so many others were as free and able to voice themselves. No one really _needs_ to agree or disagree with _anyone_ here, we are all here to state what we feel and think and to share it with others, in hopes that they will appreciate and learn...not to only agree. That is the purpose of the forum is it not?? To learn through questioning and answering.
It does seem that this thread needs a very much deserved rest. Take heart in that you all have been able to view and think over what others in this world are thinking. In what other time can you think of were we as people spread so far apart able to do such things??
Yes Robert, I do like your dry irony.  I have some wet that needs ironying too. LOL  
That being said....
Love and happiness do I wish for you all..........G'Nite

Sweet T.


----------



## te gato

I am a Catholic..My GAY Uncle is Catholic....

I shake my head at the attitudes..it is not THEM against US...come on!..And marrage is not only a Catholic rite...if that were the case then it would only be Catholics getting married..and why? are we better than anyone else?...Not likely!!! We are human like anyone else...we all deserve to have the same benefits...the same rights..
As for gays being able to adopt children..have children..More power to them!...just because they are gay does not mean that the children are going to become gay...
A two parent non gay couple can mess up a child just like anyone else..
Just like a Catholic can attend mass and then go home and beat his wife..or kids...
Just because you say you are a Catholic does not make you above everyone else..

I am done!
te gato


----------



## timpeac

te gato said:
			
		

> As for gays being able to adopt children..have children..More power to them!...just because they are gay does not mean that the children are going to become gay...


 
What it matter if the children did?

Wow, I agree about Rob's writing ability. It's quite unusual for someone to be able to write so much yet remain clear (whether you agree with him or not).

I _think_ I see what Rob means. I would put it this way - religion is based on faith. Faith by definition requires acceptance without proof. We are all free to make that "leap of faith". However, it doesn't help to introduce it into a complicated and lengthy debate with other non-believers because the answer "it just is" will never satisfy the others.

To take Rob's example of the grass. He says it's green because Jesus made it that way. Someone else might say it is green because it contains clorophyll. Now if you ask the second person why they believe this they can answer "well in school we did experiments extracting the chlorophyll and showed the way it absorbs all light except green which it reflects". That is an argument to some extent (there is some sort of empirical evidence). However Rob would only be able to answer "because he did" or "because the bible says so" and obviously these answers would not be accepted by non-believers and therefore he forebears from giving those sort of arguments.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Fernando

te gato, you are right but that is not the point.

OF COURSE, you can be a Christian and a gay. To be Christian and a sinner is (unluckily) what all of we Christians are.

You can be a mass killer and to get married and but can't be a homosexual and to get married. Does this mean that Catholic Church (or civil society) think that to be a homosexual is worse than to be a mass killer. No, by God's sake.

About 'imposing' personal beliefs. Of course we have the right to impose personal beliefs WHEN dealing with things that have civil consequences. Personal beliefs we are imposing when talking about marriage:

1) We don't admit a boy of 14 to marry a girl of 12, even with their consent.
2) We don't admit a boy of 54 to marry two girls of 45 and 65, even with their consent.
3) We don't admit a boy of 54 to marry a girl of 34, even with their consent. The girl happens to be his daughter.
4) We don't admit a boy of 54 to marry their neighbourhood, even with their consent.
5) We don't admit a boy of 54 to marry a girl of 34, even with their consent. The girl happens to be an inmmigrant and did not know his husband before the marriage.
6) At least in Spain a marriage over 50 can not adopt a child. 
etc etc etc


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

As me old dar used to say, "Words are twisty blighters"

The amount of assumption being displayed has left me gobsmacked.

It would appear that it is possible that some have come to the assumption that I believed Brother Bernard's answer was complete but I found that the answer was intentionally incomplete so therefore a lie and I do not enjoy that particular insult from a teacher.
Grass contains chlorophyll to photosynthysise the narrow band of the ElectroMagnetic Spectrum between the wavelengths of I can't remember but most of it is visible light with some ultra violet and infra red thrown in to make it interesting for the little chemical thingees in the leaf.  Now the deal with that is all of the energy of the Electro Magnetic Spectrum around the area of that we see as visible light is absorbed by the chlorophyll except for that of the particular wavelength that we see and identify as green so all other colours are absorbed and feed the plant and the green light bounces off so that I see green grass.  This probably pleases Jesus and I'll have to ask him when I meet him but at the moment I don't know because the only bloke who told me that Jesus likes green grass is a liar.  Brother Bernard told me that Jesus liked green grass because Brother Bernard was ignorant and not only was he ignorant he was also conceited and tried to cover his lack of basic knowledge with bluster to an impressionable youth thirsting for knowledge.  
I did not give that particular answer because Brother Michael answered my question quietly and with simple logic.
The Bible is a wonderful experience but some answers are outside the cube.  We have to look and ask questions and wonder why and not listen to some bloke in a suit who says he knows everything.
Those people who say they know every thing really annoy people like me who actually do know everything.

Robert


----------



## Benjy

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> Those people who say they know every thing really annoy people like me who actually do know everything.



this is a joke right?


----------



## timpeac

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> This probably pleases Jesus and I'll have to ask him when I meet him but at the moment I don't know because the only bloke who told me that Jesus likes green grass is a liar.


 
Rob - OK I shouldn't have put that _you_ believed that answer. But that was not really my main point (although I can understand why you wanted to make clear what you personally believed). I think that the thrust of the argument is that religious person A will never convince non-religious person B in an argument if they need to invoke statements of blind faith, no matter how important that faith is to them personally.


----------



## Robert Bennie

Yeah g'day timpeac
Thanks mate.  I just had to clear the air on that one.  My reputation's at stake and I've got enough holes in me hat as it is.

If you dont swing the bat you'll never hit the ball

Robert


----------



## Silvia

Ok, lsp, let me rephrase my concept. I'm sorry I can't make myself understood, please consider I'm not writing in my native language.

If we let religion aside, or ethics or whatever and we only use our reason, you will find out that there is no reason to disqualify polygamy and not gay marriage or vice versa. 

I was just trying to prove that when you say yes to gay marriage you're not using your reason only, but also your values/ethics, that in this time and age you feel appropriate. Maybe in the future, polygamy will be common wherever, we cannot know about that. Of course this kind of changes need time...


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day timpeac
Thank you.  That is the point when dogma meets dogma the dogmas fight.

My serious fear is that my discussing something as fundamentally intrinsically utterly necessary to the emotional well being of so many is playing with fire on the thermonuclear level.

If even one person had their belief in their eternal salvation shattered by some smart little thing out to score a point I can't even finish the sentence

The utter arrogance and lack of empathy for a fellow human displayed by religious breakers staggers me to the core and although I am not a vengeful man I would wish the memories of that wrecker be replayed to them ad nauseum.

People believe things and it makes them feel good.  If I believe differently to you and you are happy with your beliefs you should leave me alone and if you don't feel happy with your beliefs you should leave me alone even more so that you don't break my god.

As this is so touchy a subject may I point out that the you that I referred to above is a theoretical you and does not resemble any real person living or dead.

My God is big and hairy and covered in bumps and can look after himself but I don't bring my God with me to arguments because when Gods fight we mere mortals are crushed.

Thanks for seeing my universe

Robert


----------



## Everness

lsp said:
			
		

> 1.Yes, in that it is only fair to apply them to people of other faiths who live in your same country. 1
> 2. Make sense to whom? If this could be decided by all people, gays would be allowed to marry, at least in civil ceremonies, as that is the only solution that would make sense to gays.22
> 3. And what do you think we should do with people who don't believe in God at all?


3

1. To the best of my knowledge there's no theocratic government in the Western hemisphere. The fact that the US has a born-again Christian as president doesn't make it a theocratic state. No one in the US is imposing religious values on other people. What we fail to understand is that through the processes of socialization or acculturation, Judeo-Christian values have become core values in US culture. You can't blame organized religion for that. Some of these values are clearly defined and others have been distorted. I think some of us believe that right-wing conservative senators from the Bible belt are out to get us and transform the US in a theocracy. Well, I love conspiracy theories too!

2. Gay couples should move to MA, the only state in the US where gay marriage is legal. Regardless of the push throughout the country to declare gay marriages unconstitutional, it's just a matter of time until gay couples in the 50 states will be able to become happily (or not) married. There's no legal basis to stop this development. 

3. If they live in the US, I'd recommend they study carefully some of the core values that inform US culture, come to the realization that they are directly or indirectly inspired by the Bible, and if they don't like it, well, they can always move to another country.    Again, we are not talking about a centralized religious body imposing Christian values on the rest of us. This is not happening. We are talking about Judeo-Christian values that have been adopted by the dominant culture and that are currently informing people's behavior.


----------



## timpeac

I wonder when there'll be the first gay divorce.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> 3
> 
> 3. If they live in the US, I'd recommend they study carefully some of the core values that inform US culture, come to the realization that they are directly or indirectly inspired by the Bible, and *if they don't like it, well, they can always move to another country*. Again, we are not talking about a centralized religious body imposing Christian values on the rest of us. This is not happening. We are talking about Judeo-Christian values that have been adopted by the dominant culture and that are currently informing people's behavior.



Hi Everness,

The words in bold remind me, sadly, of words I had thrown at me when I protested against what my government was doing in Southeast Asia in the late 1960s: America, love it or leave it!

There are alternatives to accepting things just the way they are.  As you pointed out, change is apt to occur.  That doesn't mean dumping core values.  It may mean changing the interpretation of those core values.  Majorities are not always right.  The country was founded by people who didn't get along with the majority in their own country of origin.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Everness,
> 
> The words in bold remind me, sadly, of words I had thrown at me when I protested against what my government was doing in Southeast Asia in the late 1960s: America, love it or leave it!
> 
> There are alternatives to accepting things just the way they are.  As you pointed out, change is apt to occur.  That doesn't mean dumping core values.  It may mean changing the interpretation of those core values.  Majorities are not always right.  The country was founded by people who didn't get along with the majority in their own country of origin.



I forgot a smiley! I already edited my post. By the way, I think that New Hampshire has the logo that best captures the American soul: "Live free or die." I'm not quite sure about this but I think that although most Americans fully respect gays' individual rights, they also oppose gay marriage. But the law is the law. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court isn't made up by ignorant or stupid or too liberal judges. To ban gay marriage has no legal foundation. Period. The consequences of this change are enormous and unpredictable for the institutions of marriage and the family. Pay attention to the following paragraph:

_We must also consider what consequences, shocking as they may seem, will logically follow from the legal recognition of homosexual "marriages." *The first obvious consequence is that laws against polygamy will seem to be arbitrary, since if marriage is no longer essentially for procreation, then it is difficult to see why it should exist between only two. * It will not be long before various groups of people will demand to be "married," in the revised sense of that term, and we will no longer have any principled reason for denying marriage to them. _ 

Here's the link to the entire article:

http://learnv.ycdsb.edu.on.ca/lt/FMMC/hpteacher.nsf/Files/mcmanad/$FILE/same_sexpakaluk.html


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> This is exactly the type of scapegoat I was talking about. Christianity, not people who professed to be Christians, is responsible for the destruction of a culture and a people.





We will never know how "true" to their religion these Christians they were, but we do know all they did in the name of Christianity. 



I'm sorry to reject your theory, but we atheists don't blame everything on Christianity. As a matter of fact, it was some religious person who began quoting  the Bible. I never ever think about religion until it has something to say about my personal affairs or other people's affairs. So then it's when I get upset!


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> So what do you people in this forum to do? To share their opinions without making reference to their Christian values or to the Bible? Is this the type of dialogue you'd like us to have? So atheists can state their positions and quote scientists or philosophers but participants who are Christians can't do the same?


I guess my problem is there were posts that said that since gay marriage it's not contemplated in the Bible, they reject it. So... your opinion is....???? 

You know, I give my opinion as a person, not as an atheist. I mentioned it only because things got confused after a while. If we are talking about legal issues, I don't understand why we have to include religious issues. After all, for non-religious people marriage is a vow, or just a legal paper. I don't intend Christians to live under my convictions, so I don't want them to constrain my life. It's a matter of freedom, that's all.


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> I guess my problem is there were posts that said that since gay marriage it's not contemplated in the Bible, they reject it. So... your opinion is....????
> 
> You know, I give my opinion as a person, not as an atheist. I mentioned it only because things got confused after a while. If we are talking about legal issues, I don't understand why we have to include religious issues. After all, for non-religious people marriage is a vow, or just a legal paper. I don't intend Christians to live under my convictions, so I don't want them to constrain my life. It's a matter of freedom, that's all.



The Bible gives us principles to follow and isn't a book that tells you what to do or not to do on every situation. You won't find a statement accepting or rejecting gay marriage. One can reach that conclusion by inference. If the Bible allegedly says that homosexuality is sinful, therefore homosexual marriages are sinful. 

Gays, although a consistent minority, have been amongst us for thousands of years. I know that they are involved in significant short- and long-term relationships like heterosexual individuals. Allowing them to get married won't change things dramatically in terms of what they do or don't do. However, I think that they will have access to rights, services, etc. that heterosexual couples already enjoy. My point? They should have the same right to marry or not to marry than heterosexual couples currently have. 

I still struggle with this whole issue. I think that marriage isn't an end in itself but a means to an end. a) It ensures that the human species doesn't go extinct. b) It provides a physical and emotional context to rear healthy (well, at least that's the goal) children. I know that these aren't the only goals (I've already been called unromantic and it still hurts) but the most basic ones. Marriage was created with family in mind and not the other way around. When we exit this world, the only certain thing we leave behind are children who have the capacity of having children (if we decide to have them). Once we separate the biological design from the emotional possibilities (a human capacity; the rest of species in the animal kingdom can't do it), we get into uncharted waters. I think that this is happening right now with, for instance, artificial insemination. We don't need to marry someone and put up with his/her neurosis, bad breath, PMS, alcoholism, in-laws, etc. etc. We can have a kid without all the nuisance attached to it. You don't even need to marry someone else to that effect. You can raise the kid by yourself or with the help of a relative or a friend or your favorite cult. 

What's my point? Thanks to what Cassirer called _symbolic function_, I think we are fiddling or messing with biology, and artificial insemination, gay marriage, etc. are just some examples. Eventually evolution will catch up with us or the other way around. We survived so far so the prognosis is good. But just in case, cross your fingers! 

I'm ready for folks' loving feedback!


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> The Bible gives us principles to follow and isn't a book that tells you what to do or not to do on every situation. You won't find a statement accepting or rejecting gay marriage. One can reach that conclusion by inference. If the Bible allegedly says that homosexuality is sinful, therefore homosexual marriages are sinful.


 
I can't argue with that, since it's a matter of belief. You probably have figured this out, that I don't believe in sins... 




> They should have the same right to marry or not to marry than heterosexual couples currently have.


 I agree. 




> I still struggle with this whole issue. I think that marriage isn't an end in itself but a means to an end. a) It ensures that the human species doesn't go extinct.


 

We don’t marry to procreate. For instance, animals don't marry. Also, even though today marriage is considered to be a universal institution, marriage has a different significance in different cultures. And, in my humble opinion, its function was to protect property more than anything else (I believe it still is). 




> b) It provides a physical and emotional context to rear healthy (well, at least that's the goal) children.


 I'm not sure about this. We have a lot of abuse within families. But if you defined "family" as opposed to grow up on the streets, I'll give you that answer.




> Marriage was created with family in mind and not the other way around.


 I think marriage and family were created at the same time. Maybe, who knows, but how else could they have known who the father was? To whom one should leave their assets? (that's my theory of property) 




> When we exit this world, the only certain thing we leave behind are children who have the capacity of having children (if we decide to have them). Once we separate the biological design from the emotional possibilities (a human capacity; the rest of species in the animal kingdom can't do it), we get into uncharted waters.


 We can have children out of wedlock! 




> I think that this is happening right now with, for instance, artificial insemination. We don't need to marry someone and put up with his/her neurosis, bad breath, PMS, alcoholism, in-laws, etc. etc. We can have a kid without all the nuisance attached to it. You don't even need to marry someone else to that effect. You can raise the kid by yourself or with the help of a relative or a friend or your favorite cult. What's my point? Thanks to what Cassirer called _symbolic function_, I think we are fiddling or messing with biology, and artificial insemination, gay marriage, etc. are just some examples. Eventually evolution will catch up with us or the other way around. We survived so far so the prognosis is good. But just in case, cross your fingers!


 I don't see the correlation between messing with biology and gay marriage. All they want is to have a legal right!

saludos


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> I can't argue with that, since it's a matter of belief. You probably have figured this out, that I don't believe in sins...



I still remember the definition of sin a pastor once gave me: "Sin, in Latin America, is when you get caught." Going back to our topic, I don't think that the approach some people take in order to define homosexuality as sin is the most appropriate. They use a concordance and identify some verses here and some verses there. For some reason they always throw in the story of Sodom. I think that we should first study what the Bible has to say about sexuality in general, put the data in historical perspective, use the best hermeneutic tools to make sense of it, and then get into the business of applying in the here and now. Unfortunately, some of us read the Bible looking for verses to support our own ideas. Of course we leave out anything that goes against our beliefs. It gets more interesting when people look for passages that are critical of masturbation.


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> I still remember the definition of sin a pastor once gave me: "Sin, in Latin America, is when you get caught." Going back to our topic, I don't think that the approach some people take in order to define homosexuality as sin is the most appropriate. They use a concordance and identify some verses here and some verses there. For some reason they always throw in the story of Sodom. I think that we should first study what the Bible has to say about sexuality in general, put the data in historical perspective, use the best hermeneutic tools to make sense of it, and then get into the business of applying in the here and now. Unfortunately, some of us read the Bible looking for verses to support our own ideas. Of course we leave out anything that goes against our beliefs. It gets more interesting when people look for passages that are critical of masturbation.


 
Very well said!!! Although I won't read it, at least not with the same eyes of a religious person. 

Anyway, it's been nice talking to you.


----------



## Robert Bennie

To take a passage from The Bible and try to interpret that passage out of context with the surrounding passages is about as valid as examining a page of writing by peering at one letter.

A young bloke recently told me that the common phrase 





> It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle...


 is a misquote because the word for 'camel' and 'rope' were so similar that the translators misinterpreted 





> It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of the needle...


 
I had no idea what a camel would have to do with a needle but now I understand the rope.

Language has colour and flavour and it is very difficult to translate from one language to another when both languages are alive and kicking and evolving together but the task of translating a document through a number of dead languages must boggle any mind contemplating it. How many languages have these concepts spanned and how much political interference and power grabs have been involved in convoluting concepts.

I still struggle with the notion that The Bible subjugates women. Many keep using The Bible to keep women down but this just flies in the face of the overall reason for The Bible. We are all equal and happy and free seems to be the overall message. The Book tells us how to be healthy and successful and this does not seem to fit with men dominating women but still The Bible is used as an excuse to interfere with anything that the user wants to interfere with.

I would not want to be a god botherer on Judgement Day.

Do god botherers bother only the bretheren
or do god botherers bother God

Robert


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> We don’t marry to procreate. For instance, animals don't marry. Also, even though today marriage is considered to be a universal institution, marriage has a different significance in different cultures. And, in my humble opinion, its function was to protect property more than anything else (I believe it still is).
> saludos



1. We don't marry just to procreate and we don't marry just to combat loneliness or to complete each other. "No es bueno que el hombre este solo", reza la Biblia. I think that attraction between male and female members of the human species is rooted in the biological. Why? God or mother nature wanted to make sure that our species didn't go extinct. I don't even agree with the concept that romantic love is a development of sexual attraction. Instinctual attraction is always present in our lives and we shouldn't be ashamed of acknowledging its existence. Actually, I believe that much of the sexual violence against women could be curbed if people came to terms with that reality, and the oink-oink could train themselves to control their sexual urges. 

2. I also agree with your statement that animals mate but don't marry. However, if you bump into moma bear and papa bear in a forest, I'd recommend that you don't tell them that their relationship isn't a marriage. I think that they are in denial having watched too many too many Disney movies!


3. I think that you are onto something when you state that marriage was created to protect private property, including women. One of these days I'm going to reread the Bible exclusively from a feminist perspective. I've not done it so far because there are few things in life to which I'm holding on to. Every night I thank God for the defense mechanisms of denial and rationalization!


----------



## Artrella

> Originally Posted by Phryne
> 
> We don’t marry to procreate. For instance, animals don't marry. Also, even though today marriage is considered to be a universal institution, marriage has a different significance in different cultures. And, in my humble opinion, its function was to protect property more than anything else (I believe it still is).
> saludos




I agree with Phyrne.  The thing about procreation is _ancient_.  Now we legally marry just to settle a contract... about property and legal rights over our kids in case of a divorce.
You can procreate perfectly without being married... 
Of course this is out of the religion boundaries (at least Christian religion)... I respect religious beliefs of other people, but for me... religion is out of my life, so if I am married (legally, I mean) is only for my rights and my kid's.
I could perfectly love my man, and procreate with him, without being married.
The same applies to gay people.  *BUT* if you want your rights to be respected...then you have to do it in black and white.  Same as any other business contract.


----------



## te gato

Artrella said:
			
		

> I agree with Phyrne. The thing about procreation is _ancient_. Now we legally marry just to settle a contract... about property and legal rights over our kids in case of a divorce.
> You can procreate perfectly without being married...
> Of course this is out of the religion boundaries (at least Christian religion)... I respect religious beliefs of other people, but for me... religion is out of my life, so if I am married (legally, I mean) is only for my rights and my kid's.
> I could perfectly love my man, and procreate with him, without being married.
> The same applies to gay people. *BUT* if you want your rights to be respected...then you have to do it in black and white. Same as any other business contract.


Hey ARTGF;
I so very much agree with you...
It is love..respect..that matter most..
As for procreating without being married (Christian religion)...mmmm...it very much happens...and you will have some that say 'well then you are not a GOOD Christian.'..to that I say...(a big raspberry)...Who are we to judge others?...Who are we to deny rights?...What business is it of ours?...
Trust me..I KNOW...some people take the Christian religion way too far...For example:..I am a 'divorced' (for reasons I will not go into) Catholic..and now a single mother...I was *driven out* of a Catholic church..told I was going to HELL because of this...very nice Christian attitude....So be it..I go to Hell...So for thoes overly pious I wish to say one thing....Tolerance is a wonderful thing..to bad more people do not practice what they preach...

te gato


----------



## meili

I know that nobody paid 'no more as much attention' to this thread as months ago, but then, I would just want to add something since I was thinking of the same topic before I went to bed last night. 

About married couple between the same sex:

In my own logical point of view, I am not opposed (so I think) to marriage between the same sex - though community, or majority of the people, in my old community at least, has made it a poit to instill in our minds, religion-wise, that this is a _sin._

But again, what is so sinful about two people expressing their love for each other? A 'gay' friend told me once that love knows no gender. And when somebody said something about gays or lesbians not being confident, what exactly does that mean?

Another question though: Do you think that guys who like/love gays are gays as well? Or that girls who like/love lesbians are lesbians themselves?


----------



## solecito

It is a delicate matter, but I'm really looking forward for gays and lesbians to be able to marry all over the world, I want to see the divorce rate!!Do they last longer than heterosexuals? Is it really different from just living together? I know a lot of couples that after living together for some time , get divorced after a getting married? That's odd.
Pienso que es un tema delicado pero yo estoy esperando a que el matrimonio entre gays y lesbianas sea legal en todas partes del mundo, quiero ver sus porcentajes de divorcio!! Durarán más que los matrimonios heterosexuales? Conozco varias parejas que depués de vivir juntos un tiempo largo, se divorcian después de casarse, es raro no?


----------



## cuchuflete

solecito said:
			
		

> It is a delicate matter, but I'm really looking forward for gays and lesbians to be able to marry all over the world, I want to see the divorce rate!!Do they last longer than heterosexuals? Is it really different from just living together? I know a lot of couples that after living together for some time , get divorced after a getting married? That's odd.
> Pienso que es un tema delicado pero yo estoy esperando a que el matrimonio entre gays y lesbianas sea legal en todas partes del mundo, quiero ver sus porcentajes de divorcio!! Durarán más que los matrimonios heterosexuales? Conozco varias parejas que depués de vivir juntos un tiempo largo, se divorcian después de casarse, es raro no?



Good topic for another thread Solecito...


Either married homosexual couples will have the same divorce rate as married heterosexuals....or they won't.  First things first...let people live their lives with whomever they please, and then the other dynamics will become evident.

That married homosexuals may have the same or a different divorce rate really has no bearing on the discussion of their right to marry, but it is grounds for some interesting and speculative conversation.

un saludo,
Cuchuflete


----------



## astronauta

HOT TOPIC!!

Actually too hot for me...I always end up so frustrated, so I will not debate about it. But...about the question, in Canada is completely allowed, same-sex couples have been enjoying legal recognition for years. Which makes me very proud.


----------



## meili

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> HOT TOPIC!!
> 
> Actually too hot for me...I always end up so frustrated, so I will not debate about it. But...about the question, in Canada is completely allowed, same-sex couples have been enjoying legal recognition for years. Which makes me very proud.


 
It is?  I have made a research before and I came across articles that this is indeed allowed in Canada. (Hmmm.. I know of some people who would perhaps be interested.  )

So, how do they go about it?


----------



## Lightkeeper

This is still a hot topic in the USA. It is not accepted well here. Some cities have approved it. President Bush wants to rewrite the Constitution to describe marriage as a union between man and woman only.


----------



## Dorito

Hi y'all!
Homosexuality is today's world's perverted way of living between the same-sex person, eh!


----------



## LeeT911

The recognition of same-sex marriages in Canada is a recent development. In fact, the legislation was passed just this year! I'm not sure about this, but I think that obtaining said marriage is the same as any other. You need someone willing to perform the marriage, and two witnesses. Churches are not forced to perform these marriages if they do not wish to do so.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> We don't marry just to procreate and we don't marry just to combat loneliness or to complete each other. "No es bueno que el hombre este solo", reza la Biblia. I think that attraction between male and female members of the human species is rooted in the biological. Why? God or mother nature wanted to make sure that our species didn't go extinct.


 
And for those of us who believe in evolution, physical sexual attraction between members of the opposite sex is a trait that encourages reproduction, and therefore has a higher chance of being passed down to later generations. Someone not interested in reproducing will not do so, immediately removing any chance of spreading this trait in the gene pool. In other words, since the dawn of the human race, only those who want sex have passed on their genes, so we're left with a planet full of sexual beings.


----------



## Inara

In Spain many couples live together without marrying, though in my country they would be considered sinners. On other hand, if you marry you get certain rights, that's why some couples finally do marry after living together for years. I would reduce the case of marrieges to a case of human rights. For me personally, it is difficult to imagine what good could be in homosexual marriege, that is if you consider all that procriational stuf, but I believe all of us should have the same rights, as we are all humans. So if two people want to have everything in common and to take care of common children (doesn't matter where they take them from), they should have right for that, and all the responsibilities too, in case of divorce. I see it this way. 
For me marriage has little to do with love and sex, as those are free in today world, but it does have a lot to do with: children, household, money and death. In these matters you need rights and lawers sometimes.


----------



## luar

Maybe I am wrong, but I believe that beside moral reasons, many are against same-sex marriage for its economical implications. Just to give you a quick example, many companies would have to spend a few extra bucks in health insurance.


----------



## depassage

luar said:
			
		

> Just to give you a quick example, many companies would have to spend a few extra bucks in health insurance.


----------



## Artrella

luar said:
			
		

> Maybe I am wrong, but I believe that beside moral reasons, many are against same-sex marriage for its economical implications. Just to give you a quick example, many companies would have to spend a few extra bucks in health insurance.



Why do you say this Luar? I cannot find the connection between homosexual
couples and health insurance?


----------



## luar

depassage said:
			
		

>


Well, I guess my example wasn´t good... But I hope you get the message: By allowing these couples to get married, the government would have to guarantee the same economic benefits that nowadays heterosexual couples enjoy.


----------



## Artrella

luar said:
			
		

> Well, I guess my example wasn´t good... But I hope you get the message: By allowing these couples to get married, the government would have to guarantee the same economic benefits that nowadays heterosexual couples enjoy.




Well yes... but if you have a hetero couple... you pay them the insurance... what would the difference be if you had a homo couple?


----------



## luar

As far as I know, in my country if you are not married, most companies would not give you the option of including your partner under the health insurance plan (if you are married they would pay, at least, a fraction of it). Do you think that this decision has anything to do with morality? I do not. It is “cheaper” to say that is a sin to live with someone without being married, than to make a commitment to guarantee the basic rights and privileges that any people deserve, for example access to affordable health coverage. I believe this is the case when talking about same-sex marriage. Our politicians, with a few exceptions, don´t really care about morality. They take a particular stand considering what would benefit them and their financial contributors. 
Marriage would guarantee that same-sex couple get marriage and family exemptions when filing taxes, enherit in the absence of a will, get joint home and car insurance, share government benefits; In the end they would save and get the money that the government and others now do. Of course, I am not suggesting that this is the main reason why people are against same-sex marriage, but money is an issue that governments always take into account. If this is hard to believe ask those who wrote a report on the potential budgeting impact of legalizing same-sex marriage for the US government.


----------



## Artrella

luar said:
			
		

> As far as I know, in my country if you are not married, most companies would not give you the option of including your partner under the health insurance plan (if you are married they would pay, at least, a fraction of it). Do you think that this decision has anything to do with morality? I do not. It is “cheaper” to say that is a sin to live with someone without being married, than to make a commitment to guarantee the basic rights and privileges that any people deserve, for example access to affordable health coverage. I believe this is the case when talking about same-sex marriage. Our politicians, with a few exceptions, don´t really care about morality. They take a particular stand considering what would benefit them and their financial contributors.
> Marriage would guarantee that same-sex couple get marriage and family exemptions when filing taxes, enherit in the absence of a will, get joint home and car insurance, share government benefits; In the end they would save and get the money that the government and others now do. Of course, I am not suggesting that this is the main reason why people are against same-sex marriage, but money is an issue that governments always take into account. If this is hard to believe ask those who wrote a report on the potential budgeting impact of legalizing same-sex marriage for the US government.



Well yes, I agree with you.  Here in Capital Federal (not all Argentina) homo couples are able to "marry" (in fact it is not marriage like with hetero couples)
and the partners are considered in the same way as any couple.  Both have insurance.
But I must admit, that this is only in Capital Federal,  there are still a lot of people who cannot obtain this right.


----------



## Fernando

Luar, you are too optimistic. I would say our poilticians have no idea about the budget implications of allowing same-sex marriages.

And, for certain, economic reasons are one of the main point for those who favor same sex marriage. 

Why insurance companies ask you a formal marriage to include someone in the coverage? Becasue, if not, I would include a friend or two in my coverage (those whose medical treatment would be more expensive, for sure).


----------



## astronauta

Meili, I think it is a hot topic for me in the sense that there is still much bigotry going on around and it seems to me rather incredible that in mid XXI century people are advocating so a minority does not obtain otherwise common rights.. Bit sad.

In big cities it seems to be okay, there is much tolerance and people seem to be accepting, small towns and suburbia is another kettle of fish.

Dorito, please abstain from the use of pejoratives, I think it is valid to experess our opinions without insulting.

Lee, although the legislation has just been passed, in British Columbia for example, same-sex couples have lived together for the longest time and their rights have been recognised as such, as "couples", and those rights are even extended as far as employee benefits, it is only now that they can legally marry, but before they were recognised in fact and could even adopt children.


----------



## LeeT911

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Lee, although the legislation has just been passed, in British Columbia for example, same-sex couples have lived together for the longest time and their rights have been recognised as such, as "couples", and those rights are even extended as far as employee benefits, it is only now that they can legally marry, but before they were recognised in fact and could even adopt children.


 
I'm not going to disagree with you.  It's just that now, with the new legislation, these marriages *must* be recognised, where before it wasn't a matter of law, just of personal discretion.  Also, the provinces were previously free to do as they pleased with the issue, but the new federal legislation supercedes any existing laws throughout the country.


----------



## astronauta

I am sorry if I was not clear enough, but same-sex couples at least in BC, before our most recent legislation had the same rights as a heterosexual copule living together in common law.

Anyway, I am just happy it's happening for everyone and that everyone can enjoy what they deserve according to the law.


----------



## meili

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Meili, I think it is a hot topic for me in the sense that there is still much bigotry going on around and it seems to me rather incredible that in mid XXI century people are advocating so a minority does not obtain otherwise common rights.. Bit sad.


 
Uh-huh!  As is always the case.  People are so composed in their own world of beliefs that unless it happens to them, or they come across people with similar preoccupation and empathize, they will remain bigots.

If we'll just begin to list down all the pros and cons.  I am a Catholic and a strong believer in God, but does it make me a lesser God-believer if I am going to advocate divorce and same-sex marriage in the country?


----------



## Fernando

Given the austronauta-vegetariana definition of bigot, I am a bigot.

meili. I think you want to say "todavía creo en LA MAGIA"


----------



## meili

Fernando said:
			
		

> Given the austronauta-vegetariana definition of bigot, I am a bigot.
> 
> meili. I think you want to say "todavía creo en LA MAGIA"


 
Bigots are bigots  In one way or the other, I am too. 


> "todavía creo en LA MAGIA"


 Thanks!


----------



## astronauta

Meili, regarding your question I do not know how the rankings in the Catholic faith work, could it be a sin if you advocate for gay marriage?

I am an atheist.

Fernando, I never called anyone a bigot nor gave a definition to it, you called it yourself.

For both of you, please re-read what I wrote. This feeling arises from the thousands of people who marched in Madrid. It;s sad for me because this is the first time in my life that I see people coming out of their homes, taking a day off perhaps, involving children for an entire day so a minority does not enjoy the privileges that everyone can, judging them entirely by what they do behind closed doors.

Also, the individuals that sustain the belief that being homosexual is not "normal", I would like to tell you that homosexuality has dissappeared from the Human Book of Pathologies since the 60's. There is no serius paper, article or statistic, based on science or fact that states that this is preference is unnatural.


----------



## cirrus

I so agree with Astronauta.  I have just ploughed through all 19 pages of this thread with a mix of emotions which range from pride to disgust at some of the opinions and misunderstandings that have been voiced.   The law is changing here too, although what is on offer falls a tad short of being marriage as such instead it will be called civil partnership.  Its legal status will be the same.  My take on this is that: 


It is about time 
What I don't understand is why straight couples living together don't have access to this.  OK they can marry but if they don't they are in the same legal limbo as same sex couples 
For those of you who say gay marriage isn't important and feel that this is a marginal issue, consider how would you feel it was if you went to hospital and your partner wasn't allowed to see you because they aren't legally classed as a relative.  Supposing things took a turn for the worse and your partner wasn't allowed to make decisions about your welfare if you were unconscious?  

 

I know people who lost their home because their same sex partner died and their partner's family sold the house they had been living in together.  These aren't academic or philosophical musings but practical, legal issues.  

 

By the way can I make a linguistic point?  The term homo is a long way from neutral.  It grates and is offensive.  Instead of saying homo partners say same sex unless you deliberately want to sound like a bigot.

 

As for the anti gay marriage demo in Madrid, this to me was a clear sign  of just how much the Spanish right has lost the plot.  From being a centre right party they seem to be walling themselves deeper and deeper into their own bunker. The only people they appeal to is themselves.  A party which can only talk to itself has no chance of being a governing party. It feels a bit like Labour in the UK during the eighties or the UK conservatives now.  Their stance seems to be so binary and childish - we are right and you can't be, their attitude to who was responsible for 11M seems to mirror this.  The catholic church's reactions to the new law seem to indicate a similar inability to engage with society as it is now as opposed to how they would like it to be.   
 
I fully support the Spanish Prime Minister's summing up of PSOE's first year in power this time round - words to the effect that we have done four things in this Parliament, the first of which was to extend citizens' rights.  
 
Perhaps people aren't aware of the systematic persecution of gay people which took place under two particularly vicious laws - La Ley de Vagos y Maleantes and the Ley de Peligrosidad Social (the Law of Idlers and Thugs and the Law of Social Dangerousness - not particularly brilliant translations but they give you an idea). These laws were in force throughout the forties and until Franco died. Their effect? Something approaching a quarter of the people in Franco's jails were there for no other reason than being gay.  (If you want more details can I suggest a book about the oppression of gays in Franco's Spain: El Látigo y La Pluma by Fernando Olmeda.)   
 
It is precisely within this context that opening up the right to marry to same sex couples in Spain needs to be understood.  I know I am by no means a neutral on this theme but I see the right to same sex marriage as righting a historic wrong.


----------



## Fernando

Cirrus, I want to say that I support Tony Blair and UK society which has NOT gay marriage.

About 'homo': Please, let us know in every moment which is the correct term to name the homosexuals. Given that you and astronauta vegetariana issue the 'bigot card' I am very interested in your opinion. Homo means 'the same' in Greek and it was adopted as a politically correct to avoid offensive terms such as 'faggot' (mari... in Spanish). I am ready to abandon offensive terms. I am not ready to change the language any time you and your friends decide it.

Edit: Considering that, for English people, 'homo' can be an offensive term, I must say I did not want to offend anyone.

I am fully aware of the 'Ley de Vagos y Maleantes' and certainly I regret the treatment given to homosexuals, gypsies and communists under that law, but that does not entitles anyone to ask for what it has no right to.

There is a law in Spain on 'parejas de hecho' (in-fact couples ??) that covers most of the necessities a homosexual couple can have. By the way, I feel more confortable to be visited or heired by my friends. Do you think marriage is the only solution to my problem?

About "I know people who lost their home because their same sex partner died and their partner's family sold the house they had been living in together." If these people would have declared his/her partner as his/her heir the problems would have been less.

What the people who demonstrated in Madrid asked for was for avoiding the homosexuals to adopt and to have family laws because they think that you need to be of different sexes to form a family. To become a family is not a right of homosexuals in the same way it is not a right for me to marry my daughter, my mother...


----------



## meili

Fernando said:
			
		

> To become a family is not a right of homosexuals in the same way it is not a right for me to marry my daughter, my mother...


 
Does this mean that if you are going to marry somebody of the same sex as yours that would be 'incest' too?  So they are impure (?)


----------



## meili

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Meili, regarding your question I do not know how the rankings in the Catholic faith work, could it be a sin if you advocate for gay marriage?


 
This is one of those never-ending discussions. Truth... what is it anyway.


----------



## Fernando

meili said:
			
		

> Does this mean that if you are going to marry somebody of the same sex as yours that would be 'incest' too?  So they are impure (?)



I just wanted to point out that marrying is not a universal right. Laws does not allow some kind of associations. It is disgusting to me the usual pro-homosexual reasoning: 'We want the same rights than everyone'.


----------



## Artrella

Fernando said:
			
		

> I just wanted to point out that marrying is not a universal right. Laws does not allow some kind of associations. It is disgusting to me the usual pro-homosexual reasoning: 'We want the same rights than everyone'.




Ok, Fernando... if they are not like "everyone" there should be laws that take these "associations" into account.  As persons they are the same as anyone, but legally, the _association_ is something "new"...So we need new laws.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi
What I see simpler, natural and easy is adopting. 
What a child needs is to be loved and cared. That can be done by the father and the mother, or by a single parent, or by the grandmother or an uncle, or by the grandfather, or an aunt or any person, married or single or widow/widower, in a small family or in a extended family.


----------



## Fernando

No, Artrella, I think they are the same as everyone. And everyone is not allowed to marry his/her brother / sister. If it is disgusting to you this 'extreme' example I simply can not marry my (male) friends. Am I discriminated? I feel not.

Anyway, I totally agree with you. We need new laws to take into account new associations, not usual just 20 years ago. We have (I am talking about Spain, but it is more or less the same in every Western country) the' Ley de Parejas de Hecho': Couples of no-matter-what-sex have almost the same rights than married couples.


----------



## meili

Artrella said:
			
		

> Ok, Fernando... if they are not like "everyone" there should be laws that take these "associations" into account. As persons they are the same as anyone, but legally, the _association_ is something "new"...So we need new laws.


 
Before any of these never-ending discussion and issues, was there a law advocating that same-sex marriage, etc. is not allowed?  I think this is just a matter of religion, or 'bigots'.


----------



## Artrella

meili said:
			
		

> Before any of these never-ending discussion and issues, was there a law advocating that same-sex marriage, etc. is not allowed?  I think this is just a matter of religion, or 'bigots'.



Of course it is *Meili*... in some places here in my country you can "marry" being a homosexual... but I wrote it between "" because it is not properly a "marriage"... Yes *Fernando*... we have the same here, but not in all the country...just some places like Capital Federal...
Religion, bigots...the same thing for *me*


----------



## timpeac

Fernando said:
			
		

> No, Artrella, I think they are the same as everyone. And everyone is not allowed to marry his/her brother / sister. If it is disgusting to you this 'extreme' example I simply can not marry my (male) friends. Am I discriminated? I feel not.
> .


 
I think you are mixing up equality and fairness. Are we all equal? Yes - everyone is equally not able to marry someone of the same sex. Is this fair? No, because of course the straight ones don't want to anyway, and already can marry the people they love.

By the way, that is true about "homo" - that's not a change in usage, as far as I know, in English, that has always been an offensive term.


----------



## Fernando

Artrella said:
			
		

> Religion, bigots...the same thing for *me*


Certainly not for me.

Examples of two bigots that are not religious:

- Nazis
- Communists


----------



## Fernando

timpeac said:
			
		

> I think you are mixing up equality and fairness. Are we all equal? Yes - everyone is equally not able to marry someone of the same sex. Is this fair? No, because of course the straight ones don't want to anyway, and already can marry the people they love..


 
Good point, I admit the difference between equality and fairness. You mean something as 'You would be ready to forbid to have a Ferrari, given that you think you will never have one. 

The only point I wanted to remark is that the State sets some limits (universal limits) to the freedom of the people to marry. Some (most) of those limits apply to every person, no matter which it is their sex, but because of the RELATIONSHIP between them. The most obvious limit (not sex-depending) is you can marry ONE person in Western world (no matter how much you love the other ones). I (personally) do not see this as a limit but some people do not feel this way. For Muslims, as an example, I am imposing them a limit they can feel as discriminative.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> By the way, that is true about "homo" - that's not a change in usage, as far as I know, in English, that has always been an offensive term.



Maybe I am wrong here. Was it not homosexual a neutral term to define gays and lesbians? Excuse me, but 'same-sex people' is a bit strange.


----------



## Artrella

Fernando said:
			
		

> Certainly not for me.
> 
> Examples of two bigots that are not religious:
> 
> - Nazis
> - Communists




Ok, Fernando.  You know that religion issues are very personal, and without offending anyone...because we are free to think and believe... I think religion is to a certain extent, a kind of bigot.  But as I pointed out, *it is my personal point of view.* Of course that Nazis are not connected with religion... and communists... well I don't know if they are bigots or not... if you call "bigot" to something that ties people to a single idea...which is supposed to be the ONLY ONE, the TRUTH... I can name some others apart from Communism and Nazism... and these people think they are the ones who hold the truth... but this is OT here.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Fernando said:
			
		

> Maybe I am wrong here. Was it not homosexual a neutral term to define gays and lesbians? Excuse me, but 'same-sex people' is a bit strange.


Hi
it is not same-sex people, it is same sex, like homophone = same sound, homogeneous = same composition, etc.


----------



## cirrus

Fernando said:
			
		

> Was it not homosexual a neutral term to define gays and lesbians? Excuse me, but 'same-sex people' is a bit strange.


 
What I was referring to here was using homo as an adjective. If you search back you can find instances of people using homo as though it was the same thing as homosexual they aren't the same thing in the same way that you wouldn't call a mexican a wetback unless your intention was to be offensive. That is why I suggested same sex as an alternative. 

I not naive and recognise that taboo will follow no matter what words we use particularly while some people persist in finding homosexuality disgusting. For myself what they forget is that at least 99% of the time we - by which I mean human beings - aren't having sex and it's only when we are having sex that the differences make themselves evident and even then what we are talking about is about the most intimate thing we can do and is therefore more often than not behind closed doors.


----------



## meili

Artrella said:
			
		

> Ok, Fernando. You know that religion issues are very personal, and without offending anyone...because we are free to think and believe... I think religion is to a certain extent, a kind of bigot. But as I pointed out, *it is my personal point of view.* Of course that Nazis are not connected with religion... and communists... well I don't know if they are bigots or not... if you call "bigot" to something that ties people to a single idea...which is supposed to be the ONLY ONE, the TRUTH... I can name some others apart from Communism and Nazism... and these people think they are the ones who hold the truth... but this is OT here.


 
I agree.  Religions, bigots.. in one way or the other are the same, for *me*, at least.  I was brought up as a Catholic, and I am glad and proud that I still am, but that does not limit me from thinking that 'same- sex' marriage or divorce, etc. etc. be not allowed.  *I think *most people (or some people) are encased in the belief that _this_ should not be allowed because of the _culture _or _religion _that they grew up in - principles, teachings - that are/were imposed as the sole truth, and nothing but the truth.


----------



## meili

Fernando said:
			
		

> The only point I wanted to remark is that the State sets some limits (universal limits) to the freedom of the people to marry. Some (most) of those limits apply to every person, no matter which it is their sex, but because of the RELATIONSHIP between them. The most obvious limit (not sex-depending) is you can marry ONE person in Western world (no matter how much you love the other ones). I (personally) do not see this as a limit but some people do not feel this way. For Muslims, as an example, I am imposing them a limit they can feel as discriminative.


 
Hi Fernando!
I have several close Muslim friends and through constant communication I learned that they also do not allow or agree with 'same-sex' marriage because it is not written in the Quran, just as they do not believe in evolution, ET's, etc. - but they do certainly allow their man to marry more than one woman - as long as he can support ALL his families.  (This is what you are saying, right?  I have a professor in college (a Geodetic Eng'r.), his father has 4 wives  and they all lived and grew up in ONE ROOF in different rooms but that didn't stop him from toping the national board exams for Engineer's during his time and be the best Professor and Engineer in the city.


----------



## astronauta

I agree with Cirrus. A couple's relations are too intimate to anyone's business.

Heterosexuals may not know how this must feel becase they can get married at their leisure, no one will be asking them "what are your sexual preferences in bed?, do you like to utilise such and such, do you enjoy engaging in certain practices that could be frowned upon most", can you imagine if people pry in your personal life like that in oder to judge if you are suitable to marry? That would be outrageos would i t not?

Why is it that some people think that a sexual preference (in case of gay couples) is a justifiable means to deny someone a civil right?

If a sexual preference means an impairment of some sort then why are hetero sexuals not judged on the same basis?


----------



## meili

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> If a sexual preference means an impairment of some sort then why are hetero sexuals not judged on the same basis?


 
Because heterosexuals are 'normal',    in my opinion.


----------



## astronauta

Meili, that may be your opinion. Just as it is my opinion that heterosexuales that engage in certain sexual practices aren't normal either.

As a form of respect to the forum and its participants, I most amicably ask you to post a link to any scientific paper, article or respectable publication whrere this affirmation is evidenced.


----------



## meili

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Meili, that may be your opinion. Just as it is my opinion that heterosexuales that engage in certain sexual practices aren't normal either.
> As a form of respect to the forum and its participants, I most amicably ask you to post a link to any scientific paper, article or respectable publication whrere this affirmation is evidenced.


 
Okay AV, point taken. I'm sorry.  I also edited my post. But I am going to look for similar articles as such.


----------



## timpeac

Fernando said:
			
		

> Good point, I admit the difference between equality and fairness. You mean something as 'You would be ready to forbid to have a Ferrari, given that you think you will never have one.
> 
> The only point I wanted to remark is that the State sets some limits (universal limits) to the freedom of the people to marry. Some (most) of those limits apply to every person, no matter which it is their sex, but because of the RELATIONSHIP between them. The most obvious limit (not sex-depending) is you can marry ONE person in Western world (no matter how much you love the other ones).


 
Yes, but here we have both equality and fairness. "It is illegal to marry your sibling". Therefore the straight man cannot marry his sister and the gay man cannot marry his brother. I'm not getting into whether they should or should not be able to marry, just pointing out that in this the law is equal, and both fair or unfair according to your point of view. "No polygamy" again - The gay man cannot marry two other men, and the straight man cannot marry two women, again equal and (un)fair (depending on your opinion).



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Maybe I am wrong here. Was it not homosexual a neutral term to define gays and lesbians? Excuse me, but 'same-sex people' is a bit strange.


 
"homosexual" yes has traditionally been a non-offensive(ish) term. Note that in present day English it is no where near as common as in French and Spanish. In English it has quite a medical ring to it. Even quite serious journals will talk of "gay" rather than "homosexual" (so don't be influenced by the Spanish usage). However, here I think everyone was commenting on the use of "homo" which as I say has always been offensive.


----------



## Fernando

cirrus said:
			
		

> What I was referring to here was using homo as an adjective. If you search back you can find instances of people using homo as though it was the same thing as homosexual they aren't the same thing in the same way that you wouldn't call a mexican a wetback unless your intention was to be offensive. That is why I suggested same sex as an alternative.



I have edited the only post where I think I use the term 'homo' to apologize. Since (to me) it was just a short for homosexual it was not offensive. I opened a thread in 'English only' to ask for opinions and (for whatever reasons) you are right and it is considered offensive. 

I will use (in the improbable case I continue in this thread) homosexual / gay. 'Same sex' is a bit strange to me and I do not think it is widely used. 

About Ana Raquel remarks I think that same sex is an adjective. You need to say same-sex people, or marriage or whatever to make sense.


----------



## Fernando

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes, but here we have both equality and fairness. "It is illegal to marry your sibling". Therefore the straight man cannot marry his sister and the gay man cannot marry his brother. I'm not getting into whether they should or should not be able to marry, just pointing out that in this the law is equal, and both fair or unfair according to your point of view. "No polygamy" again - The gay man cannot marry two other men, and the straight man cannot marry two women, again equal and (un)fair (depending on your opinion).



Here you are confussing the point. I am comparing prohibition of incesting marriage and prohibition of incesting marriage. Note that, in Spain now, poligamers are discriminated on the gays. A gay has the right to marry the person who love. A poligamer (gay or not) not.

Note you are assuming than poligamy and incesting marriage is unfair. This is (at least) so unclear as forbiding same-sex marriage. 

The point is: Is it fair for the State to not consider these types of associations to be marriage? I think yes.


----------



## timpeac

Fernando said:
			
		

> Here you are confussing the point. I am comparing prohibition of incesting marriage and prohibition of incesting marriage. Note that, in Spain now, poligamers are discriminated on the gays. A gay has the right to marry the person who love. A poligamer (gay or not) not.
> 
> Note you are assuming than poligamy and incesting marriage is unfair. This is (at least) so unclear as forbiding same-sex marriage.
> 
> The point is: Is it fair for the State to not consider these types of associations to be marriage? I think yes.


 
But no, Fernando, I did understand you. I am making the point that with people who want to marry their sibling or commit polygamy not being able to may be unfair - but it is unfair for everyone. Someone who is gay is discriminated only in terms of their sex - no?

Also, I think it is a mistake to mix issues here. Whether gays should be able to marry or not, is a different question to whether brother and sister should be able to marry. There are arguments for and against. We should discuss these on a case by case basis, or where would we stop? Should a negro woman not be allowed to marry a caucasian man (as under apartheid)? Should a Christian not be allowed to marry a Jew (as under the Nazis)?

I agree that it is fair for the state to consider the associations suitable for marriage - in a democracy, according to the will of the people - but just because certain groups have been excluded in the past doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't reevaluate our position.


----------



## Fernando

Agree to a point. The State has the right to allow some marriages and to forbid others. In the examples you have provide I think it is fully unfair for the State not to allow the interracial or inter-religion marriages (just for the record) and is fair to forbid poligamy, but the case is the same: the State is not allowing adult people who love each other (or not) to marry.

Of course I agree that because certain groups have been excluded in the past does not mean we can not reevaluate our position from time to time. The point is that some people think that, after the reevaluation, we still think they do not qualify as family.


----------



## cuchuflete

I risk repeating something I wrote weeks ago when this thread and I were young...er.

What other people---yes, human beings, persons---do is their business, not mine or that of a government.  If two people choose to make a legal commitment to one another, that's that.  I have no opinion that matters, as I am not a party to their life together.

I certainly don't have any grounds to feel upset, or threatened or offended.  The last thing I would be is 'tolerant' of same sex unions, as this would imply that I hold some superior moral high ground, and choose to grant approval.  It's not for me to approve or disapprove, but to accept.  

For those whose sectarian religious beliefs state that heterosexuals are more 'normal' or in some way morally superior, there is always the option of simply not practising what your religions disapprove of, while leaving others to live their own lives in accord with their own standards.  To do otherwise, with state intervention, has a long and sad history of persecution in the name of goodness.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I fail to understand how another couple's marital or legal status can possibly have any effect whatsoever on what goes on under my own roof, or that of my neighbor!


 
Marriage only?  Probably no measurable effect.  However, it could make a huge difference when it comes to adoption of children.  Any married couple, whether gay or straight (and assuming all other factors are relatively equal, like age, financial stability, and so forth), would have equal opportunity to adopt a child.  Many feel that children need both a male and female parent in their upbringing.


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> Many feel that children need both a male and female parent in their upbringing.



May the many who feel that way, and I am in no hurry to disagree with them, put their energy into resolving the huge heterosexual marriage divorce rate, which leaves millions of children with but a single parent.  Countless other children have no parent.

This objection is thin gruel.  Can a loving homosexual family do a child less good than an overstretched single parent or an institution?

That sentence is reminiscent of the right wing political leaders who preach 'family values' while on their third marriage.  Which family might they refer to?  I speak of the rhetorical argument Modgirl, and not to you personally, but that objection is simply bogus and hypocritical.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> that objection is simply bogus and hypocritical.


 
For the example you gave, certainly. However, I don't know what percentage of those making the argument fall into that category.  But, that's a comment on the messenger, not the message.  What is bogus and hypocritical about the argument that a child needs a parent of each sex?

Out of curiosity, do you think that both a male and female parent each bring a unique perspective to parenthood?

I agree that they are many, many single parents, but I don't see anyone arguing that single parenthood gives children an equal or better upbringing than a two-parent home (with all other factors being equal, an important component).


----------



## lsp

modgirl said:
			
		

> For the example you gave, certainly.  However, I don't know what percentage of those making the argument fall into that category.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you think that both a male and female parent each bring a unique perspective to parenthood?
> I think all individuals bring a unique perspective to parenthood. But that doesn't mean you should also argue a Jew and a Muslim would be a better union in parenting than 2 Jews, so we should support only interfaith and interracial marriages for the sake of parenting.
> I agree that they are many, many single parents, but I don't see anyone arguing that single parenthood gives children an equal or better upbringing than a two-parent home (with all other factors being equal, an important component).
> And yet the law does not prohibit single parenting, nor does society go as far as shunning it.


I know you want to hear from Cuchuflete on these questions, but I wanted to offer a comment.


----------



## modgirl

Hi lsp,

There are many, many religions, but generally there are only two sexes:  male and female.  (Yes, I said, generally, as unfortunately, some individuals are born not being exclusively one or the other)

Can a dad relate to his children as their mother?  Can a mom relate to her children as their father?  

Is reproductive plumbing the only difference between men and women?


----------



## meili

Hello Big C!

I really like the things you have said here.  It was like you summed up all that I have wanted to say in TWO SINGLE POSTS!
Everybody has the right to live the way they want - as everybody has the right to love the person they love - and take care of the person they would want to take care.
Better individuals.


----------



## lsp

modgirl said:
			
		

> Hi lsp,
> 
> There are many, many religions, but generally there are only two sexes:  male and female.  (Yes, I said, generally, as unfortunately, some individuals are born not being exclusively one or the other)
> 
> Can a dad relate to his children as their mother?  Can a mom relate to her children as their father?
> 
> Is reproductive plumbing the only difference between men and women?


I don't think women are all maternal, or men are all paternal (there is ample and gruesome proof in the newspapers). I don't think, even if one woman and one man were to be labeled "IDEAL PARENTING FORMULA" that others should be banned by law. The difference you mention between religion and sex being one of how many varieties there are available would only lead me to argue more enthusiastically that any pairing for the sake of parenting that includes diversity should be encouraged, and drop the gender issue from the equation entirely. Oh wait, - without legal restrictions against all other unions, that's already what I believe!


----------



## modgirl

Before this goes any further, I think it's very important to distinguish between what another poster actually said and what we think he said! 

I've seen too many "discussions" where people ask questions which no one answers and instead, respondents introduce new topics and then get upset when people don't respond to _their _questions!



> The difference you mention between religion and sex being one of how many varieties there are available would only lead me to argue more enthusiastically that any pairing for the sake of parenting that includes diversity should be encouraged


 
Same-sex parenting is the exact opposite of diversity! Parents of different sexes offer consistently both male and female influences on children. That's exactly what same-sex marriage does not provide. (And, before someone says that not all men are the same and not all women are the same, of course, that's a given and was never otherwise implied)

But again, I raise the questions:

Can a dad relate to his children as their mother? Can a mom relate to her children as their father? 

Is reproductive plumbing the only difference between men and women?


----------



## meili

modgirl said:
			
		

> Can a dad relate to his children as their mother? Can a mom relate to her children as their father?
> 
> Is reproductive plumbing the only difference between men and women?


Hi Modgirl!
I am not a parent, or rather not still a parent, but I am a daughter - and I relate more to my Father, though I will not say that I love him more than my Mother, for I love them both.
IMHO, I think it does not matter whether someone will be brought up by a male-female, female-female, male-male parents.  Children will eventually grow up and will come to realize the situation they were in.  Depends on the person.  He or she will choose and make and run the course of his or her life.  And if these children will choose to be with somebody of similar or dissimilar 'entities', then that is their sole right.
Reproductive plumbing only difference? I think so.  All else equal.


----------



## lsp

modgirl said:
			
		

> Before this goes any further, I think it's very important to distinguish between what another poster actually said and what we think he said!
> 
> I've seen too many "discussions" where people ask questions which no one answers and instead, respondents introduce new topics and then get upset when people don't respond to _their _questions!
> 
> 
> 
> Same-sex parenting is the exact opposite of diversity! Parents of different sexes offer consistently both male and female influences on children. That's exactly what same-sex marriage does not provide. (And, before someone says that not all men are the same and not all women are the same, of course, that's a given and was never otherwise implied)
> 
> But again, I raise the questions:
> 
> Can a dad relate to his children as their mother? Can a mom relate to her children as their father?
> 
> Is reproductive plumbing the only difference between men and women?


By saying _"Same-sex parenting is the exact opposite of diversity!"_, you still seem to suggest that gender is the only relevant diversity. That's where we are missing each other's point. 

Trying to define "relating to a child 'as a mother' or 'as a father'" is just a semantic variation of the question of whether marriage is the union of two people who take oaths to join their lives, or more specifically a man and a woman who do so.


----------



## modgirl

lsp said:
			
		

> By saying _"Same-sex parenting is the exact opposite of diversity!"_, you still seem to suggest that gender is the only relevant diversity.


 
Oh, not at all.  I just thought it was rather humorous that you were arguing for the pairing of two people of the same sex for _diveristy_ as opposed to the pairing of different sexes!


----------



## lsp

modgirl said:
			
		

> Oh, not at all.  I just thought it was rather humorous that you were arguing for the pairing of two people of the same sex for _diveristy_ as opposed to the pairing of different sexes!


My actual point is that two undefined people, about whom we know nothing but one characteristic (shared or not), be it religion, gender or other, might be the most or the least diverse pair of humans ever put together.


----------



## Artrella

meili said:
			
		

> Because heterosexuals are 'normal',    in my opinion.




To some extent, and after having read some psychology books, and having had some converstions with pyschologists, I must admit that homosexuals have some disorder if they are compared with heterosexuals.  As far as I know, they are sad people, and they keep asking "why me".  This of course, is what some friends who are psychologists and psychiatrists told me about homosexuals.
My idea is that people must be happy, as happy as it is possible, as long as they don't cause harm.  So what harm does a homo couple cause?  Well, this of course depends on each individual's ideas.  For me a homo couple does not cause harm.  However, I have a male friend who is "married" to another male, and I have to admit I wouldn't like them to come home, simply because I am afraid of them being "too lovely to each other" maybe holding hands, or embracing each other...in that case what would I say to my kids? That's why I've never invited them home.  I'd rather meet them at their house or in a public place.  They don't disturb me in any way...but in connection to my kids.
So...in the end, for me they are not "normal" to a certain extent.


----------



## Phryne

Artrella said:
			
		

> To some extent, and after having read some psychology books, and having had some converstions with pyschologists, I must admit that homosexuals have some disorder if they are compared with heterosexuals.  As far as I know, they are sad people, and they keep asking "why me".  This of course, is what some friends who are psychologists and psychiatrists told me about homosexuals.
> My idea is that people must be happy, as happy as it is possible, as long as they don't cause harm.  So what harm does a homo couple cause?  Well, this of course depends on each individual's ideas.  For me a homo couple does not cause harm.  However, I have a male friend who is "married" to another male, and I have to admit I wouldn't like them to come home, simply because I am afraid of them being "too lovely to each other" maybe holding hands, or embracing each other...in that case what would I say to my kids? That's why I've never invited them home.  I'd rather meet them at their house or in a public place.  They don't disturb me in any way...but in connection to my kids.
> So...in the end, for me they are not "normal" to a certain extent.



I’m so sorry, my dear Artis because I’m on your case… again, but I don’t agree with your last post.

I’m not a psychologist, but I do know that “homosexuality” is not considered to be a “disorder” by most professionals, or at least, nobody seem to agree on that subject. I like to follow some professionals’ ideas that homosexuality is a part of nature and that there’s nothing “normal” or “abnormal” about it. I must say, I believe that our sexuality falls in a wide spectrum of tastes. As I previously mentioned in this thread, this is a matter of grays. Also, as Robert Benny pointed out, if it’s a disorder, then it can be fixed. Can it really be “fixed”? 
Further to this, I know a lot of people who would define themselves as gay or lesbian and I’ve never heard of them being unhappy about their sexuality or sexual choices. They all seem very happy to me, and their concerns about their existence are no different than mine or anybody else that I know. I don’t see any difference regarding feelings, emotions that they experience towards their partner, themselves or any other person they know. Really, I don’t see any difference. 
Perhaps the people you know are unhappy because society does make a difference and does discriminate.  I can’t think of any culture that nowadays considers homosexuality to be “normal”, “desirable”, or the like (although there were some). But there’s nothing inherent to their sexual preferences that make people feel unhappy. Also if we take in consideration that Argentina, at least compared to New York City, is extremely intolerant about homosexuality, then I can think that this is what may make your friends feel unease. 
Finally, I’m not going to tell you how to raise your children, but I don’t understand what’s so hard for your kids to see? 

Saludiños


----------



## Artrella

Phryne said:
			
		

> I’m so sorry, my dear Artis because I’m on your case… again, but I don’t agree with your last post.
> 
> I’m not a psychologist, but I do know that “homosexuality” is not considered to be a “disorder” by most professionals, or at least, nobody seem to agree on that subject. I like to follow some professionals’ ideas that homosexuality is a part of nature and that there’s nothing “normal” or “abnormal” about it. I must say, I believe that our sexuality falls in a wide spectrum of tastes. As I previously mentioned in this thread, this is a matter of grays. Also, as Robert Benny pointed out, if it’s a disorder, then it can be fixed. Can it really be “fixed”?
> Further to this, I know a lot of people who would define themselves as gay or lesbian and I’ve never heard of them being unhappy about their sexuality or sexual choices. They all seem very happy to me, and their concerns about their existence are no different than mine or anybody else that I know. I don’t see any difference regarding feelings, emotions that they experience towards their partner, themselves or any other person they know. Really, I don’t see any difference.
> Perhaps the people you know are unhappy because society does make a difference and does discriminate.  I can’t think of any culture that nowadays considers homosexuality to be “normal”, “desirable”, or the like (although there were some). But there’s nothing inherent to their sexual preferences that make people feel unhappy. Also if we take in consideration that Argentina, at least compared to New York City, is extremely intolerant about homosexuality, then I can think that this is what may make your friends feel unease.
> Finally, I’m not going to tell you how to raise your children, but I don’t understand what’s so hard for your kids to see?
> 
> Saludiños




Hi MJ!!
Again, I'm retelling what psychologists told me about their interviews in their offices, with these people. They say that they are sad people...
About my kids...there is a trans (she is an actress that we can see everyday on tv)... my son does not ask questions...but my daughter keeps telling me that this "woman" has a man's voice.  How can I explain this to a 7-y-o girl?
How can I explain about my friend?  I don't think she will understand...So this is my problem, not the fact that there exist couples of gays, lesbians, or trans.  For me it is the same, again, my problem is how to explain this to my kids.
Besitos...and you don't have to agree with me MJ!!! We are just explaining our feelings...and thank God...we think different things!!!


----------



## meili

As you have said MJ, I think Ms. A does not want her kids to see her 'male-couple friends' displaying their love and affection with each other because this will cause lots of questions and confusion. As you have said, Argentina is not like NY as it is not also like the Philippines. Even if same-sex couples are already 'rampant' or shall I say although many of these couples have already walked out of their closets, right, discrimination and *lack of total understanding* still does not come in handy.
I know two female friends who had fallen in love with each other - they began from being bestfriends and ended up as, yes, you know what. (They both came from a Catholic Family). While the other one is already willing to come out and tell the world about their relationship, the other one refused too. She said she's not ready, and she thinks she will never be. They love each other (I know, the other one tells me) so much but they are both happy and sad at the same time: happy that they found true love with each other yet sad because they cannot tell the world about it. Even friends, might not always understand.  *sigh*
Eveytime my grandmother would call me and will ask if I finally found a boyfriend for myself and I will tell her 'no hay, pero hay novia!', she will immediately shriek on the phone _Dios mio, pendejita! loca!_ Now, aren't she so..*sigh*
Perhaps if our generation will reach my _abuela's _age, then there will no longer be 'normal' or 'abnormal' couples, quote and quote.


----------



## Artrella

Meili, I think that in future it won't be necessary to explain anything, because nowadays these relationships are more exposed to the rest of the society.
So the problem I have is that my family raised me "against these unnatural things"... however, I don't find love or happiness to be "unnatural".  When my friend told me the "news" he was afraid I won't be his friend anymore...and I said...I don't want any of my friends to live alone, or sad...because society says yes or no... if you are blessed in life with love...it does not matter who is it...the important thing is that you love and you can be loved... so...end of the discussion for me... the other problem about kids has nothing to do with my idea in connection to homosexuallity.


----------



## meili

Artrella said:
			
		

> Meili, I think that in future it won't be necessary to explain anything, because nowadays these relationships are more exposed to the rest of the society.
> So the problem I have is that my family raised me "against these unnatural things"... however, I don't find love or happiness to be "unnatural". When my friend told me the "news" he was afraid I won't be his friend anymore...and I said...I don't want any of my friends to live alone, or sad...because society says yes or no... if you are blessed in life with love...it does not matter who is it...the important thing is that you love and you can be loved... so...end of the discussion for me... the other problem about kids has nothing to do with my idea in connection to homosexuallity.


UH-HUH! JUST WHAT I'VE SAID! And so was I, being raised by my grandmother because of problems! 
 Will the world be a better place in the future... Nobody can tell.
Your words, HOW I LOVE THEM!


----------



## Phryne

Queridas Artis y Mae!

Well, my question was more directed to why we have to feel that explaining "homosexuality" can cause confusion and questions. Kids can adapt to any culture and they learn their values and beliefs as the norm. They tend to consider anything that surrounds them as natural. If your kids grow up knowing that there is a whole array of sexual orientations, family types and so on, they will never have an issue with them. We are the ones that have questions and confusion; our kids merely reflect whatever we teach them.

saludos


----------



## meili

Phryne said:
			
		

> Queridas Artis y Mae!
> 
> Well, my question was more directed to why we have to feel that explaining "homosexuality" can cause confusion and questions. Kids can adapt to any culture and they learn their values and beliefs as the norm. They tend to consider anything that surrounds them as natural. If your kids grow up knowing that there is a whole array of sexual orientations, family types and so on, they will never have an issue with them. We are the ones that have questions and confusion; our kids merely reflect whatever we teach them.
> 
> saludos


You've got me thinking my dear MJ, and you have a point.
That is why I said that when our generation is going to be the one in our grandparent's level, then there will be no more comparing of 'normal' and 'abnormal' couples. Environment will begin moulding a confusion-free world.

Besitos!


----------



## cuchuflete

> If your kids grow up knowing that there is a whole array of sexual orientations, family types and so on, they will never have an issue with them. We are the ones that have questions and confusion; our kids merely reflect whatever we teach them.


Thanks for that MJ. Most sage thoughts. They go a long way towards explaining the differences of viewpoint driving this entire thread.

Modgirl wrote:



> I agree that they are many, many single parents, but I don't see anyone arguing that single parenthood gives children an equal or better upbringing than a two-parent home (with all other factors being equal, an important component).



1. I agree with your statement, fully and without qualification.
2. You prefer that the two-parent home be one with heterosexual parents.
I might agree with that as well.
3. If the choice is two homosexual married partners, _vs._ a single parent of either sex, I believe the children are best served by the two parent household.
4. If the choice is for a child to be in an institution, I believe adoption or foster parenting by two homosexual parents is far better for the child than continued institutional life.

Finally, the entire issue of child rearing by homosexual couples is a red herring that attempts to divert attention from the basic question of whether or not homosexual couples should be able to wed.  Most gay and lesbian couples I know either already have children, or have no desire to have children.  So...this digression is about a small minority of those who would marry and choose to raise kids.

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Finally, the entire issue of child rearing by homosexual couples is a red herring that attempts to divert attention from the basic question of whether or not homosexual couples should be able to wed.


 
I respectfully disagree.  It is a concern of many people.  Marriage brings many implications, adoption (for a legally married couple) being just one of them.  Although they most likely won't conceive children in a natural fashion, many gay people do want children.  When adoption becomes their avenue, the legality of their relationship comes strongly into play.


----------



## f3rooha

hi .. in my country ( Saudi Arabia) such thing is totally prohibited because 
it's against Islamic regulations . I don't encourage it either . May God guide them to the right path .


----------



## cirrus

f3rooha said:
			
		

> hi .. in my country ( Saudi Arabia) such thing is totally prohibited because
> it's against Islamic regulations . I don't encourage it either . May God guide them to the right path .


 
This seems to be another red herring.  Were we to take Saudi Arabia as our moral model we woulnd't allow alchohol or women to drive.


----------



## cuchuflete

cirrus said:
			
		

> This seems to be another red herring. Were we to take Saudi Arabia as our moral model we woulnd't allow alchohol or women to drive.



It's not a red herring.  It's an expression of a viewpoint.  

It's also a little pompous and superior sounding to take a shot at Saudi culture.  Were the Saudi's to take Northern Ireland as a moral model they might find a civil war, with both sides acting in the name of their respective deity and religion.  Any culture, my own included, has its beacons of light and its murky depths.  

Shall we return to the topic of the thread?


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree. It is a concern of many people. Marriage brings many implications, adoption (for a legally married couple) being just one of them. Although they most likely won't conceive children in a natural fashion, many gay people do want children. When adoption becomes their avenue, the legality of their relationship comes strongly into play.



Granted, though I think it's out on the edges of the principal argument.  I haven't ever seen any proof...just supposition...that gay parents are less able than 'straight' parents when it comes to rearing healthy children.

Let's look at facts:  The overwhelming majority of gay people were raised by 'straight' parents, so homosexuality is not transmitted by parenting.  Thus, even if one is homophobic...I am not accusing Modgirl or any other participant in this thread of that...the objection to gay marriage based on the possibility of adoption is shaky at best.   

If you believe that heterosexual parents, plural, is best...well fine and good.  Should you therefore condemn or prohibit anything less than that ideal?  Why not forbid all those with anger management problems to have children, regardless of the sexual preferences of the angry ones?  

Try looking at it from the positive side.  Prospective adoptive parents, at least around here, are very thoroughly screened.  If a gay married couple passes the review, and wants to adopt a child who is institutionalized because its natural parents are dead, or incapable of rearing it, that seems to be offer the child an improvement.  

In someone's ideal world, perhaps it would be best to leave the child in an orphanage until a competent heterosexual married couple shows up.  Is that really an expression of concern for the child?

Is anyone really implying that gay people are bad or pernicious parents?
I certainly hope not.  If one were to pursue that sort of argument, some evidence to support the viewpoint would be interesting.  Lacking hard factual evidence, such arguments should be discounted as nothing but irrational prejudice.


----------



## Artrella

> In someone's ideal world, perhaps it would be best to leave the child in an orphanage until a competent heterosexual married couple shows up. Is that really an expression of concern for the child?





Not in mine at least...and I hope in nobody's world!!! 

As I said before and as Meili said as well, things are changing, we people of my age were raised in a world full of wrong ideas, about sexuality, about communism, about a lot of things... I can still remember how my mum explained to me how children are "made"...My God!!!...Now my kids of 11, and 7 years old, know how things are about babies...but still I cannot find the way to explain my daughter why that "woman" has a man's voice.... how can I explain that "she" has "breasts" and "the male organ between her legs"??? How can I explain to her about the mind of this woman...if I cannot even understand it myself!!!!  I must confess that I'm happy for this "woman" because she is a good actress, and she is very funny, and I like her.  But still, cannot find a good explanation for my Artrellita.
And you know something?  I like freedom, happiness, and I'm not scared of people being different or thinking different from me...
The only thing I hope is that soon I can find the way to explain how the world is to my kids, and let them be free of thinking, and taking their own conclusions about what is good or bad to them.  With no other influence, but their own thoughts.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Granted, though I think it's out on the edges of the principal argument. I haven't ever seen any proof...just supposition...that gay parents are less able than 'straight' parents when it comes to rearing healthy children.


 
Unfortunately, you seem to miss the argument. It isn't at all about the _fitness_ of a gay person being a parent. It's about the lack of either a mother or a father. The very same argument could be made for single people adopting, as well.

The point that I made earlier is that when two married couples apply for adoption (and a couple is preferable to a single person with ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL), a gay married couple will be on equal legal footing with the straight married couple. Yet, the gay couple is still missing either a mother or a father.  And no one here has addressed that issue!

We really need to read what is written and not what our preconceived minds have retained from other discussions!!


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete, perhaps I can produce an example which may be easier to understand.

Two couple wish to adopt a child. Mental health, income, and many other factors are the same!! (Somehow, by your replies, you are implying that someone is arguing that an institution is better than a gay couple for raising a child until a straight couple can be found. You introduced that point, and I see no one arguing in favor of it, so I want to make certain that you fully understand that the two couples are nearly identical except that one couple comprises a man and woman and the other comprises two men {or two women})

If the gay couple is chosen over the heterosexual couple, then the child is missing a mother or a father. Like it or not, studies have shown that a mother and father are preferable to the absence of one -- ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL.

If the heterosexual couple is chosen over the gay couple, the gay couple could then sue for discrimination since they're legally married.

When we consider laws, we have to look all the entire spectrum of the implications, not just the short-term benefits. Quite frankly, I don't know many who would argue that a monogamous couple should be denied benefits (such as insurance premiums and protection when one dies and other things like that) that legally married people have.

However, like it or not, adoption is a concern when viewing the long range of benefits for legally married gay people. To dismiss the issue is only looking at the positive aspects of gay marriage that we want to see.


----------



## Artrella

Modgirl, your contribution to this thread is really important and intelligent.  Now we are turning this discussion, which was at first about "gays being married" to that of "children adoption by a gay couple".  

In this context, I fully agree with you.  Both "images", *mother* and *father* comply a role in a person's process of growing up.  These roles are not interchangeable and they are precisely demarcated.  So in the case of a gay couple this is not possible at all.  And you've put me  between the devil and the deep blue sea, because at equal conditions, I would chose the straight couple.  Just for the sake of the child's healthy process of growing up (and I mean by this,  his/her psychological development of his7her personality).  
I don't mean that a gay couple will "teach" the child how to be a gay person, but as you mentioned in your post, the role of a mother is ESSENTIAL in the previous years of children, whereas at the age of 8 years old, approximately, the presence of the "male image" is ESSENTIAL to deal with the "oedipus complex" (both in girls and boys).  So in that case, a gay couple would not be able to carry out both roles.  No matter how loving and caring they could be.


----------



## Phryne

Artrella said:
			
		

> Modgirl, your contribution to this thread is really important and intelligent.  Now we are turning this discussion, which was at first about "gays being married" to that of "children adoption by a gay couple".
> 
> In this context, I fully agree with you.  Both "images", *mother* and *father* comply a role in a person's process of growing up.  These roles are not interchangeable and they are precisely demarcated.  So in the case of a gay couple this is not possible at all.  And you've put me  between the devil and the deep blue sea, because at equal conditions, I would chose the straight couple.  Just for the sake of the child's healthy process of growing up (and I mean by this,  his/her psychological development of his7her personality).
> I don't mean that a gay couple will "teach" the child how to be a gay person, but as you mentioned in your post, the role of a mother is ESSENTIAL in the previous years of children, whereas at the age of 8 years old, approximately, the presence of the "male image" is ESSENTIAL to deal with the "oedipus complex" (both in girls and boys).  So in that case, a gay couple would not be able to carry out both roles.  No matter how loving and caring they could be.


 So, Artis, what happens in a home where there's only one parent?


----------



## Artrella

Phryne said:
			
		

> So, Artis, what happens in a home where there's only one parent?




It is not good.  And I can talk through my own experience.


----------



## Everness

The more I read about human behavior, the more I'm convinced that the formulas good parents=good children and bad parents=bad children; straight parents=good children and gay parents=bad children, etc. etc. have no basis whatsoever. Nature beats nurture's ass big time. The value of environmental factors is very limited. Gay couples can adopt kids and the outcome will be the same as if they had straight parents. I think this is good news for parents. If your kid is a screw-up, you can blame his/her genes, that is your folks, and your folks' folks, ad infinitum... If he/she is a genius, well... just look the other way and take some credit. After all, we all know that you are the best dad or mom on this world!


----------



## cuchuflete

Modgirl,

I strongly suggest you re-read my posts, which you seem to have badly misunderstood.  I was implying exactly the opposite of your interpretation.   

Your point is that giving the same legal rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples in a marriage will give them equal rights to adopt.  Clear enough.  You further state that if, in some theoretical "all things being equal" circumstance, the two couples apply to adopt the same child, and the heterosexual couple is selected, the gay couple "could then sue for discrimmination...".  That's pure speculation.  It is not fact.  The outcome of such a theoretically speculative legal action is even more speculative.
If all things are truly equal, then the subjective judgement of an adoption agency as to who would provide the best home for the theoretical child would necessarily come into play...just as it would and does in the case of two current heterosexual married couples.

With each post, you draw further away from the central question of legal rights for gay couples to marry.  First you take the small minority who might wish to adopt.  Then you seek out a theoretical fraction of a fraction who *might*, if denied adoption in a competition with a straight couple, bring some legal action of dubious outcome. Remove the gay married couple from the equation, substitute another heterosexual couple, and the same lawsuit *might* occur, again with an uncertain outcome.  It looks like you are advocating equality, with some more equal than others.  

If that's really the only source of your objection to gay marriage, it's a very slim source.  If the well-being of children is best served by having both male and female parents as loving role models, then logic would dictate that you make strenuous efforts on behalf of all the children of single parent households, to have them removed from their single parent, and placed for adoption with heterosexual couples.  

I believe that all people, regardless of sexual persuasion, should be able to marry if that's what floats their boat. Period.   

It appears that neither your logic nor mine are going to persuade the other to change stance, so I suggest we agree to disagree.

regards,
C. 




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> cuchuflete, perhaps I can produce an example which may be easier to understand.
> 
> Two couple wish to adopt a child. Mental health, income, and many other factors are the same!! (Somehow, by your replies, you are implying that someone is arguing that an institution is better than a gay couple for raising a child until a straight couple can be found. You introduced that point, and I see no one arguing in favor of it, so I want to make certain that you fully understand that the two couples are nearly identical except that one couple comprises a man and woman and the other comprises two men {or two women})
> 
> If the gay couple is chosen over the heterosexual couple, then the child is missing a mother or a father. Like it or not, studies have shown that a mother and father are preferable to the absence of one -- ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL.
> 
> If the heterosexual couple is chosen over the gay couple, the gay couple could then sue for discrimination since they're legally married.
> 
> When we consider laws, we have to look all the entire spectrum of the implications, not just the short-term benefits. Quite frankly, I don't know many who would argue that a monogamous couple should be denied benefits (such as insurance premiums and protection when one dies and other things like that) that legally married people have.
> 
> However, like it or not, adoption is a concern when viewing the long range of benefits for legally married gay people. To dismiss the issue is only looking at the positive aspects of gay marriage that we want to see.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> You further state that if, in some theoretical "all things being equal" circumstance, the two couples apply to adopt the same child, and the heterosexual couple is selected, the gay couple "could then sue for discrimmination...". That's pure speculation.


 
The United States is a sue-happy society. There are companies now who don't dare to fire a person of minority status -- even if the person is incompetent, because there have been too many cases of lawsuits. No one can accurately predict what will happen, but we look at trends. If this were another country, the situation might be different. When judges interpret laws, they look at past precedents. In the case of discrimination, Americans are not shy! Based on past behavior, there's no reason to think that all of a sudden, people will not stand up for their rights. When gay people marry, their rights should not be denied any more than any other couple.



> With each post, you draw further away from the central question of legal rights for gay couples to marry


 
I gave one reason why many people question gay marriages. One has to look beyond the absolute surface.



> First you take the small minority who might wish to adopt.


 
Do you have a source that statistically says that the percentage is a small minority? 



> It looks like you are advocating equality, with some more equal than others.


 
Do you think that a home without a mother or without a father is the same as a home with both (all other factors being equal)?




> If the well-being of children is best served by having both male and female parents as loving role models, then logic would dictate that you make strenuous efforts on behalf of all the children of single parent households, to have them removed from their single parent, and placed for adoption with heterosexual couples.


 
Again, you're introducing a new point. No one stated (at least not I) that children should be removed from a home that does not have two opposite sex parents. However, the reality that now stands is that a household of a male and female takes precedence over a single parent for adoption -- all other factors being equal. This isn't about "taking away" children. It's about placing them in the best two-parent home. Gay marriage puts gay couples on equal footing in the decision process. That is the objection of many people. I'm not sure how more clearly I can state the case.


----------



## modgirl

Artrella said:
			
		

> Modgirl, your contribution to this thread is really important and intelligent. Now we are turning this discussion, which was at first about "gays being married" to that of "children adoption by a gay couple".


 
Hi Art!

I'm sorry that I gave the impression that I'm changing the subject.  I'm simply stating one of the implications that legalizing gay marriage can bring.  Actually, all I've done is present the argument, and opponents have credited me with having the opinion!  Somehow, many people think that we can only debate using our own points-of-view.

Personally, and I'm stating my opinion for the first time, I'm not particularly for or against gay marriage.  But I've heard the argument about gay couples and adoption, and it's interesting to see how it is highly misunderstood.


----------



## Artrella

modgirl said:
			
		

> Hi Art!
> 
> I'm sorry that I gave the impression that I'm changing the subject.  I'm simply stating one of the implications that legalizing gay marriage can bring.  Actually, all I've done is present the argument, and opponents have credited me with having the opinion!  Somehow, many people think that we can only debate using our own points-of-view.
> 
> Personally, and I'm stating my opinion for the first time, I'm not particularly for or against gay marriage.  But I've heard the argument about gay couples and adoption, and it's interesting to see how it is highly misunderstood.




Well, I am really interested in reading all your posts (and the rest of course) because sometimes when you hear some other opinion, this makes you think and rethink .... 
And in my case, I'm not against or for either, I just think that you have to be happy and that's it.  As long as you don't cause harm to anyone.


----------



## modgirl

I think with any controversial issue, what is important is truly listening to another point-of-view.  It doesn't matter whether or not we agree, but it does matter that we understand it.  Only with that understanding can we break down barriers that may (or may not even) be present.

With all due respect to cuchuflete, when he (or she; I'm very sorry that I do not know which) made comments about children being put in institutions rather than be adopted by gay couples, it was clear that the argument was not understood.  And, we all jump to conclusions and don't quite receive the actual message.  I do it, too!  

But an essential part of debate is responding only to what the other person said and not make inferences based on other debates or discussions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Modgirl, 

I'll address your points in order.





> Me: Quote:
> With each post, you draw further away from the central question of legal rights for gay couples to marry
> 
> 
> You: I gave one reason why many people question gay marriages. One has to look beyond the absolute surface.
> You may look very far beyond the absolute surface, when there is a lack of a strong logical argument that directly addresses the issue. This is a theoretical diversion, regarding a fraction of a fraction of those whom the original question addresses. Yes, we have a litigious society. Yes, some members of the fraction of potential gay married adoptive parents, who are a fraction of all theoretical gay married couples, might take a legal action. The outcome of such an action would be based on statute law, as well as precedent, as well as the particular facts of the theoretical case.
> And if a butterfly flaps its wings in Hong Kong that might affect the weather in North Dakota.  Very far away indeed.
> I don't dispute the possibility of anything you suggest as potential grounds for objection to gay marriage. I do dispute that it's a persuasive reason to make a legal decision regarding marital status.
> 
> Me: Quote:
> First you take the small minority who might wish to adopt.
> 
> 
> You: Do you have a source that statistically says that the percentage is a small minority?
> 
> I have three sources: 1) common sense;  2) *http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-filing-trends-1988-1997.html*
> There were some 80,000 adoptions in 1997 in the entire U.S. There were about 270,000,000 persons in the country at that time. Assume that only 50% were married--that's well below the actual figure, and you have about 70 million marriages. Adoptions thus represented about 1/100th of one percent of marriages, or 0.0001. That's a small fraction of a fraction, isn't it?
> 
> 3)  The percentage of all married couples in this country who attempt to adopot is a very small number. I have no logical reason to believe that it should be otherwise based on the sexual status of members of a married couple.
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Why not take the states where homosexual marriage or 'legal union' is permitted, and see if you can find a statistical trends showing a greater propensity towards attempts at adoption by gay or lesbian couples than by the married population at large. Good rhetorical question or your part, but I throw it back at you: Can you offer even the flimsiest shred of evidence that this entire adoption polemic is other than about statistical outlyers?
> 
> 
> 
> me:
> Quote:
> It looks like you are advocating equality, with some more equal than others.
> 
> You:
> Do you think that a home without a mother or without a father is the same as a home with both (all other factors being equal)?
> Do you think that a home will green wallpaper but no orange wallpaper is the same as a home with both mothers-in-law in residence (all othre fators being equal)? You ducked my question, and not very deftly.
> 
> Let me emulate your style, and try to put it in simple terms, easier to understand....
> 
> 1. You have raised the theoretical possibility of a lawsuit by a gay couple.
> 2. That very same theoretical possibility of a lawsuit by a heterosexual couple exists today, under identical circumstances, as you are wont to say...all other factors being equal.
> 
> 3. The legal action --theoretical--by a heterosexual couple doesn't seem to concern you, yet the very same action by a homosexual couple does. Therefore, you are preaching unequal justice under the law, based on sexual preference only.
> 
> If you are not arguing on behalf of your own viewpoint, but exposing the objections of others who oppose marital rights for homosexuals, that's fine.
> I accuse those others who use such arguments of attempting to divert attention from the real question at hand, and of doing so with painfully weak logic and damned little fact. It's highly unconvincing.
> 
> There may be strong logical and factual arguments against homosexual marriage, but this diversion is not among them.
> 
> Where is William Buckley when we really need him to make this discussion more trenchant?


----------



## Artrella

modgirl said:
			
		

> I think with any controversial issue, what is important is truly listening to another point-of-view.  It doesn't matter whether or not we agree, but it does matter that we understand it.  Only with that understanding can we break down barriers that may (or may not even) be present.
> 
> With all due respect to cuchuflete, when he (or she; I'm very sorry that I do not know which) made comments about children being put in institutions rather than be adopted by gay couples, it was clear that the argument was not understood.  And, we all jump to conclusions and don't quite receive the actual message.  I do it, too!
> 
> But an essential part of debate is responding only to what the other person said and not make inferences based on other debates or discussions.





I fully agree with you Modgirl.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete, your views are clear. But, the problem is that you will not or cannot comprehend the concern of gay marriage as it pertains to adoption. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, not everyone thinks exactly like we do! Just because you don't think it's a concern does not mean it is not for others.

*The fact is that a gay married couple will then have an equal chance as a heterosexual married couple to adopt a child. However, the gay marriage lacks a mother or a father. That simply is a concern to many people, whether or not you wish to believe or understand it.*

I can't accurately predict what will happen any more than you can. But to ignore the argument is further developing a rift in the issue. You don't have to agree with the concern, but to dismiss it (because it isn't a concern to you) is to say that what anyone else thinks is unimportant. And others will do the same to you, and pretty soon, no one is listening to anyone else. And that's when discussion breaks down.

I will bow out now, as I'm not certain how to better present the argument.  You may not think that gay adoption has much to do with gay marriage, but the implications are a concern to many others.

Last point, may I kindly suggest that "common sense" should not be used as a source for a statistic! I'm afraid it would easily get you laughed right out of a serious or intelligent debate.


----------



## Sev

modgirl said:
			
		

> The fact is that a gay married couple will then have an equal chance as a heterosexual married couple to adopt a child. *However, the gay marriage lacks a mother or a father.* That simply is a concern to many people, whether or not you wish to believe or understand it.


I disagree with many things you said but I'll let Cuchu answer, except for this : at the moment, there are no serious studies about this "lack of mother/father". No one knows if it could be a problem or not for children. This is mostly because this is not a long time that children are raised by gay couples.
If you have some studies about that, please let me know, I'm just curious...


As for gay wedding, everything that was to say had been said, and I agree with Benjy/Cuchu, I don't see where the problem is with gay being married.


----------



## cirrus

modgirl said:
			
		

> cuchuflete, your views are clear. But, the problem is that you will not or cannot comprehend the concern of gay marriage as it pertains to adoption. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, not everyone thinks exactly like we do!...
> 
> 
> I will bow out now, as I'm not certain how to better present the argument. You may not think that gay adoption has much to do with gay marriage, but the implications are a concern to many others.


 
At the risk of raking up old coals can I ask whether you work in the field of child protection. I do. It could well be that the system is different in the States but here in the UK the system for adjudicating adoption, which has an unbelievably involved set of checks and balances, is based on the following key principles:

1 Will the child(ren) be safe in this person's hands?
2 Is there evidence that the person / people who are proposing adoption can do a sufficiently good job of looking after the child(ren)?
3 Are there practial support systems in place for the adopters to get more information and / support were they to need it?

The question of whether or not the young people have input from a father and a mother figure does not form part of this discussion. I don't understand why you have invested so much energy in arguing what seems a somewhat abstruse theoretical point. Can we not all agree that what children need is a space where they can be looked after, given space to grow, positive feedback and consistent boundaries? 

As the overwhelming majority of family set ups are never vetted, to propose your doubts on whether a same sex couple can offer the same level of support and nurturing as a straight couple as a barrier to gay couples having the right to marriage seems less than logical. 

Certainly the situation here is that the older a child gets, the harder it is to place them. Adopting and fostering children is a major challenge that few people are even willing to consider. The result? Many young people grow up in institutions as a result. Taking your argument to the absurd are you saying that is better for them to stay in institutions rather than "risk" being adopted by a gay couple or a single person?


----------



## Sev

Artrella said:
			
		

> As far as I know, they are sad people, and they keep asking "why me". This of course, is what some friends who are psychologists and psychiatrists told me about homosexuals.
> 
> However, I have a male friend who is "married" to another male, and I have to admit I wouldn't like them to come home, simply because I am afraid of them being "too lovely to each other" maybe holding hands, or embracing each other...in that case what would I say to my kids? That's why I've never invited them home. I'd rather meet them at their house or in a public place. They don't disturb me in any way...but in connection to my kids.


About normal or not, others gave you answers (Phryne #225). 

I'd just like to point out one thing : of course homosexual are not born more sad than any other people. Now if even their good friend can't invite them because they have problems to explain to their children, can you see where it leads ? Many of them are sad because even if we make as if homosexuality was fully accepted, it's not really. And as I-don't-remember-who said, there are huge differences between big cities and small towns/villages.

About your children, don't take it personnaly Art, I understand your feeling but as Phryne said it children don't care as much as we do. You just have to explain them simply that 2 men or 2 women can love each other.
I've got 3 brothers/sisters (5, 7, 10 years old), and my parents have 2 lesbians friends who have a baby (1 year old). At the beginning, my older sister had many questions, and my parents simply answered the truth and now everything is fine, they have no trouble at all with that.


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> *The fact is that a gay married couple will then have an equal chance as a heterosexual married couple to adopt a child. However, the gay marriage lacks a mother or a father. That simply is a concern to many people, whether or not you wish to believe or understand it.*



You have a point. There's an intimate relationship between marriage and parenthood. In God's plan, romantic love between 2 individuals was not his main concern. Romantic love is just the icing on the cake. God was concerned about creating an environment --a dad and a mom-- that would allow children to grow physically, emotionally, relationally and spiritually. God was thinking in terms of procreation and preservation of the race. Marriage is subservient to family. 

What we are currently doing is separating the two axes that were intended to go together: marriage and parenthood. Science is giving us a big hand through, for instance, IVF. You don't need to marry a guy or a gal to become a father or a mother. Some people believe that culture is messing up with nature. As a religious person, I would agree. Actually, and in the light of Genesis 1-3, I don't think that gay marriage can be justified or explained theologically. As a student of human behavior, I disagree with the notion that culture --and religion is an expression of culture-- can change nature. As I stated above, heredity overrides culture. Being gay or lesbian has to do with genetic design. If a gay couple adopts a kid, and the kid becomes homosexual or heterosexual, the outcome is sole responsibility of the biological parents.


----------



## cuchuflete

This grows tiresome, but I don't care for distortions, no matter how oblique. 





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> cuchuflete, your views are clear. But, the problem is that you will not or cannot comprehend the concern of gay marriage as it pertains to adoption. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, not everyone thinks exactly like we do! Just because you don't think it's a concern does not mean it is not for others. I think its a concern for those who choose to grasp at straws when they lack logic and fact. There are such people, lots of them. They are essentially homophobic, and will construct elaborate arguments based on speculation about a miniscule fraction of a population, and what they *just might do* under rare and extraordinary circumstances. This is their best shot at denying rights to a larger population. It's an argument, and it matters to some people, but it's a weak, unpersuasive argument. The problem is that you will not or cannot comprehend that I am fully aware of both the existence of such concerns, and the flawed and flimsy underpinnings of the associated objections.
> 
> *The fact is that a gay married couple will then have an equal chance as a heterosexual married couple to adopt a child. However, the gay marriage lacks a mother or a father. That simply is a concern to many people, whether or not you wish to believe or understand it. *Whether or not you are willing or able to believe or understand it, the concern is based on unproved assumptions. Further, the concern seems to assume, wrongly, that heterosexual couples are inherently and consistently better able to act as parents than homosexual couples. Where's the proof? There's more prejudice and speculation than fact driving this concern. I've seen lots of lousy parenting by the combination of a mother and a father.
> The offspring would be far better served by two healthy, sane parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't accurately predict what will happen any more than you can. But to ignore the argument is further developing a rift in the issue. Please!  I have obviously not ignored the argument.  I've addressed it, repeatedly.  It's a weak and specious argument.
> 
> You don't have to agree with the concern, but to dismiss it I don't dismiss it...I condemn it as free of factual basis.  (because it isn't a concern to you) is to say that what anyone else thinks is unimportant. And others will do the same to you, and pretty soon, no one is listening to anyone else. And that's when discussion breaks down.
> 
> I will bow out now, as I'm not certain how to better present the argument. You may not think that gay adoption has much to do with gay marriage, but the implications are a concern to many others.
> 
> Last point, may I kindly suggest that "common sense" should not be used as a source for a statistic! I'm afraid it would easily get you laughed right out of a serious or intelligent debate.


 May I suggest that common sense tells both you and me that a majority of the population are not ambidextrous, that a majority of the population doesn't do ballroom dancing, that a majority of the population watches television? Do you really require "studies show that...." to accept something as credible?
Most people you know or have heard of have not adopted children. True or false? Neither you nor I need a report by a government commission or academic institution to accept that as a valid statement. 

I could inundate you with statistics to "prove" that adoption is relatively rare, but as you didn't bother to even acknowledge the stats I offered, but choose instead to go off on my use of common sense, I wonder if I should be laughing or questioning just how serious this 'debate' is.

*0.0001 is a damned small portion of a population. That's the percentage of heterosexual couples who adopt, if you assume that only fifty percent of the population is married! If more are married, the percentage is smaller. *And all of this talk about concerns held by many people really deals with the assumption that a similar percentage of gay married couples will choose to adopt a child, and that some small percentage of that already tiny percentage will have the legal right to contest denial of adoption,* in theory*.   

I accept that some people have such concerns. Why shouldn't I accept it? Lots of people have concerns, and some of these are quite reasonable. Some are not. I think its a thoroughy bogus argument. It's fear-mongering without supporting fact. 

Enlisting legislative power to create statutes based on such wrong-headed arguments does at least two things: (1) it creates bad laws; (2) It attempts to use governmental power as a cudgel to shove some peoples' personal prejudices down the throat of the citizenry at large. 

I can and do believe that such things happen, just as I can and do believe that some people have the concern you've described. That does not imply that I should agree with these things. 

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## asm

Although I agree with some of your points (I am in the middle of the spectrum, with some "conservative" and some "liberal" ideas), I disagree with your last statement. I do not think that the "outcome" is sole responsibility of the biological parents.

I do not think that homosexuality is 100% genetic; although some of its traits could be traced by genes, homosexuality, in one way or the other, has a lot to do with cultural issues. In addition, I shouldn't use the word "responsibility" in this context. 
Neither my wife nor I are responsible for the genetic traits my kids have received from us (bad or good)



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> If a gay couple adopts a kid, and the kid becomes homosexual or heterosexual, the outcome is sole responsibility of the biological parents.


----------



## zebedee

Artrella said:
			
		

> For me a homo couple does not cause harm. However, I have a male friend who is "married" to another male, and I have to admit I wouldn't like them to come home, simply because I am afraid of them being "too lovely to each other" maybe holding hands, or embracing each other...*in that case what would I say to my kids?* That's why I've never invited them home. I'd rather meet them at their house or in a public place. They don't disturb me in any way...but in connection to my kids.
> So...in the end, for me they are not "normal" to a certain extent.


 
Kids are not born prejudiced. They are far more open and tolerant than adults. They learn their prejudices from the information they are given or not given.

If you're finding it difficult to tell your kids that one male friend of yours loves another one, that's because you find it a hard question to answer, not because your kids are going to find it hard to understand and accept.
I imagine they already asked you questions like: Why is the sky blue? Why does that man/woman have so many wrinkles? Why does that boy/girl have different coloured skin to mine? and countless others besides. That's how children learn.

And I imagine that your kids understood and accepted your answers without causing either you or them any upset. Isn't this just as easy for them to understand and accept?


----------



## Everness

asm said:
			
		

> I do not think that homosexuality is 100% genetic; although some of its traits could be traced by genes, homosexuality, in one way or the other, has a lot to do with cultural issues.



I like to distinguish between causes  and factors. Ex: bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites cause  infectious diseases, a major cause of death, disability and social and economic upheaval for millions around the world. On the other hand, poverty, lack of access to health care, evolving human migration patterns, changing environmental and development activities, etc. are factors  that contribute to the expanding impact of infectious diseases. 

How this applies to homosexuality? Homosexuality is caused by heredity, blood chemistry, brain chemistry or structure, etc. yet colored by cultural factors like tolerance or intolerance towards it. So on the one hand we have a genetically transmitted condition (by the way, same thing applies to heterosexuality) and on the other hand we have broad cultural factors that color the way homosexuality is perceived and lived. 

My point is that there's nothing or very little in the middle. For instance, I don't think that a particular parenting style can cause homosexuality. Some people argue that if your son is unable to form a loving relationship with you, the dad, he would take this incompleteness into adulthood, where he would continue to seek love from another adult of the same gender. The result is a sexually active relationship. It's an interesting idea but it gives us parents too much power. We are already so full of toxic guilt and shame that we don't need an extra reason to feel bad about ourselves!  

In sum, the tendency towards homosexuality could be determined genetically yet this tendency may or may not be triggered during childhood into inducing a homosexual orientation later in life.


----------



## asm

I am sure that some homosexual individuals got that condition by their life experiences rather than by genetic causes. Are they "false" homosexuals? I think there are non-genetic causes as well. 

Your point about how social conditions allow to grow or hinder the effects of certain conditions is excellent.

I'd compare homosexuality not with an infection but with cancer (just for the sake of explaing with causes and effects); I think that some people are prone to get some kinds of cancer more than others (genetic causes); however, it is clear that the exposure to certain conditions also cause some kinds of cancer. In those cases it was the exposure rather than the predisposition the cause of the illness.





			
				Everness said:
			
		

> I like to distinguish between causes and factors. Ex: bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites cause infectious diseases, a major cause of death, disability and social and economic upheaval for millions around the world. On the other hand, poverty, lack of access to health care, evolving human migration patterns, changing environmental and development activities, etc. are factors that contribute to the expanding impact of infectious diseases.
> 
> How this applies to homosexuality? Homosexuality is caused by heredity, blood chemistry, brain chemistry or structure, etc. yet colored by cultural factors like tolerance or intolerance towards it. So on the one hand we have a genetically transmitted condition (by the way, same thing applies to heterosexuality) and on the other hand we have broad cultural factors that color the way homosexuality is perceived and lived.
> 
> My point is that there's nothing or very little in the middle. For instance, I don't think that a particular parenting style can cause homosexuality. Some people argue that if your son is unable to form a loving relationship with you, the dad, he would take this incompleteness into adulthood, where he would continue to seek love from another adult of the same gender. The result is a sexually active relationship. It's an interesting idea but it gives us parents too much power. We are already so full of toxic guilt and shame that we don't need an extra reason to feel bad about ourselves!
> 
> In sum, the tendency towards homosexuality could be determined genetically yet this tendency may or may not be triggered during childhood into inducing a homosexual orientation later in life.


----------



## Sev

Everness said:
			
		

> We are already so full of toxic guilt and shame that we don't need an extra reason to feel bad about ourselves!


I won't argue about the genetic origin or not of homosexuality, I just find it not interesting. I don't care to know how one become or how one is born gay, the important is just what you are. It seems like you try to know where it comes from to try to prevent homosexuality to occur...  
Asm and you are having an interesting disscussion about genetics but why always choosing comparisons with illness and diseases ???

Everness, do you mean (see quote) that having a gay child is a shame ?


----------



## Everness

Sev said:
			
		

> Everness, do you mean (see quote) that having a gay child is a shame ?



No, it's not something to feel ashamed of. However, and taking into account that we live in a world that is too intolerant, I don't think that any parent would choose (if they could choose) to have a gay or lesbian kid or raise him/her to become gay or lesbian. We don't want our kids to suffer; we want them to be happy. 

One day we'll live in a world that tolerates or even embraces homosexuality as a normal way of life or sexual orientation as heterosexuality is. (I seriously doubt this will happen. We'll never get rid of all the "isms.")  But we are still not there.


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> No, it's not something to feel ashamed of. ...*One day we'll live in a world that tolerates or even embraces homosexuality as a normal way* of life or sexual orientation as heterosexuality is. (I seriously doubt this will happen. We'll never get rid of all the "isms.") But we are still not there.


 Just as a note, in Ancient Greece it was not just normal but also desirable that males would initiate their sexual life with an older man. Yes, I made no mistake on that sentence! And there were no words to describe this activity as we have today. I mean "homosexuality" as a word and concept was coined in the nineteenth century, believe it or not. 

It's all in our heads... in our very modern, post-industrial revolution heads... 

saludos


----------



## meili

Everness said:
			
		

> No, it's not something to feel ashamed of. However, and taking into account that we live in a world that is too intolerant, I don't think that any parent would choose (if they could choose) to have a gay or lesbian kid or raise him/her to become gay or lesbian.


Of course Everness, no parent would want their children to grow up being gays or lesbians - they just grow up to be like that, regardless that they come from rich or poor, broken or complete families - some even find out that they are gays even if they are already married.


> We don't want our kids to suffer; we want them to be happy.


Guess this has already been discussed by Phryne. post #225 and #230.
Saluditos!


----------



## Artrella

Phryne said:
			
		

> Just as a note, in Ancient Greece it was not just normal but also desirable that males would initiate their sexual life with an older man. Yes, I made no mistake on that sentence! And there were no words to describe this activity as we have today. I mean "homosexuality" as a word and concept was coined in the nineteenth century, believe it or not.
> 
> It's all in our heads... in our very modern, post-industrial revolution heads...
> 
> saludos




Well, yes Phryne... among Romans it was the best thing to do!! But I think this was done in ancient times, because *women* were considered nothing...or the "devil" ...


----------



## cuchuflete

The last half dozen or more posts are way off topic.  If you wish to discuss homosexuality and child rearing and claims that women were the devil, please open new threads.  If you cannot remember what the topic of this thread is, please read the first post.

The thread remains open.  Further digressions will be moved or deleted.  

c.


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> Just as a note, in Ancient Greece it was not just normal but also desirable that males would initiate their sexual life with an older man. Yes, I made no mistake on that sentence! And there were no words to describe this activity as we have today. I mean "homosexuality" as a word and concept was coined in the nineteenth century, believe it or not.
> 
> It's all in our heads... in our very modern, post-industrial revolution heads...
> 
> saludos



We could find other examples of how homosexuality was perceived positively or negatively in other times and cultures. But I found out that those types of arguments don't change people's takes on this particular topic. Actually they sometimes backfire. "What do you expect from those Greeks? They were a bunch of fuckin' degenerates." 

Beliefs on sexual behavior and politics have deep roots in the realm of the irrational. Values, and especially prejudices, run very, very deep and most of the times they stay with us until the end of our lives on this earth.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness,
I'll cut you some slack, as the time-stamp of your last post suggests at least the possibility that you were composing it before you had an opportunity to read post # 267.

Further off-topic posts will be deleted.

For those with an aversion to a single mouse click, here's the thread topic, from post #1.




> *What do you say about the marriage between people the same sex?*


----------



## astronauta

As a form of respect to the forum and its participants, I hereby ask all the participants in this discussion that before making a strong affirmation such as "all the gays I know are such and such" or "they are not fit to such and such" to kindly post a link to a serious website where all these arguments are evidenced. I am frankly tired of reading tremendous statements that reflect only the posters opinions and have the object to generalise.

I am sure you will agree with me if we were talking about another hot topic such as capitalism, religion, etc. this would only be fair. It is only the right thing to do to keep this thread readable.

Arterlla, this is regarding your posts. I have yet to see a serious publication about what you comment. I believe that until heterosexuals as a group maintain an immaculate state in everything from “disorders” to the inability to raise a child (as you put it) then this comment becomes entirely obsolete.

     Regarding your other comments about public displays of affection, well, likewise, I have witnessed hetero couples making out to the extent of making the most liberals blush. So no, I would not even like straight people making out in front of my nieces and nephews as it equally distasteful. Do you see how it goes both ways? These are manners (a separate topic) that cannot be hung up on homosexuals ONLY.

     About not being able to comprehend how to explain your children about why there are homosexual couples, well, you have two choices, either tell them is not normal and perpetuate the struggle for a minority or to tell them the truth. I honestly think there are worse things to be explained than two people having a right for intimacy, such as terrorism, ethnic cleansing or famine, that is hard to explain to a child. 


 As I always say, no on e is judging any straight couple by what they do in bed. Why are homosexuals subject to such an intimate matter?


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> As I always say, no on e is judging any straight couple by what they do in bed. Why are homosexuals subject to such an intimate matter?



One reason is basic stats. 

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=478685

According to one of these studies, 3-6% of the US adult male population is homosexual, with somewhat fewer females. I'm sure that throughout the history of humankind, this percentage hasn't changed significantly. Homosexuality, a sexual orientation informed by genetics and heredity, isn't statistically the norm. Heterosexuality, also a sexual orientation informed by genetics and heredity, is statistically the norm. Why is this? Is mother nature homophobic and therefore keeps the production of babies with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality within the 3-6% of the general population? 

I stick to my idea that the central purpose of sexuality is procreation. God and/or evolution gave us potent sexual drives to make sure that we make enough babies so our human race doesn't become extinct. (Now we have the problem of overpopulation but that's another story.) It's true that sex needs to be understood in terms of its broader functions, e.g.: expression of love, etc; after all, only 1/1000 or less of sexual relationships in marriage have to do with reproduction. But the central goal continues to be reproduction. 

In order to accomplish this goal, you need a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina and a womb to carry the baby for 9 months. Two men can't do it and 2 women can't either. Even with IVF, a method of assisted reproduction, you still need a man's sperm and the woman's egg which are combined in a laboratory dish, where fertilization occurs. The theological formula for this can be found in Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Two persons literally become one flesh in the joining of genes in their children. 

This is why some people are opposed to gay marriage: It goes against the main goal of marriage: procreation. If two men or two women decide to have a baby through IVF, they will have to resort to a third individual. If a gay or lesbian couple wants to adopt a baby, I don't see any problem. (Just cross your fingers that they aren't Republicans.) Do they need to be married to adopt? No.

Let me be clear on one important point. All the above doesn't mean that gays and lesbians can't have significant and enriching relationships. The central issue here is the institution of matrimony. The problem is more ethical, philosophical, and theological than legal: We are revisiting the nature of marriage. 

And I think people who think this way should not be branded homophobic or prejudiced. You might disagree with their position but it's a valid one.


----------



## cuchuflete

Although you've said a lot I can easily agree with, I'll differ on a few points.

If, and it's a big if, given the methods used to collect government statistics, X% of the adult male population has declared itself to be homosexual, and if that percentage, as you suggest, has not varied significantly throughout the history of mankind...then I question your use of the term "normal".  It appears to be a consistent and normal state for a significant minority of the population to have different sexual proclivities than the majority.

Majority doesn't equal normal, and minority doesn't equal abnormal.  They are simply majority and minority.   "Normal" is a loaded word, which often implies that those who are different from the norm are abnormal=unhealthy or in some way wrong.   Membership is a minority group does not equal wrongness.  It's simply a numeric comparison.

If you want an uncomfortable example, Christians are a minority of the world's population.  That, according to your use of the term, makes them abnormal!  Given what I've read in previous posts of yours, I don't expect you would like to be so described.

It's a linguistic distinction as well as a scientific one, and given the emotion that often surrounds the issue of gay marriage, we should be careful and precise with both language and scientific facts.

Second point of either disagreement or confusion...I'm not sure which.

Here are two statements you made in the same paragraph, which seem to contradict one another:

1. "...the central purpose of sexuality is procreation."
2. " ...only 1/1000 or less of sexual relationships in marriage have to do with reproduction"

It certainly appears that the central purpose is recreational, affectionate, or athletic, rather than procreative, based on your stats.


Finally, if, as you say, the main purpose of marriage is procreation, then why allow marriage for heterosexuals who choose not to procreate?  Because such marriages are allowed by law, whatever the theological dim view taken of such unions by some religions, the procreational primacy of marriage cannot be used as a logical basis for disallowing homosexual unions.  

regards,
Cuchu

PS- You alluded to overpopulation.  It's a fact.  Perhaps that reality is, or should be, changing some people's understanding of the primary purpose of marriage. I don't dispute the historical association of marriage and procreation.  I simply wonder aloud if it makes as much sense today as it did in earlier times.  



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> One reason is basic stats.
> 
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=478685
> 
> According to one of these studies, 3-6% of the US adult male population is homosexual, with somewhat fewer females. I'm sure that throughout the history of humankind, this percentage hasn't changed significantly. Homosexuality, a sexual orientation informed by genetics and heredity, isn't statistically the norm. Heterosexuality, also a sexual orientation informed by genetics and heredity, is statistically the norm. Why is this? Is mother nature homophobic and therefore keeps the production of babies with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality within the 3-6% of the general population?
> 
> I stick to my idea that the central purpose of sexuality is procreation. God and/or evolution gave us potent sexual drives to make sure that we make enough babies so our human race doesn't become extinct. (Now we have the problem of overpopulation but that's another story.) It's true that sex needs to be understood in terms of its broader functions, e.g.: expression of love, etc; after all, only 1/1000 or less of sexual relationships in marriage have to do with reproduction. But the central goal continues to be reproduction.
> 
> In order to accomplish this goal, you need a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina and a womb to carry the baby for 9 months. Two men can't do it and 2 women can't either. Even with IVF, a method of assisted reproduction, you still need a man's sperm and the woman's egg which are combined in a laboratory dish, where fertilization occurs. The theological formula for this can be found in Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Two persons literally become one flesh in the joining of genes in their children.
> 
> This is why some people are opposed to gay marriage: It goes against the main goal of marriage: procreation. If two men or two women decide to have a baby through IVF, they will have to resort to a third individual. If a gay or lesbian couple wants to adopt a baby, I don't see any problem. (Just cross your fingers that they aren't Republicans.) Do they need to be married to adopt? No.
> 
> Let me be clear on one important point. All the above doesn't mean that gays and lesbians can't have significant and enriching relationships. The central issue here is the institution of matrimony. The problem is more ethical, philosophical, and theological than legal: We are revisiting the nature of marriage.
> 
> And I think people who think this way should not be branded homophobic or prejudiced. You might disagree with their position but it's a valid one.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Although you've said a lot I can easily agree with, I'll differ on a few points.
> 
> If, and it's a big if, given the methods used to collect government statistics, X% of the adult male population has declared itself to be homosexual, and if that percentage, as you suggest, has not varied significantly throughout the history of mankind...then I question your use of the term "normal".  It appears to be a consistent and normal state for a significant minority of the population to have different sexual proclivities than the majority.
> 
> Majority doesn't equal normal, and minority doesn't equal abnormal.  They are simply majority and minority.   "Normal" is a loaded word, which often implies that those who are different from the norm are abnormal=unhealthy or in some way wrong.   Membership is a minority group does not equal wrongness.  It's simply a numeric comparison.
> 
> If you want an uncomfortable example, Christians are a minority of the world's population.  That, according to your use of the term, makes them abnormal!  Given what I've read in previous posts of yours, I don't expect you would like to be so described.
> 
> It's a linguistic distinction as well as a scientific one, and given the emotion that often surrounds the issue of gay marriage, we should be careful and precise with both language and scientific facts.



On purpose I didn't use the word "normal" because the other side of the coin would be "abnormal." I used the concept "norm" in a statistical and not in a moral or psychopathological way.  

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/norm

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/statistics/glossary/kn.html

I'm not referring to homosexuality as a "perversion" (Freud) or an abnormality. I'm just reflecting on "normal distribution." If the distribution was the other way around, underpopulation and not overpopulation would be our problem. 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Second point of either disagreement or confusion...I'm not sure which.
> 
> Here are two statements you made in the same paragraph, which seem to contradict one another:
> 
> 1. "...the central purpose of sexuality is procreation."
> 2. " ...only 1/1000 or less of sexual relationships in marriage have to do with reproduction"
> 
> It certainly appears that the central purpose is recreational, affectionate, or athletic, rather than procreative, based on your stats.



I think that mother nature is very smart or cautious, and just wants to make sure that the job gets done. For instance, hundred of millions of spermatozoa are delivered during an ejaculation yet just 1 gets the job done! What a waste, uh? I'm sure that God also realized that people wouldn't be interested in procreation if they didn't experience an orgasm, so he threw in intense sexual pleasure! Ain't he smart!



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Finally, if, as you say, the main purpose of marriage is procreation, then why allow marriage for heterosexuals who choose not to procreate?  Because such marriages are allowed by law, whatever the theological dim view taken of such unions by some religions, the procreational primacy of marriage cannot be used as a logical basis for disallowing homosexual unions.



Heterosexual couples can choose not to have children. They can also choose to have a certain number of children:1, 2, 3, etc. But the point is that they can procreate. Two men or two women, without the help of IVF, cannot.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness,

I stand corrected.  



> On purpose I didn't use the word "normal" because the other side of the coin would be "abnormal." I used the concept "norm" in a statistical and not in a moral or psychopathological way.



Still, I'm glad we both highlighted the distinction between "normal" and "the (statistical) norm", as each term puts an entirely different spin on the argument. I'll try to read more carefully next time. 

On the final point, we still have a logical dilema. If the point of marriage is procreation, and "Heterosexual couples can choose not to have children." then those who get married with that choice, _a priori_, as well as those who take that decision after the marriage act, will have made themselves functionally equivalent to those in a homosexual marriage. Logically, either homosexuals should be allowed to marry, or those in a heterosexual legal union who choose to be childless should have their marriage annulled. Unless, of course, we are going to perpetuate double standards on other grounds.......

Over to you....

C.


----------



## astronauta

Ever, about the percentage, even a smaller percentage of heterosexual couples practices sadomasochistic sex (for example), why is this not considered an anomaly and is left alone just to be a private practice then? I personally think it's ghastly but does that give me a right to say such couples should not be granted a right of some kind? There are many examples like this and being a minority does not mean that people should not exist or are not normal, I love classical music and I can tell you we are a pretty minuscule percentage of the music market; does that mean we are unimportant?

About nature, I do not think everything is as black and white as you make it to be; there are millions of hetero couples that are unable conceive (trough a veriety of assisted church-condemned methods) either, what do you have to say about that? How about hetrosexual couples that resort to surrogate mothers? How about breast implants?...

Why does it seem that heterosexuals have a licence to do everything that is condemned in homosexuals?

I feel that, again, we heterosexuals should come with a clean slate before saying who deserves what or not.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Everness,
> 
> On the final point, we still have a logical dilema.   If the point of marriage is procreation, and "Heterosexual couples can choose not to have children." then those who get married with that choice, _a priori_, as well as those who take that decision after the marriage act, will have made themselves functionally equivalent to those in a homosexual marriage.  Logically, either homosexuals should be allowed to marry, or those in a heterosexual legal union that chooses to be childless should have their marriage annulled.  Unless, of course, we are going to perpetuate double standards on other grounds.......
> 
> Over to you....
> 
> C.



First, if we use a circle to describe a marriage, procreation would be the center of the circle but not the whole circle. What are other purposes of matrimony? Howard Clinebell wrote "The Intimate Marriage," maybe the best book I've ever read on this topic because it seamlessly integrates different disciplines. Clinebell just died, unfortunately, but his book can be read entirely online. 

http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=1900

Second, double standards are an unfair ideological imposition on reality. For instance, we all have different skin pigmentation but some clever guy (white, of course) decided that white is good and black is bad in order to justify his decision to exploit other human beings. Whole countries and empires followed suit. And too many "good" people looked the other way. We all have skin, boys and girls. The only big difference is pigmentation but the basic functions of the skin are the same for people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc. The problem isn't the color of the skin but the meaning and significance we impose on it. 

However, things are different when it comes to the design and functions of human sexuality. Again, we all have skin that, among other things, protects our body. But the anatomy and physiology of the reproductory apparatus in men and women is different. Therefore you can't talk about double standards in reference to a reproductory function that was originally designed and that actually only works through the combination of male and female genitalia. If a heterosexual couple decides not to have kids, they don't become, as you argue, functionally equivalent to a gay couple who can't have kids. 

That's why I'm in favor of a modification of the US Constitution. But actually it's not an actual change. It's making the implicit explicit. When the framers of the Constitution discussed marriage, the assumption was that marriage was between a woman and a man. The concept of gay marriage was not on their mind! It was so obvious back then that they didn't think they needed to clarify the point. Now, if we want to redefine what marriage is, that would be different issue that we might need to address almost immediately.


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Ever, about the percentage, even a smaller percentage of heterosexual couples practices sadomasochistic sex (for example), why is this not considered an anomaly and is left alone just to be a private practice then? I personally think it's ghastly but does that give me a right to say such couples should not be granted a right of some kind?



Wait! Who said that sadomasochistic sex is an anomaly? 
http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/sado_n.htm



			
				astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> About nature, I do not think everything is as black and white as you make it to be; there are millions of hetero couples that are unable conceive (trough a veriety of assisted church-condemned methods) either, what do you have to say about that? How about hetrosexual couples that resort to surrogate mothers? How about breast implants?...
> 
> Why does it seem that heterosexuals have a licence to do everything that is condemned in homosexuals?
> 
> I feel that, again, we heterosexuals should come with a clean slate before saying who deserves what or not.



We are sharing our opinions about gay marriage and not about what gay or straight couples should do or not in bed, in the bathroom, or in the street (Do you remember the Beatles' song?) People's sex life shouldn't be monitored or legislated. 

Again, straight or gay couples can adopt, resort to surrogate mothers, IVF, etc. in order to become moms and dads. I have no problem with that. Single people, married people, gay people, straight people, young people, old people, black people, white people, etc. etc. have the right to become parents. 

It's interesting that some folks don't want gay couples to adopt children because they fear that they will become gay or lesbian. If that happens it's because they had a biological predisposition to homosexuality. Otherwise, the kids will be as straight as a straight line!


----------



## astronauta

Ever, I did not say it WAS an anomaly, I posted it as an equiparable example of something that a couple may do in private. Many people consider this parctice a human anomaly and it has even been legislated and made illegal in some parts of the US, do a "Santorum" search on google.

Of course we are sharing our opinions but we are judging homosexuals by what they do in private are we not?

I could not agree more with you two last paragraphs. There is no proof that children will become gay if they have become parents; quite the opposite, in countries where this is possible one can see all sorts of families with beautiful children that are doing well, there is simply no statistics or respectable studies that would back up the contrary.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness,
First, thanks for a reasoned debate, free of hype. We still have grounds on which we converge, and some on which we diverge. 





			
				Everness said:
			
		

> First, if we use a circle to describe a marriage, procreation would be the center of the circle but not the whole circle. What are other purposes of matrimony? Howard Clinebell wrote "The Intimate Marriage," maybe the best book I've ever read on this topic because it seamlessly integrates different disciplines. Clinebell just died, unfortunately, but his book can be read entirely online. Obviously I cannot debate a book I haven't read, but procreation is not at the center of the circle for all those who marry. It's not even in the circle at all for some who marry to express a lifelong committment, free of offspring as well as free of extramarital entanglements.
> 
> This circle and its center are a theoretical notion that may well apply to many, but broad acceptance doesn't make it the only valid reason, nor the basis for law. Again, note that some heterosexuals choose to marry with the intent to forego procreation.
> A theory or reality that applies to most should not necessarily be made the law for all, or one falls into the logical trap of saying that what "everybody does" is, by definition, what is moral and correct.
> 
> http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=1900
> 
> Second, double standards are an unfair ideological imposition on reality. For instance, we all have different skin pigmentation but some clever guy (white, of course) decided that white is good and black is bad in order to justify his decision to exploit other human beings. Whole countries and empires followed suit. And too many "good" people looked the other way. We all have skin, boys and girls. The only big difference is pigmentation but the basic functions of the skin are the same for people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc. The problem isn't the color of the skin but the meaning and significance we impose on it.
> 
> However, things are different when it comes to the design and functions of human sexuality. Again, we all have skin that, among other things, protects our body. But the anatomy and physiology of the reproductory apparatus in men and women is different. Therefore you can't talk about double standards in reference to a reproductory function that was originally designed and that actually only works through the combination of male and female genitalia. *If a heterosexual couple decides not to have kids, they don't become, as you argue, functionally equivalent to a gay couple who can't have kids. I certainly can and do argue this. A heterosexual couple choosing not to have kids may be capable of it, but if they do not do it, functionally they are equivalent to those who lack the physiological capacity. Potential may differ, but the outcome is identical for both couples. Further, you have no re-defined grounds for marriage as the biological capacity to bear offspring. Again, if it isn't used, your posture should lead to the preclusion of marriage for heterosexuals not intending to procreate, or the annulment of marriages by those who cannot!
> 
> If we limit marriage to those with the tubing to make babies, but do not insist that the tubes be used, successfully, for that purpose, then the logic is broken. What's the point of granting a benefit, marriage, for being properly plumbed, if one doesn't successfully turn on the water?
> *That's why I'm in favor of a modification of the US Constitution. But actually it's not an actual change. It's making the implicit explicit. When the framers of the Constitution discussed marriage, the assumption was that marriage was between a woman and a man. The concept of gay marriage was not on their mind! It was so obvious back then that they didn't think they needed to clarify the point. Now, if we want to redefine what marriage is, that would be different issue that we might need to address almost immediately.



Your final paragraph points out, very well, that times change, and with them circumstances and values evolve. In the day of the framers of that wonderful document, slavery was envisioned, permitted and assumed. There was no electronic media. Not everything is frozen or embalmed in clear epoxy from the 1790s. 

And yes, you are correct. We are certainly talking about redefining marriage as it was understood back then. It's an interesting conversation.

Un saludo,
Cuchuflete


----------



## astronauta

Cuchuflete, I agree with you as I am currently in a similar situation.

I am starting to plan for my wedding next year, I am marrying the man that I have lived with for 5 years.

Although we are perfectly capable, we do not intend to have any children, it has been agreed upon for a long time; *all we want* is an occasion for all our friends and family to witness our commitment. The rights that arise from this marriage (such as pension, disability, our company coverages, and other tax deductions) are also very welcomed.


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Ever, I did not say it WAS an anomaly, I posted it as an equiparable example of something that a couple may do in private. Many people consider this parctice a human anomaly and it has even been legislated and made illegal in some parts of the US, do a "Santorum" search on google.
> 
> Of course we are sharing our opinions but we are judging homosexuals by what they do in private are we not?



First, poor Rick Santorum has to live up to his name... 

Second, I'm not passing judgment on homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, etc. etc. Sex is a private matter yet marriage is a public social institution. 

And please read me loud and clear: Until the US Constitution changes, gays and lesbians should be able to marry like any other couple. There's no legal reason to deny a gay couple the right to marry. Massachusetts is the only state that got it right. The justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court aren't political activists influenced by the gay establishment but true and competent constitutionalists with big balls.


----------



## paulita

Hola:
In Argentina there is a law just for Buenos Aires, wich validates the "civil union" between people of the same sex. But it´s different from Spain. Here, it is not a real marrige, and because of that the law calls it "civil union".
The "civil union" just means that couple have some rigths and benefits.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> First, poor Rick Santorum has to live up to his name...
> 
> Second, I'm not passing judgment on homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, etc. etc. Sex is a private matter yet marriage is a public social institution.
> 
> And please read me loud and clear: Until the US Constitution changes, gays and lesbians should be able to marry like any other couple. There's no legal reason to deny a gay couple the right to marry. Massachusetts is the only state that got it right. The justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court aren't political activists influenced by the gay establishment but true and competent constitutionalists with big balls.



Oh Darn!  

I was looking forward to arguing some part of your next post, but all I can do is thoroughly agree with you on this one!


But I won't give up the opportunity to debate entirely.  You and I clearly agree about the constitutional law aspects of this topic.  We do not agree on extra-legal grounds.  I believe that if one has religious principals that oppose gay marriage, it's appropriate for such a person to abstain from it.

I don't think they should try to make law an enforcement arm for their own 
religious principals, hence I oppose a constitutional amendment regarding marriage.  The framers were silent on this topic, for both the reason you stated in a previous post, and because they consciously and specifically granted to the States all rights not precisely defined as belonging to the federal government.  To pass any kind of marital constitutional amendment would be a flagrant case of judicial activism, cloaked in congressional raiment.  So much for conservative values!


----------



## cirrus

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Although we are perfectly capable, we do not intend to have any children, it has been agreed upon for a long time; *all we want* is an occasion for all our friends and family to witness our commitment. The rights that arise from this marriage (such as pension, disability, our company coverages, and other tax deductions) are also very welcomed.


 
This for me goes right to the nub of the argument.  Nobody is proposing that gay marriage be sanctioned by the church.  The Church, indeed most religions of the book have a long and (until recently) undisputed history of being anti gay.  As such most people who are gay have decided that what religious people say is irrelevant to their daily lives.  

The anglican church in England is tieing itself into knots over the question of blessing gay relationships once civil partnerships come into legal force here later this year.  They know that many clergy are gay and have in effect pursued a don't ask, don't tell policy.  When couples from within their own hierarchy come down the aisle asking for blessing, the tension between the private and public line will become unbearable.  Their solution - gay civil relationships can only be admitted if gays commit to not having sex.  A fine and logical stance as I am sure we can all agree.    

What people asking for the right for their relationships to have legal status.  For myself I view the moves to amend the US constitution so that gays can't have this right as a dangerous and inappropriate precedent by blurring the line between religion with matters of state.  The state should be neutral on these matters and not parti pris.  Render unto Caesar anyone?


----------



## Everness

Cuchu, you state,

_This circle and its center are a theoretical notion that may well apply to many, but broad acceptance doesn't make it the only valid reason, nor the basis for law. Again, note that some heterosexuals choose to marry with the intent to forego procreation. 
A theory or reality that applies to most should not necessarily be made the law for all, or one falls into the logical trap of saying that what "everybody does" is, by definition, what is moral and correct._

Evolution and/or Mother Nature aren’t biased. Of course stats can be twisted by human beings but when it comes to the percentage of population that is homosexual (3-6%), I think these stats reflect reality. Although they apply to the US, I also believe they could be easily and accurately extrapolated to the world population. If 94-97% of the US population is straight, American society can and should organize itself around this reality. If we organize our mores and laws regarding marriage around this strong message nature sends us, we wouldn’t be discriminating against gays and lesbians. Their minority status is different than other groups. You can’t claim foul play when Mother Nature isn’t on your side. Again, we are talking about the institution of marriage and not about the rights of individuals to live out their sexual orientation. There are two separate things. 

Gays and lesbians, needless to say, fall in love, live together, have sex, etc. etc. Some people believe that homosexuality is sinful and/or pathological. Other people believe that it’s a normal and healthy lifestyle, just like heterosexuality. But in this thread we are not discussing homosexuality per se but gay marriage, as a social institution that some argue should be embraced legislatively by all governments. 

In sum, I’m opposed to gay marriage because it goes against Mother Nature’s design. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it’s central purpose is reproduction and the preservation of the human race. Religion (e.g.: Genesis 2.24) just reflects, accurately, that reality so let’s not brand it homophobic. My argumentation is primarily based on observation, a key step in the scientific method and secondarily on theological and philosophical tenets. 

Although I’m not a Democrat, I agree with John Kerry’s take on gay marriage. He supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples. I think it’s a fair arrangement.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Everness,

We certainly are not apt to persuade one another, but for the benefit of anyone with enough fortitude to have read this far, I'm going to clarify our differences of opinion. Yes, opinion, as the space between fact and emotion is just that, neither more nor less.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Cuchu, you state,
> 
> _This circle and its center are a theoretical notion that may well apply to many, but broad acceptance doesn't make it the only valid reason, nor the basis for law. Again, note that some heterosexuals choose to marry with the intent to forego procreation.
> A theory or reality that applies to most should not necessarily be made the law for all, or one falls into the logical trap of saying that what "everybody does" is, by definition, what is moral and correct._
> 
> Evolution and/or Mother Nature aren’t biased. Of course stats can be twisted by human beings but when it comes to the percentage of population that is homosexual (3-6%), I think these stats reflect reality.
> 
> Whether it's actually in that range, or a bit more or less, it's a substantial minority, not statistical dust. As such, and based on your prior statements that the range has remained constant for a very long time, I believe we have to take the position and wishes of this substantial minority seriously, just as we take seriously those who share your religious stance, although you only constitute another substantial minority of the world's populace.
> 
> Although they apply to the US, I also believe they could be easily and accurately extrapolated to the world population. If 94-97% of the US population is straight, American society can and should organize itself around this reality.
> 
> I see no point to limit this discussion to American society, but since you put it that way.... American society can and should and does organize itself with the realities of many minorities in mind. Affirmative action is the law of the land. Many municipalities provide, on a legal basis and at taxpayer expense, multi-lingual education and governmental publications.
> The handicapped, a clear minority, are given lots of legal entitlements.
> 
> So I suppose we agree that government and law should take minority concerns into account in creating legislation for the benefit of *society as a whole*, and not confine itself to codification of majority status and privilege. Of course one can be enlightened about the minority rights and needs of the crippled, the blind, those who have suffered historic social and economic discrimination, foreign language speakers, etc., while objecting to gay marriage, which does not require taxpayer contributions.
> It may not be homophobia, but it's a twisted sort of logic, and unequal justice to choose that some minorities are protected and favored or some issues, while --your numbers-- 3-6% are denied a right.
> 
> If we organize our mores and laws regarding marriage around this strong message nature sends us, *Horsefeathers!* Nature doesn't send legislative messages, lobbyists do.  we wouldn’t be discriminating against gays and lesbians. Their minority status is different than other groups. You can’t claim foul play when Mother Nature isn’t on your side.
> 
> Mother nature doesn't take sides...it provides life...and if 3-6% of such life is intended by that dear old Mother to be on the side (!) of someone else, why did dear old Mother create such life? I don't claim foul play by Mother nature. I claim double standards and phoney logic by interest groups trying to foist their sectarian religious beliefs on the legal system, rather than just enjoying those beliefs in the privacy of their own homes and religious institutions.
> 
> Again, we are talking about the institution of marriage and not about the rights of individuals to live out their sexual orientation. There are two separate things.
> 
> Gays and lesbians, needless to say, fall in love, live together, have sex, etc. etc. Some people believe that homosexuality is sinful and/or pathological. Other people believe that it’s a normal and healthy lifestyle, just like heterosexuality. But in this thread we are not discussing homosexuality per se but gay marriage, as a social institution that some argue should be embraced legislatively by all governments. I'm not arguing that governments embrace it, rather that they abstain from discriminating against the same rights for all couples. That's a significant difference. Further, I'm not even arguing in favor of gay marriage, nor heterosexual marriage. I'm saying that if there is an institution called marriage, with legal ramifications, then that institution should be open to the citizens of the state. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> In sum, I’m opposed to gay marriage because it goes against Mother Nature’s design. That's a religious viewpoint. Being a religious viewpoint does not invalidate it, nor does it provide grounds to make religion and legislation one and the same. Syntetic drugs and lots of surgery that benefit people go against Mother Nature's design too. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it’s central purpose is reproduction and the preservation of the human race.   You haven't demonstrated this, and have waffled like mad in response to questions about denying or annulling heterosexual marriages that do not contemplate reproduction. Your last attempt was to speak of the potential to procreate. Now you are back to procreation itself. Either it's about plumbing, or producing prole, but you really ought to pick one, and then try to apply the same standard to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> As a closely related aside, I trust you have noticed that the preservation of the human race is being attended to, in astonishingly greater numbers, by the unmarried. I have no idea what Mother Nature opines on this topic, but in the grand historical scheme of things, the marital institution is a recent innovation, and the human race perpetuated itself, even evolved, long before there was such a thing as marriage.
> 
> Reproduction doesn't require marriage, nor does child-rearing. Yet some believe that the reverse is true. More and more, people are dispensing with marriage as a precondition to bearing children. A friend of mine has said that marriage is primarily an economic arrangement. He must be immoral as well as unromantic. But then there are pre-nup. agreements...hmmmmmmm.
> 
> Religion (e.g.: Genesis 2.24) just reflects, accurately, that reality so let’s not brand it homophobic. My argumentation is primarily based on observation, a key step in the scientific method and secondarily on theological and philosophical tenets. Have you observed anything about married gay couples in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that strikes you as likely to lead to the collapse of Western Civilization? The Commonwealth and Mother Nature seem to be taking this in stride, demonstrating perhaps the miraculous ability of both to evolve.
> 
> Although I’m not a Democrat, I agree with John Kerry’s take on gay marriage. He supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples. I think it’s a fair arrangement. Were I running for high office, I might propose something so seemingly fair, or designed to offend the fewest potential voters. Were I gay, and threatened with the loss of a basic legal right, I might view this a bit differently.  /QUOTE]
> 
> In sum, I fail to see any public benefit deriving from yet another governmental intrusion into private lives. As you pointed out, the U.S. Constitution, by its very silence on the subject, permits gay marriage.
> 
> If you don't believe that gay marriage is morally correct or in keeping with your personal understanding of Mother Nature, don't participate in it. Where other people are concerned, don't butt in to try to impose your religious beliefs on their conduct.


----------



## astronauta

Ever, please do not confuse religion's reflections with mother nature's desing, as it is not as black and white as you make it to be. 

If we are going to base our decision in mother nature, then this conversation will turn 180 degrees as nature itself does not marry anyone, to start; secondly, mother nature has very few species which stay with the same mate for life (as marriage is supposed to be), mother nature has shown us examples of homosexuality in awide variety of species, regarding procreation, mother nature again is very choosy and makes hermafrodites, infertile and asexual beings...

*So no, I disagree with you *that "_Religion just reflects, accurately, that reality_"

And one more thing about statitistics, do you honestly think that in-the-closet gays, professionals gays that need to hide the fact from their companies, youths that are scared of their parents, gays that just don't want to disclose their posture, etc. will disclose their sexuality to a survey?...


----------



## Everness

Estoy en una encrucijada. No se si contestarte o revisar los informes de miembros de mi equipo. 

A ver, a ver... creo que voy a seguir el consejo paulino, "El que no trabaje, que no coma". 

A laborar se ha dicho... pero como dijo Arnold el Republicano, "I'll be back..."




			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Everness,
> 
> We certainly are not apt to persuade one another, but for the benefit of anyone with enough fortitude to have read this far, I'm going to clarify our differences of opinion.  Yes, opinion, as the space between fact and emotion is just that, neither more nor less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everness said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuchu, you state,
> 
> _This circle and its center are a theoretical notion that may well apply to many, but broad acceptance doesn't make it the only valid reason, nor the basis for law. Again, note that some heterosexuals choose to marry with the intent to forego procreation.
> A theory or reality that applies to most should not necessarily be made the law for all, or one falls into the logical trap of saying that what "everybody does" is, by definition, what is moral and correct._
> 
> Evolution and/or Mother Nature aren’t biased. Of course stats can be twisted by human beings but when it comes to the percentage of population that is homosexual (3-6%), I think these stats reflect reality.
> 
> Whether it's actually in that range, or a bit more or less, it's a substantial minority, not statistical dust.  As such, and based on your prior statements that the range has remained constant for a very long time, I believe we have to take the position and wishes of this substantial minority seriously, just as we take seriously those who share your religious stance, although you only constitute another substantial minority of the world's populace.
> 
> Although they apply to the US, I also believe they could be easily and accurately extrapolated to the world population. If 94-97% of the US population is straight, American society can and should organize itself around this reality.
> 
> I see no point to limit this discussion to American society, but since you put it that way....   American society can and should and does organize itself with the realities of many minorities in mind.  Affirmative action is the law of the land.  Many municipalities provide, on a legal basis and at taxpayer expense, multi-lingual education and governmental publications.
> The handicapped, a clear minority, are given lots of legal entitlements.
> 
> So I suppose we agree that government and law should take minority concerns into account in creating legislation for the benefit of *society as a whole*, and not confine itself to codification of majority status and privilege.  Of course one can be enlightened about the minority rights and needs of the crippled, the blind, those who have suffered historic social and economic discrimination, foreign language speakers, etc.,  while objecting to gay marriage, which does not require taxpayer contributions.
> It may not be homophobia, but it's a twisted sort of logic, and unequal justice to choose that some minorities are protected and favored or some issues, while --your numbers-- 3-6% are denied a right.
> 
> If we organize our mores and laws regarding marriage around this strong message nature sends us, *Horsefeathers!* Nature doesn't send legislative messages, lobbyists do.  we wouldn’t be discriminating against gays and lesbians. Their minority status is different than other groups. You can’t claim foul play when Mother Nature isn’t on your side.
> 
> Mother nature doesn't take sides...it provides life...and if 3-6% of such life is intended by that dear old Mother to be on the side (!) of someone else, why did dear old Mother create such life?  I don't claim foul play by Mother nature.  I claim double standards and phoney logic by interest groups trying to foist their sectarian religious beliefs on the legal system, rather than just enjoying those beliefs in the privacy of their own homes and religious institutions.
> 
> Again, we are talking about the institution of marriage and not about the rights of individuals to live out their sexual orientation. There are two separate things.
> 
> Gays and lesbians, needless to say, fall in love, live together, have sex, etc. etc. Some people believe that homosexuality is sinful and/or pathological. Other people believe that it’s a normal and healthy lifestyle, just like heterosexuality. But in this thread we are not discussing homosexuality per se but gay marriage, as a social institution that some argue should be embraced legislatively by all governments.  I'm not arguing that governments embrace it, rather that they abstain from discriminating against the same rights for all couples.  That's a significant difference.  Further, I'm not even arguing in favor of gay marriage, nor heterosexual marriage.  I'm saying that if there is an institution called marriage, with legal ramifications, then that institution should be open to the citizens of the state. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> In sum, I’m opposed to gay marriage because it goes against Mother Nature’s design. That's a religious viewpoint.  Being a religious viewpoint does not invalidate it, nor does it provide grounds to make religion and legislation one and the same.  Syntetic drugs and lots of surgery that benefit people go against Mother Nature's design too. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it’s central purpose is reproduction and the preservation of the human race.   You haven't demonstrated this, and have waffled like mad in  response to questions about denying or annulling heterosexual marriages that do not contemplate reproduction.   Your last attempt was to speak of the potential to procreate.  Now you are back to procreation itself.  Either it's about plumbing, or producing prole, but you really ought to pick one, and then try to apply the same standard to all people, regardless of sexual orientation.  Religion (e.g.: Genesis 2.24) just reflects, accurately, that reality so let’s not brand it homophobic. My argumentation is primarily based on observation, a key step in the scientific method and secondarily on theological and philosophical tenets. Have you observed anything about married gay couples in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that strikes you as likely to lead to the collapse of Western Civilization?  The Commonwealth and Mother Nature seem to be taking this in stride, demonstrating perhaps the miraculous ability of both to evolve.
> 
> Although I’m not a Democrat, I agree with John Kerry’s take on gay marriage. He supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples. I think it’s a fair arrangement.  Were I running for high office, I might propose something so seemingly fair, or designed to offend the fewest potential voters.  Were I gay, and threatened with the loss of a basic legal right,  I might view this a bit differently.  /QUOTE]
> 
> In sum, I fail to see any public benefit deriving from yet another governmental intrusion into private lives.  As you pointed out, the U.S. Consitution, by its very silence on the subject, permits gay marriage.
> 
> If you don't believe that gay marriage is morally correct or in keeping with your personal understanding of Mother Nature, don't participate in it.  Where other people are concerned, don't but in to try to impose your religious beliefs on their conduct.
Click to expand...


----------



## Everness

Who should be admitted into the club of the happily married? That is the question! I have some clear criteria of inclusion and exclusion while you would like to make marriage available and open to all creatures. 

If you have a little time to spare, please take a look at this article, especially the section entitled _Homosexual Marriage, Foster Parenting, and Adoption_. 

http://learnv.ycdsb.edu.on.ca/lt/FMMC/hpteacher.nsf/Files/mcmanad/$FILE/same_sexpakaluk.html

First, this article provides a definition of marriage. Dr. Pakaluk from Clark University describes marriage as a natural friendship which tends toward procreation. Pakaluk shares my view of connecting marriage with procreation. He says, _A marriage is a particular sort of friendship which centers around the mutual enjoyment and care of the body, together with raising children_. Marriage promotes friendship and mutual enjoyment and care of the body (the fun piece), but has also been designed to bring babies into this world and raise them (the tough piece).  

He elaborates on this idea, _It is (marriage) the only friendship that can form between previously unrelated persons, where the joint activity has a direct basis in nature, since each spouse's enjoyment of the body of the other comes through the union of organs that are naturally fitted for each other, and the procreation of children comes as the natural and joint activity of reproduction._ My comments on his definition: 
§	_Friendship_ - Marriage is a type of friendship. I like this idea because it emphasizes the affective and not just the functional value of marriage. Spouses are or should be, above all, friends. 
§	_Unrelated persons_ - It refers, I think, to the fact that you shouldn’t marry your mom or your sister even if you’re attracted to them. For some reason, society frowns upon incest. 
§	_Joint activity with a direct basis in nature_ - It refers, I think, to the act of making love. I could check with Dr. Pakaluk, but I also believe that his reference to _union of organs that are naturally fitted for each other _ is an elegant way of saying that the anus was designed to allow things to exit the body and not to enter it. (For the record, I’m not arguing against anal sex even in straight couples.) 
§	_Enjoyment of the body _ - The author emphasizes once and again that sex is pleasure not just a means to make babies. I agree: God, and not the devil, designed the exquisite experience of orgasm. 
§	_Procreation of children _ - This is utterly important! Pakaluk reemphasizes the idea that procreation of children is what distinguishes matrimony from other types of friendships. 

Second, this author elaborates on the distinction between marriage and other type of friendships. 
_Because the friendship of marriage results in children, and it is a burden of sorts to raise children, society benefits greatly if it is done well; society usually distinguishes marriage from other friendships, gives it special recognition, and awards it distinctive benefits._ 
My comments: 
§	_The friendship of marriage results in children _ - This is the biggest difference between marriage and all the other types of friendship. You don’t have children with your female friends if you’re a guy or with your male friends if you’re a gal; just with your wife or husband, boyfriend or girlfriend, partner, concubine, etc, etc. 
§	_It is a burden of sorts_ – Of sorts? Dr. Pakaluk: Or you don’t have kids or you gotta be kiddin’! Parenthood is the most taxing all of human activities! 
§	_Society usually distinguishes marriage from other friendships, gives it special recognition, and awards it distinctive benefits _ - Among other things, you can claim your kids as dependants in your tax return and take advantage of the Child Tax Credit. For a complete list, check this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

Third, Dr. Pakaluk reflects on gay marriage and the consequences of legalizing it.  
§	_A homosexual couple likewise displays a certain type of friendship _ - I agree. The relationship of a gay couple is one of friendship. 
§	_But this friendship does not result in children, so there is no reason for society to reward the friends in any way. If society were to assign benefits to homosexual couples, then, consistently, it ought to assign like benefits to any pair of good friends_ - This is an excellent point! Once you open the door to gay couples, any couple (two heterosexual female friends, two heterosexual male friends, etc.) will knock at the door and must be let in. Otherwise, you would be discriminating against them.
§	_Furthermore, it ought to assign even greater benefits to marriages — again, in order to recognize, in a distinctive way, the good that society gains through the children who are begotten and raised in marriages, and also to compensate the parents_ - If any couple that doesn’t have or raise kids were going to get extra benefits, I would be the first one to sue the government or whoever to get more benefits. What about the heterosexual couples who didn’t have kids? Well, they already got their reward by not spending time, money, more time, more money, nursing headaches and anguish, etc. etc. If they are smart enough, they’ll keep their mouths shut. If they complain, their matrimonies should be annulled. 
§	_The first obvious consequence is that laws against polygamy will seem to be arbitrary, since if marriage is no longer essentially for procreation, then it is difficult to see why it should exist between only two _ - Excellent point! If 2 men or 2 women can marry knowing that they can’t naturally have kids, why couldn’t one be married to 2, 3, 4, 14 wives or husbands? 
§	_It will not be long before various groups of people will demand to be ‘married,’ in the revised sense of that term, and we will no longer have any principled reason for denying marriage to them _ - This point is even more interesting and compelling. For instance, if we remove procreation as the main or one of the central purposes of marriage, two male or female heterosexual friends could marry. Actually, you could marry your favorite pet! Why not? After all, aren’t dogs human beings’ best friends? You could even marry the plant in your living room. Now you talk to he/she/it; soon he/she/it could become your beloved wife or husband! Wouldn’t it be cool! 

Who should be admitted into the club of the happily married? I say a man and a woman. Marriage, as Dr. Pakaluk states, is a friendship. It’s not better or worse than other type of friendships. It’s just different. Gay couples display a type of friendship. You can have friends of your same or different gender or sexual orientation too. The main difference between marriage and other types of friendship is that this particular type of natural friendship results in children. Friends don't copulate, not even very close friends. Gay couples can copulate but they can’t conceive. They can have children through artificial insemination [for lesbians] or surrogate motherhood [for gays]. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only type of friendship that naturally tends toward procreation. That is what sets it apart from other valid and not less beautiful or meaningful types of friendship.


----------



## cuchuflete

I was looking forward to your post, and hoping it would be better than a re-run of a governor Arnold flic. It is. There is substance here. I will be delighted to note my many differences *of opinion*, a nd perhaps a few *of fact* as well.





			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Who should be admitted into the club of the *happily* *off topic!*married? That is the question! I have some clear criteria of inclusion and exclusion while you would like to make marriage available and open to all creatures. "All creatures" is a bit of a rhetorical stretch of my statements, but I do advocate a less limiting, less constrictive set of criteria than you and the good doctor.
> 
> If you have a little time to spare, please take a look at this article, especially the section entitled _Homosexual Marriage, Foster Parenting, and Adoption_.
> 
> http://learnv.ycdsb.edu.on.ca/lt/FMMC/hpteacher.nsf/Files/mcmanad/$FILE/same_sexpakaluk.html
> 
> First, this article provides a definition of marriage. Dr. Pakaluk from Clark University describes marriage as a natural friendship which tends toward
> 
> 
> *Tending toward is substantially different from requiring procreation, or from requiring appropriate plumbing.
> 
> * procreation. Pakaluk shares my view of connecting marriage with procreation. He says, _A marriage is a particular sort of friendship which centers around the mutual enjoyment and care of the body, together with raising children_. That's an extraordinarily narrow view, which pays no heed to other forms of sharing common to most marriages I'm familiar with. What about sharing work, responsibility, intellectual pursuits, non-physical recreation? What happens to this very narrow definition when children are grown and out of the nest, and the sex drive is greatly diminished? Should older adults dissolve their marriages because bodies have become less important points of marital nexus, and child-rearing is done? My parents continued to share a very close relationship well into their eighties, when Pakaluk's definition had long since passed from the stage.
> 
> Marriage promotes friendship and mutual enjoyment and care of the body (the fun piece), but has also been designed to bring babies into this world and raise them (the tough piece). While you and I may agree about the fun and tough characterizations, it has little to do with the topic. But since you mention it, what about tough or rough love?
> 
> He elaborates on this idea, _It is (marriage) the only friendship that can form between previously unrelated persons, where the joint activity has a direct basis in nature, since each spouse's enjoyment of the body of the other comes through the union of organs that are naturally fitted for each other, and the procreation of children comes as the natural and joint activity of reproduction._ Two points: 1. marriage is optional for any and all of this to occur. 2. Organ fitting!! Hah... He seems to limit his notion of what's fitting (all puns intended) to a single oriface. How about mouths?
> Sorry, but my notion of physical enjoyment allows for all sorts of touching, and is not confined to a single plug-in variety.  My comments on his definition:
> §    _Friendship_ - Marriage is a type of friendship. I like this idea because it emphasizes the affective and not just the functional value of marriage. Spouses are or should be, above all, friends.* Total agreement.
> 
> Further, friendship encompasses lots of folks, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> *
> continued......


----------



## cuchuflete

continued:

 § Unrelated persons - It refers, I think, to the fact that you shouldn’t marry your mom or your sister even if you’re attracted to them. For some reason, society frowns upon incest. Unless you are European royalty, which seemed to intermarry a bit too much, or a member of the Roosevelt clan, which did likewise. Sorry for the aside to your aside.
§ Joint activity with a direct basis in nature - It refers, I think, to the act of making love. I could check with Dr. Pakaluk, but I also believe that his reference to union of organs that are naturally fitted for each other is an elegant way of saying that the anus was designed to allow things to exit the body and not to enter it. (For the record, I’m not arguing against anal sex even in straight couples.) For the record, millions if not billions of heterosexual couples, married and otherwise, share with me a more extended definition of which organs are naturally fitted for each other.
Oral sex may be a little risqué for the good doctor, but it has it's place for many people. To the best of my knowledge, the ways people choose to touch is not a sound basis for legislation, unless such touching styles have lethal consequences.
§ Enjoyment of the body - The author emphasizes once and again that sex is pleasure not just a means to make babies. I agree: God, and not the devil, designed the exquisite experience of orgasm. Again I advocate a broader definition. Why limit your definition of pleasure to orgasm? This entry seems to support my previous utterances that being procreation-enabled is not the point of marriage.
§ Procreation of children - This is utterly important! To some, yes it is; to others, not at all. You still haven't addressed the questions about prohibition of marriage to heterosexuals who intend to abstain from procreation, prohibition of marriage for heterosexuals unable to participate in such activities...either at the onset of marriage, or subsequently, or those who discover belatedly that they cannot or choose not to procreate.
If procreation is the sine qua non of marriage, then a very large number of heterosexual marriages should be prohibited or annulled. Pakaluk reemphasizes the idea that procreation of children is what distinguishes matrimony from other types of friendships. So sorry to learn that Pakaluk has overlooked another key distinguishing factor: commitment! A marital union is intended by its members to be more profound than other forms of friendship.
 
Second, this author elaborates on the distinction between marriage and other type of friendships.
Because the friendship of marriage results in children, and it is a burden of sorts to raise children, society benefits greatly if it is done well; society usually distinguishes marriage from other friendships, gives it special recognition, and awards it distinctive benefits. Logical problem here=> what about unmarried people who form unions, have children, raise them "well" whatever that may mean. Shouldn't they be entitled to the award of the same distinctive benefits? They are providing the same "service" to society. In fact, they may pay greater taxes along the way, so should be entitled to further benefits. This is a great argument for levelling the playing field by abolishing all marriage entirely
My comments:
§ The friendship of marriage results in children - This is the biggest difference between marriage and all the other types of friendship. You don’t have children with your female friends if you’re a guy or with your male friends if you’re a gal; just with your wife or husband, boyfriend or girlfriend, partner, concubine, etc, etc. Dear Everness, it's time you came out of the monastery into the cruel light of day, and noticed the hundreds of millons of children born without benefit of married parents. Other types of friendships do result in childbearing. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but you cannot hide from the reality of it.
 Because this statement of yours is factually in error, I will ignore it as a building block in further argument.
§ It is a burden of sorts – Of sorts? Dr. Pakaluk: Or you don’t have kids or you gotta be kiddin’! Parenthood is the most taxing all of human activities! It can be a lot of work. So can mining coal, which also provides societal benefits, and, like children, societal problems. Ho hummm...
As a father, I chose to have children. As a father, I've done, and continue to do the requisite work. My reward is my children. I don't look to society at large for thanks or compensation. I made a choice. It has consequences. I'm happy for the choice and for the consequences, though these may be exhausting at moments. Now....what does this all have to do with legislatively amputating the rights of those who do or don't make the same choices I've chosen to make? Nada, zip, nil.
§ Society usually distinguishes marriage from other friendships, gives it special recognition, and awards it distinctive benefits - Among other things, you can claim your kids as dependants in your tax return and take advantage of the Child Tax Credit.


OK, and this is, for a change, pertinent. You can claim your partner as a dependant, just as you can claim your indigent grandmother. Childless heterosexual married people enjoy (!) the same tax laws. You want to deny these benefits to some people. I don't.

Please don't try to argue that only heterosexual married people with children use all the provisions of the tax code. Not all such people itemize deductions, or pay the Alternate Minimum Tax, or make use of a plethora of other provisions of the tax law. The point is that the law applies equally to all married people, who in turn make use of some, not all, of its provisions. 

 PS... a married homosexual couple can adopt a child and claim the Child Tax Credit. Why does that trouble you? Is not that married couple providing society with child-rearing services?
 
For a complete list, check this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

Third, Dr. Pakaluk reflects on gay marriage and the consequences of legalizing it.
§ A homosexual couple likewise displays a certain type of friendship - I agree. The relationship of a gay couple is one of friendship. And if they choose not to raise children, they are just like heterosexual married people who don't raise children.
§ But this friendship does not result in children, so there is no reason for society to reward the friends in any way. Follow the logic to the annulment or prohibition of millions of heterosexual marriages. Just to be a tad outrageous, I've known children whose parents should not be rewarded by society, and in fact should be severely penalized!
 I understand that China does exactly that for what its government deems to be 'excessive procreation'.

continued....


----------



## cuchuflete

continued...part 3


If society were to assign benefits to homosexual couples, then, consistently, it ought to assign like benefits to any pair of good friends - This is an excellent point! Once you open the door to gay couples, any couple (two heterosexual female friends, two heterosexual male friends, etc.) will knock at the door and must be let in. Otherwise, you would be discriminating against them. Bravo to your strenuous support of consistency in applying the law, and dishing out benefits. See you at the mass anulment ceremony for all the childless heterosexuals. We mustn't have discrimination. While we're at it, lets deny tax benefits to married heterosexual parents whose kids commit crimes, and are a burden to society. Why should we "assign like benefits to" those who burden us?
 
Since we are on and around the topic of benefits to society, have you ever noticed that in many municipalities, such as my own, the largest expense item in the local budget is public schools? Seems like the procreating parents, married and other, are causing the largest fiscal burden to society, and are being subsidized by the gay and childless couples of all ages. Who'se rewarding whom? And, for what?
 
* Let's run this one by again, as it puts into question Pakaluk's basic reward structure arguments:

A. Couples with children cost society lots of money. (Schools, and the large portion of the constabulary's budget devoted to young people, especially young drivers.)
B. Couples without children do not impose this cost on society. That is, the homosexual couples, among others, are subsidizing the married, procreating heterosexuals, as well as the unmarried procreators. 
 C. Society rewards, through tax deductions, and exemptions, those placing the burden.
 D. Everness and Pakaluk don't want these tax deductions to be made available to homosexual married couples.
E. As the great majority of homosexual couples are childless, their ability to take advantage of such tax benefits is, as the green eyeshades are wont to say, "not material".

F. Conclusion: This is a tempest in a teapot.
* 
Really, why worry about offering rewards to a population that is highly unlikely to make use of them? For that matter, is the basis of the reward system sound to begin with?
§ Furthermore, it ought to assign even greater benefits to marriages — again, in order to recognize, in a distinctive way, the good that society gains through the children who are begotten and raised in marriages, and also to compensate the parents - If any couple that doesn’t have or raise kids were going to get extra benefits, I would be the first one to sue the government or whoever to get more benefits. What about the heterosexual couples who didn’t have kids? Well, they already got their reward by not spending time, money, more time, more money, nursing headaches and anguish, etc. etc. If they are smart enough, they’ll keep their mouths shut. If they complain, their matrimonies should be annulled.

 Once upon a time...as recently as the early twentieth century, infant and child mortality rates were high. Society needed laborers. It made sense to encourage, even through taxation schemes, child bearing and child rearing. That's the economic and social background of all of this. It made sense in its day.
 
Today, many societies suffer the problems resulting from overpopulation. Tying marriage to "paying" people to procreate and raise kids doesn't make sense in those societies. But old habits die hard. Just ask Arnold.

If it all comes down to money, than just say so: "I don't want to allow homosexual marriage because it will reduce the subsidization of the child-bearing heterosexuals, married and unmarried, by gay people."

Pretty absurd isn't it? I could drive trucks the the logic of that statement, immediately after replacing the bumper that was slightly dented driving the same truck through Pakaluk's logical forest. 
§ The first obvious consequence is that laws against polygamy will seem to be arbitrary, since if marriage is no longer essentially for procreation, then it is difficult to see why it should exist between only two - Excellent point! If 2 men or 2 women can marry knowing that they can’t naturally have kids, why couldn’t one be married to 2, 3, 4, 14 wives or husbands?

Aha! We have resuscitated the domino theory, as if the Vietnam War had taught us nothing! George Kenan would be proud of his new disciple, and Robert McNamara would be hiding under a table.

This is a good debate technique, but it fails here, because there is no logic proferred to show cause and effect. Not legislating against homosexual marriage does not imply or promote legislating in favor of other forms of union. 
§ It will not be long before various groups of people will demand to be ‘married,’ in the revised sense of that term, and we will no longer have any principled reason for denying marriage to them - This point is even more interesting and compelling. For instance, if we remove procreation as the main or one of the central purposes of marriage, two male or female heterosexual friends could marry. Actually, you could marry your favorite pet! Why not? After all, aren’t dogs human beings’ best friends? You could even marry the plant in your living room. Now you talk to he/she/it; soon he/she/it could become your beloved wife or husband! Wouldn’t it be cool!

See previous comment. This is just silly fear-mongering. Why, if we allow women the right to vote, the world will promptly go all to hell in a handbasket. If we let Laos fall to the communists, San Francisco will be overrun by Bolsheviks before teatime.
 
Who should be admitted into the club of the happily married? I say a man and a woman. Marriage, as Dr. Pakaluk states, is a friendship. It’s not better or worse than other type of friendships. It’s just different. Gay couples display a type of friendship. You can have friends of your same or different gender or sexual orientation too. The main difference between marriage and other types of friendship is that this particular type of natural friendship results in children. Friends don't copulate, not even very close friends. *The younger generation doesn't share your take on this.* Gay couples can copulate but they can’t conceive. They can have children through artificial insemination [for lesbians] or surrogate motherhood [for gays]. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only type of friendship that naturally tends toward procreation. That is what sets it apart from other valid and not less beautiful or meaningful types of friendship.[/QUOTE]

 Overall, this is progress. It's a strong statement that marriage is about more than just procreation. Pakaluk has some quaint notions of economics and taxation policy, and his definitions of 'benefits to society' bear scrutiny, but he's headed in a sensible direction at times.

He omits a vast range of human sexual experience, and would probably be surprised, if not offended, by anything more creative than the missionary position. Pity for him. His puritanical viewpoints do not constitute solid grounds for legislative initiatives, at least in this century.

 I discount the arguments that if we do X, we will be at grave risk of Y. They just don't hold up, logically or factually.

 Un abrazo,
 Cuchu


 PS- I've been making a repeated and serious omission in my posts:

Please add to the list of those to have their marriages annulled... any and all people who have been previously married to another person, especially if that initial union resulted in procreation. They don't qualify, according to Pakaluk, as having offered society the intended benefits of full child-rearing services. Functionally, they are no different from a single homosexual who has used artifical means to conceive, and raise a child in a single parent household.

 The legal profession is going to love all the added traffic!


----------



## timpeac

I read through what this Dr Pakaluk has to say and I am just left speechless, and rather stunned by the number of false logical steps in his arguments (completely leaving aside the issue of whether or not I agree with what he has to say).

It would be the work of a week to go into each and every misconception, so I will just comment on the very narrow section that you highlight as the basis of the rest (Black bold writing is the quoted passage) -

*A marriage is a particular sort of friendship which centers around the mutual enjoyment and care of the body, together with raising children.*

No it's not! I am not commenting on whether it _should_ or _should_ not be, just saying that this is a false statement - marriage is a legal union to which you can add further religious significance, if you so wish and depending on your beliefs. I know married people who hate each other - they are still married though, and I know plenty of married people who don't have kids.

I can only assume that Pakaluk meant to write "_in my opinion_ a marriage _should be_ a ..." but this is a fundamental difference. He builds his whole argument on this "fact" which is easily demonstrable as false!
*It is the only friendship that can form between previously unrelated persons, where the joint activity has a direct basis in nature, since each spouse's enjoyment of the body of the other comes through the union of organs that are naturally fitted for each other, *

No it's not! Again I am speechless. Obviously I have no idea of the actual number, but we can speculate on the number of children that must have been the result of a coupling between friends outside marriage. Thousands, certainly, hundreds of thousands? I would have thought so.
*and the procreation of children comes as the natural and joint activity of reproduction.*
Not necessarily! Think of all the straight married couples who are desperate for children, yet cannot have them.

*Because the friendship of marriage results in children*

See above, it often does not!
*, and it is a burden of sorts to raise children, society benefits greatly if it is done well; society usually distinguishes marriage from other friendships, gives it special recognition, and awards it distinctive benefits. *

So above we have false statement after false statement - again I am not saying _in my opinion_ they are false, the statements are contradicted by common fact - and yet this conclusion doesn't even follow from the false statements. Marriage, in as far as it results in procreation, is not rewarded in the UK. Anyone who is the legal guardian of a child receives tax credits for them, they don't have to be married first. Sure married people get other benefits, such as tax relief on transfer of assets, or rights to each other's pension, but this happens whether or not the marriage has resulted in children. It is this injustice that the gay people are complaining about.

I have followed with interest the discussion between Everness and Cuchuflete above. Here I am just pointing out that this argument of Pakaluk's seems to be filled with as many holes as a sponge and should not be admissable evidence for or against anything!

I'm going off now to marvel at how anyone who can have such terrible logical arguments - leaving aside what I actually think of the point he was trying to make - got to be a doctor, and a _doctor of philosophy_. Good grief. A good advert for the Americans amongst us not to send their kids to the Clark University of Massachusetts in any case! Unless of course you get a tax credit for doing so?


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> *Tending toward is substantially different from requiring procreation, or from requiring appropriate plumbing.
> 
> ..*


*

By now I'm sure we have alienated the few remaining followers of this thread but what the hell... let's keep going.

My premise is that function follows design. You build something in a particular way because you want it to perform a particular function. If you build a bathroom in your house (toilet, lavatory, etc.) without the appropriate plumbing and then you ask the city to come and inspect it and approve it, the inspector is going to conclude that you're nuts because if you open the faucet or you flush the toilet, you'll end up flooding your entire house. So why on earth you'd build a bathroom without the corresponding plumbing? But that doesn't mean that you can't keep your bathroom or use it for other purposes.

If evolution designed the current male and female reproductory apparatus, it's clear that it wanted to make sure that your dad planted the seed in your mom so you came into this world and, among other things, spend valuable time in this forum. It's not required for folks to make babies every time they copulate. That's why our beloved doctor uses the word "tending." Even hardcore Catholics know that. Nature counts on our good judgment not to conceive a baby everytime we have sex. Just in case, nature made sure that women only have 3 or 4 days of fertility a month during which they can conceive if a spermatozoid is around, of course. Let's keep in mind that we, males, are just like the boy scouts: Always Ready! (I wonder how this motto applies to the Girl Scouts?) But potentially, and if we didn't use some type of protection, everytime we had sex during a woman's fertility period, we would be blessed with another child 9 months later. It's human beings' ingenuity that puts limits to nature. But the design and function have been there for thousands of years and will continue to be. 

If evolution wanted two men or two women to bear children, it would have done things differently (don't ask me how). If we, humanity, want to experiment with design and function, nature will not interfere. But no matter how many times you ejaculate into someone's anus, no baby is going to come out 9 months later through that same orifice. As I stated before, the design of the intestines and the anus have to do with excretory functions. The reproductive and the digestive systems have different designs and functions, although it's true that guys use the same medium to pee and ejaculate. (Who said that mother nature wasn't frugal?) 

Bottom line: In order to procreate, you need a guy and a gal both with the right plumbing. Even if the outcome of each sexual intercourse isn't the conception of a baby, they are aiming, tending at it. Heterosexual marriage has been performing this function very effectively for thousands of hundreds of years. Even kids adopted by straight or gay couples arrived in this world the old-fashioned way. Artificial insemination --the introduction of semen into the vagina or uterus without sexual contact-- is a recent development. Maybe down the road, this will be the mechanics of reproduction. Sex will only serve fun and recreational purposes. Even cloning will eventually change the way we create human life. In the meantime, let's stick to the friendship of marriage between a man and a woman to do the trick. Civil unions can give gays and lesbians access to the rights and privileges inherent to the type of friendship they have.

I'll address your other opinions (there are no facts in life) later on, if you don't mind.*


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> [/color][/b][/color] procreation. Pakaluk shares my view of connecting marriage with procreation. He says, _A marriage is a particular sort of friendship which centers around the mutual enjoyment and care of the body, together with raising children_. That's an extraordinarily narrow view, which pays no heed to other forms of sharing common to most marriages I'm familiar with. What about sharing work, responsibility, intellectual pursuits, non-physical recreation? What happens to this very narrow definition when children are grown and out of the nest, and the sex drive is greatly diminished? Should older adults dissolve their marriages because bodies have become less important points of marital nexus, and child-rearing is done? My parents continued to share a very close relationship well into their eighties, when Pakaluk's definition had long since passed from the stage.



Oh, c'mon that's a cheap shot at this guy. Just glancing at the title of the article _Anti-Sodomy Laws, Just Discrimination and the Nature of Marriage_ indicates that his intention isn't to focus on describing all the dimensions of marriage intimacy. I'm not saying that I like everything this guy says and especially how he says it (e.g.: joint activity = making love), but let's not forget that in this particular section he's dealing with the topic _Homosexual Marriage, Foster Parenting, and Adoption. _ For the sake of his argumentation, he simple makes reference to 2 basic dimensions: the functional (procreation) and the affective (mutual enjoyment of the body). If you want an exhaustive list of dimensions of intimacy between spouses, Clinebell's book is a better place to go. Here's the list. 

1. Sexual Intimacy 

2. Emotional Intimacy 

(Being tuned to each other's wavelength) 

3. Intellectual Intimacy 

(Closeness in the world)

4. Aesthetic Intimacy 

(Sharing experiences of beauty) 

5. Creative Intimacy 

(Sharing in acts of creating together) 

6. Recreational Intimacy 

(Relating in experiences of fun and play) 

7. Work Intimacy 

(The closeness of sharing common tasks) 

8. Crisis Intimacy 

(Closeness in coping with problems and pain) 

9. Conflict Intimacy 

(Facing and struggling with differences) 

10. Commitment Intimacy 

(Mutuality derived from common self-investment) 

11. Spiritual Intimacy 

(The we-ness in sharing ultimate concerns) 

12. Communication Intimacy 

(The source of all types of true intimacy) 

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1900&C=1707


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> He elaborates on this idea, _It is (marriage) the only friendship that can form between previously unrelated persons, where the joint activity has a direct basis in nature, since each spouse's enjoyment of the body of the other comes through the union of organs that are naturally fitted for each other, and the procreation of children comes as the natural and joint activity of reproduction._ Two points: 1. marriage is optional for any and all of this to occur. 2. Organ fitting!! Hah... He seems to limit his notion of what's fitting (all puns intended) to a single oriface. How about mouths?
> Sorry, but my notion of physical enjoyment allows for all sorts of touching, and is not confined to a single plug-in variety.  My comments on his definition:



*1. marriage is optional for any and all of this to occur.* You keep emphasizing the same obvious point. Yes, people who aren't married copulate. So? Does the fact that people who aren't married have sex before getting married (pre-marital sex) or after they got married but before getting  a divorce (adultery) make marriage needless and pointless? In the light of the epidemic of kids having kids, some argue that a life of abstinence before marriage isn't after all a bad idea. 

The fact that people have sex out of wedlock doesn't nullify the fact that marriage is the natural locus of safe and meaningful sexuality. Casual sex is ok but it can't compare with the full expression of sexuality in the context of a long-term and safe relationship. But most importantly, marriage provides kids with a safe physical and emotional environment to fully grow. (Of course there are exceptions to the rule.) 

*2. Organ fitting!! Hah... He seems to limit his notion of what's fitting (all puns intended) to a single oriface. How about mouths?
Sorry, but my notion of physical enjoyment allows for all sorts of touching, and is not confined to a single plug-in variety. * 

"You shall not engage in anal and oral sex" isn't the eleventh commandment. But the opposite is also true. Sexuality is above all consensual. This brings me back to the concept of design and function. The main function of the mouth is to help us ingest and chew food or drink liquids. However, it can also be used for sexual purposes, ie: cunnilingus and fellatio. Same thing applies to the anus. The food that came in through the mouth (point of entry) comes out through the anus (point of exit). However, some straight and gay couples enjoy anal sex. Secondary functions as enjoyable as they could be are exactly that: secondary. We should always bear in mind the primary functions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness, you are straying very far from the topic of this thread. You invoked Pakaluk, and quoted his statements to support your opposition to legal marriage for homosexuals.

Pakaluk's quoted text is pitiable. It lacks logic. It presents unsubstantiated opinion as if it were fact. It is a weak mound of blathering wrapped in an excess of syllables, but it doesn't earn respect.

I trashed it thoroughly on logical and factual grounds, to show that it does not support your premise.

You have replied with digressions about human biology.

Sorry mate.  It's not working.  

If you are hell bent for leather to change the topic to procreation, sex, biology, child-bearing...than address a fact. Yes, F A C T. Nature gave humans the ability to copulate, sometimes resulting in pregnancy, which sometimes results in live births. None of this requires marriage, which is a legal arrangement.

Therefore, in my opinion, Mother Nature is excused from further participation in this discussion. Marriage may have and may still involve procreation for some, but no law I've ever seen requires procreation for a marriage to be valid. Thus it's obviously optional. If something optional is the key to the arrangement, and the keystone of your and Pakaluk's arguments, then agreement with those arguments is certainly optional, at best. 

More later.

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Therefore, in my opinion, Mother Nature is excused from further participation in this discussion. Marriage may have and may still involve procreation for some, but no law I've ever seen requires procreation for a marriage to be valid. Thus it's obviously optional. If something optional is the key to the arrangement, and the keystone of your and Pakaluk's arguments, then agreement with those arguments is certainly optional, at best.
> 
> More later.
> 
> regards,
> Cuchu



Ah, refined Culture finally defeats primitive Nature. Wonderful! No law requires procreation for a marriage to be valid. True. Just for the meantime. I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution will soon be changed. It will make the implicit explicit and clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Following the recommendation of Senator Kerry, among others, gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional. And on what basis this decision will be made? Nature and tradition. Legislators will make reference to a notion of marriage observed throughout thousands of years by countries with mores influenced by Judeo-Christian values. But they will also invoke the same mother you want to leave out of this conversation. What is the most basic difference between a straight and a gay couple? Race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, etc. etc.? No. The potential, actualized or not, to procreate is the only substantial difference between a straight and a gay couple. Once the US and state constitutions change, the laws that require procreation for a marriage to be valid --and that you correctly have never seen because they don't exist-- will be fully implemented. It's just a matter of time...


----------



## timpeac

Everness said:
			
		

> 1. marriage is optional for any and all of this to occur. You keep emphasizing the same obvious point. Yes, people who aren't married copulate. So? Does the fact that people who aren't married have sex before getting married (pre-marital sex) or after they got married but before getting a divorce (adultery) *make marriage needless and pointless?* In the light of the epidemic of kids having kids, some argue that a life of abstinence before marriage isn't after all a bad idea.
> 
> *The fact that people have sex out of wedlock doesn't nullify the fact that marriage is the natural locus of safe and meaningful sexuality*. Casual sex is ok but it can't compare with the full expression of sexuality in the context of a long-term and safe relationship. But most importantly, *marriage provides kids with a safe physical and emotional environment to fully grow.* (Of course there are exceptions to the rule.)


 
Everness - you are falling into the same logical trap as Pakaluk here, by stating your opinion first as the basis of proving why your opinion is true, I don't like to speak for Cuchuflete but I imagine that is why he keeps coming back to the same point.

The points I have highlighted above are just your opinion on what marriage should be and why you think it is a good thing. But this is not what this discussion is about - it is about whether, or not, homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. You, and Pakaluk, have said many times that marriage should be denied to gay people because it is for raising kids, and biologically they cannot have children. To which I would answer, as Cuchu has, that this is irrelevant _to the discussion in hand. _You don't need to be married to have children, and conversely being married does not necessarily result in children. Therefore it is a null argument _here_. No one is saying that marriage is or is not a good idea (personally I agree - ideally kids should be raised by married parents (although even then there are some terrible pairs of parents out there)) just that this does not add anything to the discussion in hand.

Reading between the lines, I suppose you are saying that marriage as an institution will in some way be diminished if you allow gay people to participate and that is why they should not be allow to enter it. However - that is a very controverisial thing to say and you need to offer some evidence. I have seen none so far.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Everness,

You have spared me the need to reply in detail to all the insubstantial stuff out there beyond the edges of the real topic.  Here we finally have the gist of your argument.  I'll try to restate it, to see if I've understood you clearly.  Feel free to correct me if I'm off by more than a bit.

Everness's position on the topic of allowing gay marriage is informed mostly by (1) a view that social tradition, which has long promoted heterosexual marriage, and excluded homosexual relationships, legal and otherwise, should have great force in determining the outcome of this topic; (2) likewise for Judeo-Christian religious tradition; (3) the Nature argument again.



(1) is easy to address.  We simply disagree.  I believe that social tradtions evolve, and as a progressive, I am less resistent to change than you are on this issue.  You may be much more progressive on other issues.  I don't know.  That's not germane to this discussion.  You are, in regard to this issue, a social conservative, and conservatives are, to paraphrase the historian Clinton Rossiter, pessimistic about the prospects of change being successful or beneficial.

(2) Another easy one to make clear our point of disagreement: I like to keep religion and theology as far away from legislation as possible.  You clearly want religious tradition--yours, not mine--to inform the legislative process.  No point in beating a dead horse.  We just flat out disagree here.  

I won't argue the implications of this on homosexual marriage...you and I and others have already presented our thoughts.  I will, however, caution you to be careful of what you wish for.   If religion is allowed to inform legislation to a great degree, you will end up with the banning of science from schools...see the creationists jumping with glee...and we may well be forced to join the flat Earth society before long.  This is no cheap shot at religion, which I don't oppose.  It's just a concern that when religion and matters of state become intertwined, nasty things have a habit of cropping up.  

(3) The Mother argument:  This fails over and over and over again.  Why?  Because unless and until you invoke #'s 1 and 2, there is no argument here at all.   Mother Nature is, I repeat, indifferent to the legislative process.  

Mother Nature created and creates Homo Sapiens, some a little more Sapiens than others, most of whom are heterosexual, and some of whom are homosexual, and some of whom are asexual.   Mother Nature doesn't seem to want to exterminate any of the above categories, as she or he or it keeps making more of all three varieties.   Thus, according to Mother, all are valid life forms.

The legislative process is not derived from Mother, though there are occasionally signs of sentient life in the halls of Congress.  Mother seems to like the perpetuation of species.  Thus critters, including Homo Sapiens, are able to reproduce if they choose to, and often despite their choosing not too.  Again, it's not a legal matter.  

Many species of critters, inluding H.S., habitually bond and form temporary and long-term pairs.  That's not legislative either.  How they bond, with whom, and their respective intents re procreation is a non-Mother legislative matter.

Thus, you have strong opinions based on #1 and #2, on which you and I do not agree.  You have facts and history for these, and so do I.  We draw distinct conclusions.  

#3 is invoked, ineffectually and illogically, to support a position on policy.

That's my opinion.

regards,
Cuchu



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Ah, refined Culture finally defeats primitive Nature. Wonderful! No law requires procreation for a marriage to be valid. True. Just for the meantime. I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution will soon be changed. It will make the implicit explicit and clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Following the recommendation of Senator Kerry, among others, gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional. And on what basis this decision will be made? Nature and tradition. Legislators will make reference to a notion of marriage observed throughout thousands of years by countries with mores influenced by Judeo-Christian values. But they will also invoke the same mother you want to leave out of this conversation. What is the most basic difference between a straight and a gay couple? Race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, etc. etc.? No. The potential, actualized or not, to procreate is the only substantial difference between a straight and a gay couple. Once the US and state constitutions change, the laws that require procreation for a marriage to be valid --and that you correctly have never seen because they don't exist-- will be fully implemented. It's just a matter of time...


----------



## Benjy

i have been following (sort of) this discussion for quite a while, and further to cuchu's post (with which i happen to agree totally) i would like to make a few observations 

if i ruled a country and it was mine i would not have homosexual marriages. i would have some sort of legal thingy like the pacs in france though. i am not even going to try and defend that opinion, because i make it on the basis of what i hold marriage to be. just like i prefer houses in brick (in general [and in england ]) to ones made of wood. and before anyone says "omg those things are totally different!!11" in the end they aren't really. for every study you can find showing homosexuality to be normal you can find others which show it to be abnormal. just like you would think scientists would have worked out whether milk (from a cow) and milk based products are good for humans or not. uniform opinions on dieting anyone? 

now the point is most of us don't live in a vacuum or an autocracy. so what's "right" for any given area of the world depends on the values of the people living there. forcing "liberal" views on people who don't share those same values is just as intolerant as anything you can accuse homophobes of. in my opinion.


----------



## Everness

timpeac said:
			
		

> Everness - you are falling into the same logical trap as Pakaluk here, by stating your opinion first as the basis of proving why your opinion is true



Your opinion about my opinions is just that: an opinion and my opinion about your opinion of my opinion is just that: an opinion.  



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> The points I have highlighted above are just your opinion on what marriage should be and why you think it is a good thing. But this is not what this discussion is about - it is about whether, or not, homosexual couples should be allowed to marry.



I don't get it. I thought that first you need to have an opinion of what marriage should be and in the light of that opinion discuss if gay couples should be allowed to marry. We all have yardsticks against we measure things. I don't think marriage is an exception. Otherwise we would be discussing this topic in a vacuum. 



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> You, and Pakaluk, have said many times that marriage should be denied to gay people because it is for raising kids, and biologically they cannot have children. To which I would answer, as Cuchu has, that this is irrelevant _to the discussion in hand. _You don't need to be married to have children, and conversely being married does not necessarily result in children. Therefore it is a null argument _here_.



I'm not quite sure that it's irrelevant to the discussion in hand. It's your opinion and I respect it. I don't find highlighting the obvious enlightening at all. Of course there are exceptions to the rule: many children are born out of wedlock and my best friend and her wife don't have children but a beautiful dog. So? What does that prove? I've been arguing that what sets marriage apart from other types of friendships is the capacity to procreate and have children and raise them. (Someone said that a new trend is developing: friends banging friends. Maybe I'm too conservative to accept this type of behavior.) The actualization or not of this capacity is irrelevant. And I'm not targeting gay couples. As I stated on another post, if you allow gay couples to marry, that same right should be given, for instance, to straight male and female friends. On what basis would you deny them the right to marry? Because they aren't gay?


----------



## timpeac

Everness said:
			
		

> I've been arguing that what sets marriage apart from other types of friendships is the capacity to procreate and have children and raise them.


 
Yes, but that's the major problem I have with your argument. Marriage is not set apart from other types of friendships by its capacity to have children. Marriage does not ensure that children will result, and neither does lack of marriage imply that children will not result.

This is your opinion of what marriage_ should_ be - please see the difference (and I am not saying you are right or wrong in that opinion, just trying to make you see the difference). Now, since marriage is not that, it is - in my opinion - unfair (well meaningless really) to use it as a basis against homosexual marriage.

I view you argument thus 1- Marriage is only for children. 2- homosexual couples can't have children. 3 - they should not be able to marry.

But step one just isn't true - you may wish it were - but it is not. Therefore it is not correct to follow a logical argument through from it to a conclusion.

I don't know how else to say this. I have tried to keep any opinions of my own out of the above. I claim that your argument is null as it stands. Not because of the opinion I hold about the subject matter, simply from the form of a logical argument.


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> i have been following (sort of) this discussion for quite a while, and further to cuchu's post (with which i happen to agree totally) i would like to make a few observations
> 
> if i ruled a country and it was mine i would not have homosexual marriages. i would have some sort of legal thingy like the pacs in france though. i am not even going to try and defend that opinion, because i make it on the basis of what i hold marriage to be. just like i prefer houses in brick (in general [and in england ]) to ones made of wood. and before anyone says "omg those things are totally different!!11" in the end they aren't really. for every study you can find showing homosexuality to be normal you can find others which show it to be abnormal. just like you would think scientists would have worked out whether milk (from a cow) and milk based products are good for humans or not. uniform opinions on dieting anyone?
> 
> now the point is most of us don't live in a vacuum or an autocracy. so what's "right" for any given area of the world depends on the values of the people living there. forcing "liberal" views on people who don't share those same values is just as intolerant as anything you can accuse homophobes of. in my opinion.


 
I think that would be the ideal solution Benjy. Keep the legal and the religious separate. I think this would be a better solution that could be extended across the board, since people who want to add religious significance to their union could marry in a church (synagogue etc according to belief), whereas the non-religious could pacs in a non-religious setting. This would avoid the hypocrisy of those who only ever go to church to get married in it.

I don't think many people pro "gay marriage" really mind whether the official term is "married" or not (although some would I suppose, but the legal form is the important thing for many).


----------



## Sev

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't think many people pro "gay marriage" really mind whether the official term is "married" or not (although some would I suppose, but the legal form is the important thing for many).


I'm not sure that is true. You see in France we have got the "PACS" which is a kind of civil union. Anybody can be "pacsé", a man and a woman, two man, two woman, even brothers and sisters etc etc. That way, gays can be kind of married and have certain rights.
But there is still a dabate about homosexual marriage here : a mayor decided to marry "illegaly" two men (i think that was last year), and the marriage was cancelled, that story made qiute a big fuss here.
That is not such a debate than before the PACS was created but there are still people wanting a "real" marriage. Don't ask me why, I don't know if it is because the rights you have with marriage are more important than those with PACS or because it's a matter of symbolic meaning....


----------



## timpeac

Sev said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that is true. You see in France we have got the "PACS" which is a kind of civil union. Anybody can be "pacsé", a man and a woman, two man, two woman, even brothers and sisters etc etc. That way, gays can be kind of married and have certain rights.
> But there is still a dabate about homosexual marriage here : a mayor decided to marry "illegaly" two men (i think that was last year), and the marriage was cancelled, that story made qiute a big fuss here.
> That is not such a debate than before the PACS was created but there are still people wanting a "real" marriage. Don't ask me why, I don't know if it is because the rights you have with marriage are more important than those with PACS or because it's a matter of symbolic meaning....


 
I must admit I don't know alot about the French system, Sev. Based on what you say I can only presume that there is still some legal difference between "marriage" and "pacs", otherwise surely it is just terminology?


----------



## Sev

timpeac said:
			
		

> I must admit I don't know alot about the French system, Sev. Based on what you say I can only presume that there is still some legal difference between "marriage" and "pacs", otherwise surely it is just terminology?


I've had a quick google look and I found that there are still some differences. For instance,with the PACS,  if you "divorce" (there is no specific word when you stop a PACS), you don't have the same rights regarding alimonies than with marriage. So you're right.
But I'm now pretty convinced that those who "fight" for gay marriage don't do it to obtain some small advantages they don't have yet compared to marriage. For me, they only want to be recognised as every other couple, thus they want for them to be possible to marry. I'm even convinced that many of those who want gay marriage to be possible won't marry. To sum up I see 3 kind of people (amongst gays who want a legel union) :
1. Those who seek for legal rights. In France with the PACS they almost  have what they were looking for.
2. Those who want to commit themselves with their beloved one. They can with PACS
3. Those who want homosexual union to be recognised as "equal" (put here what you want to) to heterosexual union. These people are those who want gay marriage to be created.


----------



## timpeac

Sev said:
			
		

> I've had a quick google look and I found that there are still some differences. For instance,with the PACS, if you "divorce" (there is no specific word when you stop a PACS), you don't have the same rights regarding alimonies than with marriage. So you're right.
> But I'm now pretty convinced that those who "fight" for gay marriage don't do it to obtain some small advantages they don't have yet compared to marriage. For me, they only want to be recognised as every other couple, thus they want for them to be possible to marry. I'm even convinced that many of those who want gay marriage to be possible won't marry. To sum up I see 3 kind of people (amongst gays who want a legel union) :
> 1. Those who seek for legal rights. In France with the PACS they almost have what they were looking for.
> 2. Those who want to commit themselves with their beloved one. They can with PACS
> 3. Those who want homosexual union to be recognised as "equal" (put here what you want to) to heterosexual union. These people are those who want gay marriage to be created.


 
I expect you're right Sev. However, if PACS or whatever had exactly the same legal rights as "marriage" then fundamentally what would be the difference? Churches for example can refuse to marry a straight couple if they wish. Surely whatever marriage means - beyond the legal issues - is a personal matter for the couple involved? "Marriage" to a couple from a tribe in Africa, say, will not mean the same as that to a Muslim living in Pakistan or to Mormon living in the USA. That is why I think the issue must fundamentally be about equal legal rights for everyone, rather than the term used.


----------



## Everness

I’ve done some thinking based on people’s feedback. This is, I think, my final position on this topic. 

We, human beings, came up with the institutions of marriage and family. Just think what would happen today if guys and gals copulated with any person they bumped into (consensual sex, of course) and, as a result, a kid was conceived. Maybe at the onset of humanity that’s exactly what was going on. One day someone said, “Hey guys, this is fun but it’s getting freakin’ confusing and chaotic. We have all these women with kids from different dads. The women don’t know who the father is. No one is taking responsibility of caring about them and these women can’t even feed them. The kids are out of control and they are roaming the villages destroying everything. We definitely need to do something about this.” And that’s when and why matrimony was instituted: to regulate the expression of sexuality in society and to make sure that kids had a family that took care of them. I’m sure that there were gays and lesbians back then but they weren’t contributing to the problem. Therefore, marriage was an institution for straight people who were fooling around big time and not for gay people. (“Not that there’s anything wrong with it,” as Jerry Seinfeld would say.) We must also acknowledge that for thousands of years this social institution has worked pretty well and kept life in society organized and under control. 

With the gradual acceptance of homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation, the issue of gay marriage is logically getting on societies’ agenda or to-do list. If you accept homosexuality, on what rational basis can you reject gay marriage? Well, they can’t have kids. Yes, it’s true that they can’t naturally procreate but it’s also true that they can adopt children. Gay men can also use surrogate mothers and lesbians can use artificial insemination. We always say that an adoptive parent isn’t per se a better or worse parent than a biological parent. This surely applies to straight and gay adopting parents. What happens if a gay couple decides to stay childless? The same thing than if it were a straight couple: Nothing. 

Conclusion: gay marriage should be endorsed by any society that cares about human rights and wants to make sure that it treats its members in an egalitarian way. If you accept and embrace homosexuality, you should accept and embrace gay marriage. The only rational way to deny gay couples the right to get married is to deny the validity of their sexual orientation based on scientific, moral, psychological, and/or theological reasons. If you are kind of wishy-washy on this topic ("I tolerate but I don't accept"), it's time you do your homework and take a f***in' stand because the future of society and the rights of a group of people are on the line.


----------



## Sev

Everness said:
			
		

> We, human beings, came up with the institutions of marriage and family. Just think what would happen today *if guys and gals copulated with any person they bumped into* (consensual sex, of course) *and, as a result, a kid was conceived*. Maybe at the onset of humanity that’s exactly what was going on. One day someone said, “Hey guys, this is fun but it’s getting freakin’ confusing and chaotic. *We have all these women with kids from different dads. The women don’t know who the father is. No one is taking responsibility of caring about them and these women can’t even feed them. The kids are out of control and they are roaming the villages destroying everything*.


It's not because your are not married that you're going to have sex with everyone and kids everywhere ! And you can be faithful without being married (and unfaithful when married , very common!). You can take care of childre out of the instution of marriage as well....
I pretty much agree with the part "If you really accept homosexuality, why not accepting gay marriage?", but I'd like to know why zebedee edited your post ?


----------



## Everness

Sev said:
			
		

> It's not because your are not married that you're going to have sex with everyone and kids everywhere ! And you can be faithful without being married (and unfaithful when married , very common!). You can take care of childre out of the instution of marriage as well....



Mine was a mythical story about the origin of marriage. 



			
				Sev said:
			
		

> I pretty much agree with the part "If you really accept homosexuality, why not accepting gay marriage?", but I'd like to know why zebedee edited your post ?



What do you mean that she edited my post?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Everness,

He's baaaaaaack,

However I won't nitpick the first paragraph, out of compassion for the readers, if any are left.  I'll try to limit myself to your conclusion. 





			
				Everness said:
			
		

> We, human beings, came up with the institutions of marriage and family. Just think what would happen today if guys and gals copulated with any person they bumped into (consensual sex, of course) and, as a result, a kid was conceived. Maybe at the onset of humanity that’s exactly what was going on. One day someone said, “Hey guys, this is fun but it’s getting freakin’ confusing and chaotic. We have all these women with kids from different dads. The women don’t know who the father is. No one is taking responsibility of caring about them and these women can’t even feed them. The kids are out of control and they are roaming the villages destroying everything. We definitely need to do something about this.” And that’s when and why matrimony was instituted: to regulate the expression of sexuality in society and to make sure that kids had a family that took care of them. I’m sure that there were gays and lesbians back then but they weren’t contributing to the problem. Therefore, marriage was an institution for straight people who were fooling around big time and not for gay people. (“Not that there’s anything wrong with it,” as Jerry Seinfeld would say.) We must also acknowledge that for thousands of years this social institution has worked pretty well and kept life in society organized and under control.
> 
> With the gradual acceptance of homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation, the issue of gay marriage is logically getting on societies’ agenda or to-do list. If you accept homosexuality, on what rational basis can you reject gay marriage? Well, they can’t have kids. Yes, it’s true that they can’t naturally procreate but it’s also true that they can adopt children. Gay men can also use surrogate mothers and lesbians can use artificial insemination. We always say that an adoptive parent isn’t per se a better or worse parent than a biological parent. This surely applies to straight and gay adopting parents. What happens if a gay couple decides to stay childless? The same thing than if it were a straight couple: Nothing.
> 
> Conclusion: gay marriage should be endorsed (No need to endorse it, just calmly stay out of the way and don't meddle.)by any society that cares about human rights and wants to make sure that it treats its members in an egalitarian way. If you accept and embrace  homosexuality, (How can I, a  heterosexual, not accept it?  It's a fact.  As to embrace...no, I don't embrace anyone's sexuality but that of myself, my family, and my partner.  Other people's sexuality is none of my business so long as they don't try to impose it on me.)you should accept and embrace (again, just don't meddle in other people's lives) gay marriage. The only rational way to deny gay couples the right to get married is to deny the validity of their sexual orientation based on scientific, moral, psychological, and/or theological reasons.(Are you building a 'back door' here?  There are perhaps scientific, moral, psychological, and/or theological reasons to disagree with gay marriage.  Personally, I find them unconvincing, but that's just my own view.)If you are kind of wishy-washy on this topic ("I tolerate but I don't accept"), it's time you do your homework and take a f***in' stand because the future of society and the rights of a group of people are on the line.



You are either very deft and subtle in your final line...with the 'group of people' whose 'rights...are on the line' being the Rush Limbaugh/W/Jerry Fallwell fan club and fellow travelers, or you have a bit of the Libertarian in you.  If the latter, I'll smile.  If the former, I'll compliment you on the linguistic trick, and continue to respectfully disagree.  

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Sev

Everness said:
			
		

> What do you mean that she edited my post?


I mean it's written "Last edited by zebedee..."
But please continue your discussion with Cuchu, that was increadibly long but quite intersting about some points...although you two often reapeat the same arguments. Now, who isn't listening carefully to the other one ? Don't know....


----------



## timpeac

Everness - I'm not quite sure how to interpret what you've written now. You seem to be saying (middle paragraph) that there is not necessarily a link between marriage and children, and equally no link between not being married and not having them? And that therefore this does not constitute a reason against homosexual marriages?

If so, then obviously I agree with the breaking of that link since it was what I was arguing above. However, I am left a little confused as to how this leads on to your apparent acceptance of homosexual marriage in the third paragraph. Was the marriage=children concern the only problem you had with gay marriage then? Like Cuchu, I can't help but feel that there is more to what you have concluded than a casual read reveals...If you are being sarcastic, I would be interested to know the basis on which you would still reject gay marriage.

(By the way Seb, Everness swore in his post which Zeb replaced with asterisks).


----------



## Sev

Everness said:
			
		

> Mine was a mythical story about the origin of marriage.


I was just saying that that kind of story doesn't help to understand/decide something about the issue today.



			
				Cuchu said:
			
		

> However I won't nitpick the first paragraph, out of compassion for the readers, if any are left


 Yes there are some ! Exhausted but we're still there !


----------



## Sev

timpeac said:
			
		

> (By the way Se*v*, Everness swore in his post which Zeb replaced with asterixs).


Thanks I saw that a short while after my question. I'm interested in Everness' answer, just like you, to if he changed his mind a little or if it was just irony.


----------



## shadows

weird said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot. I love learning English. I need your corrections.
> 
> I wanted to say that children that have been brought up by a homosexual couple aren't homosexual for this reason. They are open-minded and they can understand the most situation on their life.
> 
> (Is very difficult for me to explain it in English!!!)
> 
> Saludos.-


 
I agree with you, for me the problem, at least in chilean society, it isn't that children have parents with the same gender and they will suffer some kind of trauma or damage because of that, I think the real problem for them is our society doesn't accept that kind of family. In our legislation we are just including the single mother-song/daughter family... so just imagine it's gonna take a little time... I hope you can understand my english, it isn't the best


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Everness,
> 
> He's baaaaaaack,
> 
> However I won't nitpick the first paragraph, out of compassion for the readers, if any are left.  I'll try to limit myself to your conclusion.
> 
> You are either very deft and subtle in your final line...with the 'group of people' whose 'rights...are on the line' being the Rush Limbaugh/W/Jerry Fallwell fan club and fellow travelers, or you have a bit of the Libertarian in you.  If the latter, I'll smile.  If the former, I'll compliment you on the linguistic trick, and continue to respectfully disagree.
> 
> regards,
> Cuchu



I'll try to respond to a couple of posts using yours. My understanding of the nature  of marriage has changed in the following fashion: If creating civil unions isn't enough for gays and lesbians, let's allow them to marry the same way we allow heterosexual to marry. (Marriage isn't a private contract even between heterosexual individuals. Gay marriage needs to be formally ENDORSED by all branches of government.) If I were in the shoes of a gay couple, I'd rather say that I'm married to him/her than I'm "civil-unioned" to him or her. On the other hand, what would the kids answer when someone asks them about the marital status of their folks? (The poor things already have a hard time trying to explain to their schoolmates that they have 2 mommies or 2 daddies). I think we'd all like to respond "married," right?

So although two men or two women don't have the hardware and software (design) to perform a function (procreation), they should be allowed to marry. So as you can realize, my position on the function  of marriage hasn't changed a bit. I still believe that the institution of marriage is subservient to the institution of the family. Marriage isn't an end in itself but a means to an end. Although procreation and the preservation of the human species IS NOT the only purpose of marriage, it is, in my humble opinion, the main reason for its existence. Again, that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't enjoy all the other facets of intimacy. 

I also realized, or was reminded, that although gay couples can't naturally bear children, they can adopt or resort to surrogate motherhood or artificial insemination and become parents. So my line of argumentation would derail once and again. So I changed my take on gay marriage because they can parent. However, I'm adding something new. If a gay couple gets married with the clear intention of not adopting or having kids, I'd argue that they are a couple of selfish bastards. Before you launch an attack on my statement, hear me out. If a straight couple gets married with the clear intention of not having or adopting kids, I would also argue that they are a couple of selfish bastards. 

Why? Because, and I'm aware that I'm repeating myself ad nauseam, I believe that marriage is subservient to family. We have too many orphans in this shitty and broken world of ours, we have too many parents who are in jail unavailable to their kids or who are currently with their children but should be in jail, etc. etc.  You get the picture... If you are a straight or a gay couple and you can't have a kid (and I'm deeply sorry about it) just get off your sorry ass and adopt one! Don't adopt a pet or a highway (this last peculiar type of adoption is very common in the US). Kids shouldn't be raised by other social institutions other than families. We should do the impossible to hook up kids with families. 

I'll end my sermon this morning with a story. Tengo una pareja amiga que vive en Barcelona. ¡Tremendas y hermosas personas ambos! No son ricos; para nada. Ambos son profesionales y viven en una hermoso pueblito pesquero al norte de Barcelona. Tienen dos hermosas hijas, las dos adolescentes. La mamá, que dicho sea de paso prepara una tortilla de papas exquisita, se está recuperando de una larga batalla contra un cáncer de mama y por ahora le está ganando la partida a esta enfermedad hija de puta. ¿Qué hicieron mis amigos? Comenzaron y finalizaron exitosamente los trámites de adopción de un huerfanito en Colombia. De eso se trata. Exactamente de eso. Entender que Madre Natura nos está pidiendo que cobijemos a cuántos podamos bajo nuestro regazo familiar para satisfacer, ante todo, las necesidades básicas de cualquier ser humano: comida, techo y ropa pero para satisfacer también las tres necesidades emocionales y sociales fundamentales de esas criaturas que trajimos al mundo o que alguna otra persona trajo al mundo: amor, seguridad y reconocimiento. (Si todavia no estás llorando a moco tendido, seguro que tienes un corazón como Pinocho antes de la operación).

Ok, let's switch to the other topic. Someone kindly let me know that my post had been edited. Yes, I swore. However, I didn't insult anyone. I didn't call anyone "a fuckin' asshole." I just emphasized a point. I think people need to leave the comfort zone when it comes to the topic of gay marriage and take a stand in favor or against it. If my language sounded offensive to someone, I'm sorry. On the other hand, and now that homosexuality is off the list of possible infections that could destroy the fabric of Western civilization, I'm glad that someone is doing something about the other two: pornography and foul language. Once we do away with these other two real maladies --if, of course, someone in this forum doesn't end up convincing me that they are ok -- the world, as we currently know it, will avoid destruction.


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> If a straight couple gets married with the clear intention of not having or adopting kids, I would also argue that they are a couple of selfish bastards.


 
My widowed grandmother married a widower.  She was too old to bear children, and they could not adopt children (at least one of the parents has to be under a certain age).

Would you still argue that they're selfish bastards?


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> My widowed grandmother married a widower.  She was too old to bear children, and they could not adopt children (at least one of the parents has to be under a certain age).
> 
> Would you still argue that they're selfish bastards?



Ok, ok... you have a point... 

Let's put it this way. If you have already made a contribution to humankind and you remarry, I won't call you a selfish bastard. Fair enough? Although grandma and grandpa can't procreate, that doesn't mean they can't have lots of fun and lots of sex. There's a myth that when you grow old, your libido takes a serious toll and almost dies. I don't think so. Otherwise, why would I continue to get spam depicting grandmothers apparently having a great time? mmmmm... maybe the whole thing is choreographed.... I get it!


----------



## Ana Raquel

I was glad when gay marriage was approved in Spain, just to annoy those who consider people who are different from them as inferiors, or bad, or perverts, or bastards, or with less rights or any other down-view.


----------



## modgirl

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> to annoy those who consider people who are different from them as inferiors, or bad, or perverts, or bastards, or with less rights or any other down-view.


 
I don't think anyone can condone that point-of-view (considering people who are different from them as inferiors, and so forth).

However, here is a trend that I notice. If someone has a viewpoint different from ours, we sometimes give that opinion negative attributes. Just because someone doesn't condone an issue, we sometimes call him close-minded. But, if we were truly open-minded ourselves, wouldn't we accept ALL points-of-view and not just the ones that appeal to us? Sometimes, people who claim to have "open" minds are only open to ideas that are congruent with their own.

(By the way, Ana Raquel, these comments aren't meant to be directed towards you personally at all; I was just stating a general opinion)


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> Sometimes, people who claim to have "open" minds are only open to ideas that are congruent with their own.



I agree with your point of view. I've found that hardcore liberals are much more intolerant than hardcore conservatives yet they hate to acknowledge it and get easily pissed and lash at you. When they calm down they don't accept that they acted out of sheer intolerance. They genuinly believe that their intolerance is more acceptable and justifiable than other people's intolerance. If you are discussing, for instance, gay marriage and you don't agree with what they say, they are more prone to slap the label of homophobic on your forehead. 

Me hiciste recordar un dicho:

"Hay gente que tiene la mente tan cerrada que nada le entra y hay gente que tiene la mente tan abierta que nada le queda". No se quién lo dijo, pero me parece muy cierto.


----------



## cuchuflete

To Everness:

Please receive my sincere congratulations.  You are among the relatively few people I see in this forum who are willing to consider new information and change their stance once they add it to their previous store of knowledge.  That's genuinely impressive.

Please receive further applause for holding firmly to your underlying moral beliefs.  It's clear that you and I do not share the same religious fundamentals; nevertheless, I admire your maintaining yours, while showing intellectual flexibility about the needs or desires of others.

This is the essence of honest debate.  It's not only about persuading.  It's also about learning from one another, with respect.   You certainly have mine.

Un saludo,
Cuchu


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> I've found that hardcore liberals are much more intolerant than hardcore conservatives yet they hate to acknowledge it and get easily pissed and lash at you.



I've shared the misfortune of offending the hardcore by not swallowing all they have to offer, without thinking.   This has ocurred with both self-styled liberals, and with their supposedly conservative counterparts.  My conclusion:
Hard core ideologues don't like to listen and learn, regardless of their position on the ideological spectrum.  Sorry for going off-topic.


----------



## astronauta

Originally Posted by *Everness*
_If a straight couple gets married with the clear intention of not having or adopting kids, I would also argue that they are a couple of selfish bastards.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_* Yeahh!!! me and my husband-to-be are a couple of selfish bastards!!! 

 Now all the arguments you've made make perfect sense to me! I know exactly what kind of person you are*_
_


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> To Everness:
> 
> Please receive my sincere congratulations.  You are among the relatively few people I see in this forum who are willing to consider new information and change their stance once they add it to their previous store of knowledge.  That's genuinely impressive.
> 
> Please receive further applause for holding firmly to your underlying moral beliefs.  It's clear that you and I do not share the same religious fundamentals; nevertheless, I admire your maintaining yours, while showing intellectual flexibility about the needs or desires of others.
> 
> This is the essence of honest debate.  It's not only about persuading.  It's also about learning from one another, with respect.   You certainly have mine.
> 
> Un saludo,
> Cuchu



¡Gracias varón! Aprecio el cumplido y comparto sus pensamientos acerca la naturaleza del debate de ideas. Debo reconocer que debatir con usted no es tarea sencilla pero muy productiva para mantener a las neuronas activas. No dudo que nuestros caminos y nuestras opiniones volverán a cruzarse. Un fuerte abrazo.


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *Everness*
> _If a straight couple gets married with the clear intention of not having or adopting kids, I would also argue that they are a couple of selfish bastards.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _ Yeahh!!! me and my husband-to-be are a couple of selfish bastards!!!




Hi astronauta. I'm not quite sure this will help but I want you to know that I take no pleasure in conveying this message to couples...


----------



## astronauta

Hey, I have absolutely no problems with it; everyone is entitled to their opinion


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Hey, I have absolutely no problems with it; everyone is entitled to their opinion



Oh, I'm glad to hear that. Your other statement kinda confused me a little.



			
				astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Now all the arguments you've made make perfect sense to me! I know exactly what kind of person you are[/b]_
> _



You actually think I'm opinionated! For a moment I thought you thought I was an as*h**e. My mistake! 

Going back to the topic of straight and gay marriage, maybe it's better for couples not to have kids if they believe they won't have the time, energy, commitment, patience, and love (I purposely left out the other two dozen qualities in order to avoid scaring you even more) to raise them. The biological capacity of making a baby doesn't turn us automatically into parents. Making babies is the easy and fun part. Delivering them (I'm not a woman so this is an opinion) seems pretty dramatic and painful. Raising them until they turn 40 or 50 or you die --whichever comes first-- is the hardest part.


----------



## astronauta

Everness said:
			
		

> You actually think I'm opinionated! For a moment I thought you thought I was an as*h**e. My mistake!



You will never know what I think of you


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> Ok, ok... you have a point...
> 
> Let's put it this way. If you have already made a contribution to humankind and you remarry, I won't call you a selfish bastard. Fair enough?


You have only "forgiven" those who procreated in a previous marriage? Do I understand that you maintain there is no contribution a person/couple can make to humankind other than adding to the census, especially those who don't want or feel up to the lifetime moral, financial and emotional responsibility of parenting, and might therefore do a poor job of it?


----------



## Everness

lsp said:
			
		

> Do I understand that you maintain there is no contribution a person/couple can make to humankind other than adding to the census, especially those who don't want or feel up to the lifetime moral, financial and emotional responsibility of parenting, and might therefore do a poor job of it?



I love acting. Therefore, if the only thing that the parents of Charles Chaplin did was to give birth to the greatest actor of all times, the answer to your question would be yes. 

By the way, you just made reference to the best quality of a parent. Couples that have doubts about their ability to raise a child are the only couples ready to bring kids into this world and raise them. Parenting is an awsome yet humbling experience, and only humble parents who are more aware of their need areas than of their strenghts will succeed at it.


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> You will never know what I think of you



To say that I'm intrigued by your statement would be an understatement but could also be construed as an attempt of initiating a chatting session or, what's worse, disgressing from the main topic of this thread.  As you may already know, these two offenses are considered mortal and not just venial sins, and are punished severely by the powers that be.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hey Zeb!  Hey Benjy....!!   The kids are getting restless and need some moderate parenting.


c. 


Is it getting towards time to open some new threads on (1)marriage, (2)A contest to find the best speculation about what AV _*really*_ thinks of Everness....?


----------



## meili

Have been following this thread (which died and was resurrected after 3 months! (?)) Oh.. I thought the debate between Everness and Cuchuflete and others who had the stand to remain will-never-end!
I know there are still more to discuss and talk about this context.
I learned a lot!


----------



## zebedee

...THIS THREAD HAS DE-RAILED AND IS CLOSED FOR SAFETY REASONS...

It was a very interesting thread and thanks to all who collaborated, but the squabbling at the end was too much. Lets try to be a bit more civilised next time.

Thanks for your cooperation.

zebedee
Culture Moderator


----------

