# Hetero/Homo -Sexual Marriage: Split-off from "Abortion and Lesbian Marriage" Thread



## emma42

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. May I just address two points in respect of Post #9 ?

Why is not the right to marriage for lesbians a "real issue"?

I am curious to know.

Moderator Note: The first 6 posts in this thread were split from the conversation about feminism.
They are on a related but distinct set of topics.  

*Moderator Note Two:* This thread is a split copy of the original "Abortion and Lesibian Marriage Issues" which spun in too many different directions to follow any particular string of thought. All posts not relevant to the subject of *abortion *have been removed. In certain instances, individual posts where forer@s responded to questions regarding both abortion and lesbian marriage may have been edited to ensure content is relevant for *this *thread. 
 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via PM.

 GenJen54


----------



## Fernando

In this particular two points I fully agree with tvdxer:

- Marriage for lesbians is not a real issue since they have the same rights, granted they can live together, while marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples.

In both cases the real case is not women defense but the defense of a very special way of understanding life and society.


----------



## cuchuflete

Dearest Emma,
They are not "real" issues in the minds of those who have all the answers neatly staked out, tied down, pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. For others, they are certainly very real issues. 

Those statements you questioned are examples of common attempts by males to impose their viewpoints on females.

And, now that we have begun, just for the record....Pat Buchanan is not an American conservative. He is an American Neanderthal.



> For example, the devalued the most honorable role for (married) women, that of mother and housekeeper,


 I trust there are millions of unmarried women who are fine mothers and housekeepers.
Sadly, fewer unmarried men take the roles of housekeepers and parents seriously enough. Some married men have the honesty and humility to acknowledge that for their particular families, the role of breadwinner is best fulfilled by a woman, and that of stay-at-home parent and housekeeper is best done by the father. Such stretches from conventionality must be very disquieting to those who would preserve the status quo ante, but those same folks have demonstrated difficulties with evolution in general.


----------



## emma42

I'm sorry Fernando, I don't understand - why is lesbian marriage not an issue? You haven't addressed that,apart from confirming that "marriage is for heterosexual couples", which we already know.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry Fernando, I don't understand - why is lesbian marriage not an issue? You haven't addressed that,apart from confirming that "marriage is for heterosexual couples", which we already know.
> 
> I also do not understand what you said about abortion. "It does so much comfort to the mother....."etc. I don't understand what you are saying.


1) The lesbian marriage is not an issue, since the important thing is that both gays and lesbians are not discriminated (or worse, punished) and they can live with their partners without disturbing, as, unfortunately, happens in most countries. While I DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUALITY I think they should not be treated in a different way, except in the cases they are not equals, such as marriage.


----------



## Fernando

The intention of my posts in the splitted thread was just to answer Emma's questions to point out why I consider they have no relation with women's rights. I think the two topics (abortion & lesbian marriages) have been yet discussed in several threads and have no relation among them.


----------



## tvdxer

> 2 Why is not the right to marriage for lesbians a "real issue"?
> 
> I am curious to know.


Because it is an affront to justice and "rights" in general to grant marital status to an unnatural and wholly unmarriageable relationship.


----------



## medeterian

I dont think making gay or lesbian marriage prohibited beneficial for soceity which already includes a gay or lesbian population. In terms of todays human rights and freedom, it will refer to injustice. 

However, I also think that homosexualism is something not suitable for human nature. I may supply my thoughts on "why homosexuality is not an option for human beings" in different points of views in a new thread, not allowing this thead go off-topic. These point of views are "male and female way of thinking " and "exploring the human psycology crossing from regular to homosexual". I am wondering what the other people think about these subjects. Maybe then my thoughts adn feelings would become more mature. The new thread will be "Is homosexuality natural for human or not?". I am so tired now and have to sleep. I will start it tomorrow.


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:
			
		

> Why is not the right to marriage for lesbians a "real issue"?


If they weren't real issues, people wouldn't spend so much time, money and energy arguing about them. To dismiss them as less than real issues is either a statement of ignorance, or just a ploy in an argument, an attempt to redirect a conversation to where someone else would have it go. Despite such attempts, both of these remain real issues.

How hypocritical for a person who excoriates lesbian marriage to say it's not a real issue! For viewpoints for and against homosexual marriage, please read the extensive threads about that topic, in this forum. Repeating their content here would serve little purpose....though I'm sure some folks will be more than happy to do so...if only for the sake of having repeated themselves yet again.


----------



## ceci '79

My humble opinion (temporary and non-final, as always - I love being persuaded) is that, if the State got out of the whole marriage business, everybody would be happy.

The State would no longer "validate" (or whatever the correct legal term is) marriages, and there would be only civil unions with a set of laws protecting both partners (and in particular the weakest one) and their children. Civil unions would be for homosexuals as well.

If people still wanted to be married, they could go to their church (if religious) or to someone they admire and ask them or their priest / pastor / rabbi / mullah (and so forth) to officiate the suitable religious wedding ceremony or a secular symbolic wedding ritual. The only condition would be that nobody should force a church / synagogue / mosque / temple / private citizen (and so on) to wed anyone on the ground of non-discrimination. I mean that, in exchange, nobody (including no religious institution) should be forced to wed homosexuals.

Think about it: After so much time and energy were spent to show that it is perfectly ok to be together without being married, now we want everybody to get married! (Just being ironic.  ) 

In the modern word, getting married should be a private (secular-symbolic or religious) choice and nothing more. Why are governments still involved in it?


----------



## Brioche

I have nothing against adults doing pretty much what they like with other consenting adults.

Equally, I see no reason for the State to be involved in the domestic arrangements of adults.

The push for same-sex marriages is all about money. The partners want the help of the State to get their hands on their ex's stuff if the relationship breaks down, or when their partner dies. 

By my lights, there should be no "legal marriage", whether same or opposite sex.
If adults want to form partnerships, they should follow the normal civil law regarding commercial partnerships. I don't see why people should get special rights because they have sex with each other.


----------



## cuchuflete

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> In the modern word, getting married should be a private (secular-symbolic or religious) choice and nothing more. Why are governments still involved in it?



I share your view.  I suspect that the self-styled 'traditionalists' might choke on the facts if they knew them.  The idea of a government-issued 'marriage license' is relatively recent.  There are much older traditions governing the unions of partners, without interference from the state.

Those who advocate for and against the rights of any citizens, homosexual, asexual, or whatever, to wed, might next ask the state to enforce laws against adultery.   Then the traditionalists and progressives could have massive debates--behind bars, together.


----------



## lizzeymac

While making various excellent points, a few forer@s have mentioned that gay marriage is not necessary as gays can live together if they want - so gay people don't need to be married.  Living together is not the main problem - it is being able to create a stable, meaningful life.

Just as a reminder - most of the states in the USA do not sanction civil unions or domestic partnership or legal protections of any kind for same sex couples - so American gay & lesbian couples have almost none of the rights that a same sex couple would in many EU countries or even an unmarried heterosexual couple in the US.  No rights of survivorship, adoption, child custody, health insurance, inheritance, tax benefits, health proxy, etc.  The fact that gay people can't be foster parents or adopt children in many states is unbelievable to me.

Surverys & politicians & the newsmedia report that America will not accept "civil unions", so this issue is called "gay marriage" by politicians, and this is an offensive concept to many Americans.  
Personally, I have always wondered if Conservatives block the idea of "civil union" so they can benefit from the inflaming phrase "gay marriage" & prevent any progress on the issue.


----------



## ceci '79

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> While making various excellent points, a few forer@s have mentioned that gay marriage is not necessary as gays can live together if they want - so gay people don't need to be married. Living together is not the main problem - it is being able to create a stable, meaningful life.


 
I think that people in general don't need to be married. 

Except for the children issue, two adults living together don't need legal protection or financial benefits in order to enjoy a "stable, meaningful life." Each partner can easily take care of his own finances, retirement, etc.

EDIT: Basically, liberally-minded people can only have two fundamental views of this issue:

a) Make these benefits available to everybody.
b) Make these benefits available to nobody.  

So far, I belong to group b).


----------



## Seb_K

I find this topic interesting. 

I do agree with Ceci that people in general need not be married because love is everything to couples and being married to each other is just signing those certificates by all means. 

And for lesbian marriage issue I think that each individual has their own preferences. Be it they like people of the same sex or opposite sex because at the end of day what matters would be the love and how strong their love for each other is. Maybe you might beg to differ with what I am trying to say but hey we all have different taste. So I guess it should not be an issue. Except between the partners themselves. 

As for abortion I am not against it and if you need it then go ahead. It's all your choice after all. 

Just sharing.


----------



## ceci '79

Brioche said:
			
		

> I have nothing against adults doing pretty much what they like with other consenting adults.
> 
> Equally, I see no reason for the State to be involved in the domestic arrangements of adults.
> 
> The push for same-sex marriages is all about money. The partners want the help of the State to get their hands on their ex's stuff if the relationship breaks down, or when their partner dies.
> 
> By my lights, there should be no "legal marriage", whether same or opposite sex.
> If adults want to form partnerships, they should follow the normal civil law regarding commercial partnerships. I don't see why people should get special rights because they have sex with each other.


 
Yes, except for the children issue, which needs to be regulated in order to protect the children, I agree with you 100%.


----------



## moodywop

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> Yes, except for the children issue, which needs to be regulated in order to protect the children, I agree with you 100%.


 
Ceci

It's not just the children issue. Two friends of mine (a heterosexual couple) lived together for ten years without getting married. Like you, they thought they would only consider marriage if they had children. They were also proud of their _anticonformismo. _While touring Turkey on a motorbike they had a terrible accident. He was unconscious. The doctors at the local hospital said they would amputate his left leg. His girlfriend said she wanted a second opinion. She was told she was not a relative and had no say. Luckily his parents, with the help of the Italian Consulate, were able to have him transferred to a better hospital. As soon as they got back to Italy they got married.

It's not just about children or inheritance.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Because it is an affront to justice and "rights" in general to grant marital status to an unnatural and wholly unmarriageable relationship.


 1) What is a marriage in your definition?
2) What defines "naturalness" for you? Not just in marriage, in life in totality.
3) Bearing in mind that in most countries 'marriage' is a civil ceremony, and not solely a "sacrament" of some Churches, what constitutes a marriage? What are the requirements of those entering a marriage, and what are their responsibilities once in one?


----------



## badgrammar

Whoa! That's quite a lot to wrap up in one thread : Abortion and lesbian mariage issues?  Are the two that closely related?  "Reproduction and Lesbian mariage issues" sounds related. 

I am all for people living a good life that includes the pursuit of love and happiness and a family with someone they love deeply and have a sexual bond with.  Homosexuality has always and will always exist, and finally in many parts of the world, gays and lesbians can lead normal and happy lives without having to hide behind pretenses and closed doors and loveless marriages.  

As for the question of abortion - by definition it doesn't often go hand-in-hand with homosexual marriage.  But reproduction does tie in, as many same-sex couples choose to start a family.  Sometimes through adoption, surrogate mothering, insemination, etc.  I have close friends who have done this, the second child will be born in a few months.  In this _particular case_, the child does not seem as "balanced" as others his age.  But that is a)My personal judgement of the child, not necessarily correct, b)perhaps more a reflection of this child's personality than of his having two mothers and c)Perhpas due more to the personality of his parents than their sex and d)not in anyway representative of a global experience with or knowledge of how children from same sex marriages fare.

I do support same-sex marriages, as I think everyone should be able to choose a life partner and construct a secure financial future as a couple.  That is only normal.


----------



## ceci '79

moodywop said:
			
		

> Ceci
> 
> It's not just the children issue. Two friends of mine (a heterosexual couple) lived together for ten years without getting married. Like you, they thought they would only consider marriage if they had children. They were also proud of their _anticonformismo. _While touring Turkey on a motorbike they had a terrible accident. He was unconscious. The doctors at the local hospital said they would amputate his left leg. His girlfriend said she wanted a second opinion. She was told she was not a relative and had no say. Luckily his parents, with the help of the Italian Consulate, were able to have him transferred to a better hospital. As soon as they got back to Italy they got married.
> 
> It's not just about children or inheritance.


 
First of all, I am very happy to hear that your friend is now married and doing well.

But who knows if a spouse would always make the right decision? (See the complex case of Terri Schiavo). By "making the right decision" I mean acting in the patient's best interest.


----------



## maxiogee

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> First of all, I am very happy to hear that your friend is now married and doing well.
> 
> But who knows if a spouse would always make the right decision? (See the complex case of Terri Schiavo). By "making the right decision" I mean acting in the patient's best interest.



Hard cases make bad laws! — A well known expression meaning that we cannot legislate purely on the basis of difficult situations.

We must allow people involved to make the best decision they can in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Most people do this.


----------



## ceci '79

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Hard cases make bad laws! — A well known expression meaning that we cannot legislate purely on the basis of difficult situations.
> 
> We must allow people involved to make the best decision they can in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Most people do this.


 
Good point. I was just wondering whether being somebody's spouse is a such a sure indicator that you have their best interest in mind...


----------



## maxiogee

Who else might know their wishes?
Who else is to be the one who cares for them enough to make a decision?

If my life hung in a balance of some sort and a decision had to be made by someone, I'd like to think that my wife, informed by the best medical advice she can get, would be the one to make that decision. 
Not…
…a minority interest-group with an agenda,
…a medical person with some unknown agenda - financial constraints, some hospital's ethics committee (here hospitals are hugely influenced by Roman Catholic personnel), or other unlegislated standpoint
…a jury, who rarely evince great wisdom in simple matters of fact, let alone getting into the murky world of ethics and morals.

And if my wife were to decide, against sound advice given which recommended that I be allowed to live, that she felt I should be allowed to die, would I want to live in the care of someone who felt like that?


----------



## ceci '79

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Who else might know their wishes?
> Who else is to be the one who cares for them enough to make a decision?
> 
> If my life hung in a balance of some sort and a decision had to be made by someone, I'd like to think that my wife, informed by the best medical advice she can get, would be the one to make that decision.
> Not…
> …a minority interest-group with an agenda,
> …a medical person with some unknown agenda - financial constraints, some hospital's ethics committee (here hospitals are hugely influenced by Roman Catholic personnel), or other unlegislated standpoint
> …a jury, who rarely evince great wisdom in simple matters of fact, let alone getting into the murky world of ethics and morals.
> 
> And if my wife were to decide, against sound advice given which recommended that I be allowed to live, that she felt I should be allowed to die, would I want to live in the care of someone who felt like that?


 
Thank you: That was a very interesting reply!  

Unless people got into the habit of writing living wills... What do you think of living wills?


----------



## maxiogee

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> Thank you: That was a very interesting reply!
> 
> Unless people got into the habit of writing living wills... What do you think of living wills?



It's probably off-topic here, but we'll see how far it can go. If it goes far enough then the Mods will do their spin-off trick to isolate it.

I'm all in favour of them.
I do not want to be a burden to anyone.
I equally do not wish to live on in a persistent vegetative state.

I witnessed the slow deaths of both of my parents. Had my father been aware of what he was going through he would have been mortified! The drugs he was administered caused him horrendous hallucinations. He was in great physical and mental agony as his end drew nearer. If his illness had been such as to grant his family the choice to maintain him or to allow him to die with dignity, then I know which one all of us whould have chosen.
My mother's death was different. She lingered for months, maintained alive solely by continuous use of oxygen. She too began to hallucinate, and to be struck my terrible doubts about her God (all her life she had been a very devout and focussed believer) and to hear her mumbled voicings of her doubt was heart-rending. I persuaded a cleric I respected to pay her a visit. He was someone she had known many years previously. They "spoke" for quite some time. He was aghast when he emerged, but I refrained from asking him about what had passed between them. She was somewhat less agitated after he had been.
Death is not an easy thing to be close to, but it comes to us all and we need to acknowledge that. I think my family of origin all had different opinions on what we would have done had we had a choice regarding my mother.

As I say, death comes to us all.
Advances in medical technology and in pharmaceuticals mean that things which killed us not too long ago can be shaken off with ease. We live now until our bodies can no longer function. The concept of entropy is becoming our downfall. Parts of our bodies which were not designed to last this long are routinely being expected to function for 90+ years. That is not a pretty way to go. losing control of our faculties and facilities.

We need to be prepared to face the increasing incidence of physical breakdown as a cause of death - a breakdown which by its very nature comes at a time when our children are themselves aging, and often not in a condition to care for us. The length of time the breakdown process takes is also a huge drain on medical resources - people too ill to be cared for at home (or with no-one at home who can care for them) can take a very long time to die, and all the time occupying a valuable medical bed in a health facility.


----------



## ceci '79

@ Maxiogee,

Thank you. Your reply was one of the most interesting, poignant and touching things I have ever read online. It was really to the point and thought-provoking. I will get back to you about it as soon as possible, after having seriously thought about it.

Ceci


----------



## coconutpalm

HI, I'm too excited with this thread that I can hardly wait to finish all the posts (actually, I have only finished half of the first page) before posting my own opinion!
The homosexual issue is getting hotter in China, despite the fact that many people are still quite ignorant of it or simply neglect it!
I'm not a lesbian, but I will never stand against gays and lesbians. I think they are groups of disadavantage (I'm not sure whether I use the right phrase), they are humans that have the same born rights, needs, desires as ours, they need our understandings. 
The only reason that men love men, women love women is that the one they love happen to be the same gender as his/hers. NOthing to be blame for that!

As for abortion issue, I think it's the mother's right to decide whether it's better for the baby AND her to give birth to the foetu. To desert a baby is lousy, but to give up a foetu is a reluctantly made have-to decision.


----------



## coconutpalm

Ah, it seems that I was off-topic. Sorry for that. I was overexcited.
I think marriage for lesbians is definitely a "real issue". They love each other, they make love, and they don't want to make love with other men or women. If you think it can't be a "real marriage" without a mother pregant or giving birth to a baby, I think it's a bit ridiculous! Many men and women are unable to give birth to kids. Can you say their marriages are false or unnatural or something?

Abortion funded by government? We don't have such a system in China. I agree with cuchu on this point: it's a personal affair. No need to trouble the government and the public.
But for those single mother, especially those under-aged, and those raped to be pregnnant, I think the government and the publice should try their best to help them!


----------



## maxiogee

LRV,

I'm still waiting for tvdxer's response to these questions.
I suppose that it may take a while given the time difference in our locations.



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> Because it is an affront to justice and "rights" in general to grant marital status to an unnatural and wholly unmarriageable relationship.


1) What is a marriage in your definition?
2) What defines "naturalness" for you? Not just in marriage, in life in totality.
3) Bearing in mind that in most countries 'marriage' is a civil ceremony, and not solely a "sacrament" of some Churches, what constitutes a marriage? What are the requirements of those entering a marriage, and what are their responsibilities once in one?


----------



## tvdxer

> 1) What is a marriage in your definition?
> 2) What defines "naturalness" for you? Not just in marriage, in life in totality.
> 3) Bearing in mind that in most countries 'marriage' is a civil ceremony, and not solely a "sacrament" of some Churches, what constitutes a marriage? What are the requirements of those entering a marriage, and what are their responsibilities once in one?


1. A marriage is the voluntary and sacred union between a man and a woman.
2. Being in accord and harmony with the natural law.
3. Indeed. The same thing constitutes a marriage, and the same responsibilities, at least for the most part, are present. By marrying same-sex couples, giving them all the rights of heterosexual couples in relationships in accord with the natural law, and above call, calling it "marriage", the state recognizes as legitimate and equal these relationships, which are clearly immoral and do not fulfill the ends of marriage.

The primary responsibilities of a married couple to one another are to consummate their marriage, produce children if possible, always stay faithful to one another, and to love their spouse and devote themselves to him or her.


----------



## maxiogee

> 1. A marriage is the voluntary and sacred union between a man and a woman.
> 2. Being in accord and harmony with the natural law.
> 3. Indeed. The same thing constitutes a marriage, and the same responsibilities, at least for the most part, are present. By marrying same-sex couples, giving them all the rights of heterosexual couples in relationships in accord with the natural law, and above call, calling it "marriage", the state recognizes as legitimate and equal these relationships, which are clearly immoral and do not fulfill the ends of marriage.
> 
> The primary responsibilities of a married couple to one another are to consummate their marriage, produce children if possible, always stay faithful to one another, and to love their spouse and devote themselves to him or her.


* What contributes the "sacred" in your definition of marriage? (I note that you don't quote a source for your definition, I wonder why?)

* I'd like to hear some of this "natural law", and who accorded it the role of "law" and who defends it. Where can I read it?

* Oh, so infertile couples are illegally married if they knew going into that marriage that they were infertile? Can a person without the ability to consummate a marriage actually enter into a marriage? My wife and I only have one child - are we less married than other couples who have the "children" you mention?


----------



## cuchuflete

In front of me on my desk is the American Heritage  dictionary of the English Language.



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> Tieing up legitimate debates in semantics is not a very worthy method of defending your point. The dictionary.com definition, provided by American Heritage, goes like this:
> 
> 1. A marriage is the voluntary and sacred union between a man and a woman. That is true in some places, according to some belief systems. I suppose that agnostics and atheists are not eligible to engage in marriage, as they may reject the notion of any contract being 'sacred'.
> 2. Being in accord and harmony with the natural law. "natural" for me does not include human contrivances such as contracts, marital or otherwise.
> 3. Indeed. The same thing constitutes a marriage, and the same responsibilities, at least for the most part, are present. By marrying same-sex couples, giving them all the rights of heterosexual couples in relationships in accord with the natural law, and above call, calling it "marriage", the state recognizes as legitimate and equal these relationships, which are clearly immoral and do not fulfill the ends of marriage.
> The ends of marriage may be whatever the parties to a union choose. I am most glad that in my place of residence there is no legal obligation to accept any other person's attempt to dictate these.
> 
> The primary responsibilities of a married couple to one another are to consummate their marriage, produce children if possible, always stay faithful to one another, and to love their spouse and devote themselves to him or her. Fascinating! A responsibility to love a person? Suppose the spouse turns out to have had an adulterous relationship during the marriage, to have engaged in sundry hateful activities towards children, to have had an abortion, etc. Would you still attempt to dictate love?


----------



## emma42

Chambers English Dictionary;

"Marriage - the ceremony...man and woman...husband and wife; a similar ceremony between homosexuals; the union of a mand woman as husband and wife;...a close union".

My mum and dad were married in a Registry Office. Does that make me illegitimate? I don't seek an argument, I would just like you to think a little more about what you are saying.

I am surprised that badgrammar "enjoy"s reading posts which denigrate homosexuals and seek to rescind the right of women to have abortions.  I do not "enjoy" reading them.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> 1. A marriage is the voluntary and sacred union between a man and a woman.



This is yet another example of what seems to be cultural myopia.  There are societies in which marriages are arranged by families, and the 'voluntary' aspect may be missing for either one or for both spouses.  

Maybe it's time to take note that words like natural, sacred, voluntary and others used to 'define' marriage are limited to certain tribes and their belief systems.  What those tribes' members may choose to do amongst themselves is their own business; attempting to impose and enforce tribal customs on all persons is just arrogance.  It assumes that people outside a tribe are incapable of having equally valid and worthwhile
definitions and standards of conduct.   Much of recorded history is composed of attempts at domination of others, and the imposition of one group's notions of "right" on other groups.


----------



## Joelline

I have read all of the posts in this thread with great interest. I am now ready to post my own opinions (for whatever they are worth) about the matters under discussion:

(1) Regarding marriage for anyone (gay or straight): I have never seen my own ideas on the topic put so well as in Ceci '79's post (#39)! I agree absolutely that "if the State got out of the whole marriage business, everybody would be happy." I would add only 2 provisos (a) that the minimum age requirements for civil unions be kept (no 10-year-old-child-brides or grooms!) (b) that the state does have the right and must keep the right to protect the offspring of all unions.

So, I would like to separate the idea of marriage from such civil unions, but I would also like to make sure that those in civil unions be granted the legal rights and protections currently applicable only to spouses: inheritance laws are hideously unfair to gay couples in the US--as is employer-paid medical care coverage (currently only workers, their spouses and children are covered in most workplaces), etc.


----------



## timpeac

> Why is not the right to marriage for lesbians a "real issue"?


Again, I think that this is very much an issue. If a group of people is not allowed to do something that another group is then, whether they want to do that thing or not becomes irrelevant. It is an issue if they don't have the right in the first place.

On the issue of gay marriage, I think that people often mix up the concepts and equality and fairness. If a society doesn't allow gay marriage is that society equal? Well, yes, everyone in that society does not have the right to marry someone of the same sex. But is this fair? Well, no. It is only the gay people who might want to anyway. It is this distinction, I believe, that leads some people to view this as a non-issue. They see that the law is equal to everyone and therefore (falsely) assume this is also fair. 

Another reason why people, wrongly in my opinion, think this is a non-issue is by the specious reasoning that if gays can marry then why shouldn't, say, two spinster sisters (to save inheritance tax etc). Well, gay marriage doesn't imply that any other marriages are or are not less or more valid. Correcting one injustice doesn't mean that you can't later correct others, and Rome wasn't built in a day as they say! So thinking that gay marriage is not an issue in itself (since it could be viewed as part of the issue of extending marriage to any and everyone) is specious, in my opinion.

A final reason that springs to mind is the mixture of the religious and the secular. This automatically means that religious people will have an issue with this personal matter. It also makes it very much an issue for gay people who are also religious. State benefits (such as are conferred by mariage) should not be mixed up with religious belief. Many countries have got round this (making it a non-issue?) by having civil partnerships. The people in those partnerships can view them as marriage if they wish, and the religious people need not (as they presumably don't for any civil ceremony not in religious surroundings?) The only "issue" then remains for the religious gay people. That is a whole new kettle of fish, and a huge issue deal for those people - and, for them, certainly "an issue".


----------



## tvdxer

> * What contributes the "sacred" in your definition of marriage? (I note that you don't quote a source for your definition, I wonder why?)
> 
> * I'd like to hear some of this "natural law", and who accorded it the role of "law" and who defends it. Where can I read it?
> 
> * Oh, so infertile couples are illegally married if they knew going into that marriage that they were infertile? Can a person without the ability to consummate a marriage actually enter into a marriage? My wife and I only have one child - are we less married than other couples who have the "children" you mention?


(1) Marriage is a God-given institution, so I think that is enough to qualify it as "sacred". I think one could also argue this even from a non-religious or non-Christian point of view.

(2) You are probably aware of nature's physical laws that guide the behavior of material objects. "Natural law" refers to the moral code, present naturally, that guides right conduct.

(3) No. As long as they can consummate the marriage the union is valid. Some face the misfortune of infertility; this alone cannot bar a couple from marrying, nor does it make them any less married (where do you come up with these things?). Two men or two women are physically incapable of consummating a marriage together.


----------



## GenJen54

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Marriage is a God-given institution, so I think that is enough to qualify it as "sacred". I think one could also argue this even from a non-religious or non-Christian point of view. So, if my husband and I had only gone to get a marriage license, and had been married by the JP in a civil ceremony, would that marriage be less valid?





> No. As long as they can consummate the marriage the union is valid.


What about if one partner cannot have sexual intercourse "the way it was intended." I know a woman (she's an acquaintance, not a close friend), who married a man who is paralyzed from the waist down. He cannot get an erection, nor feel "arousal" in that way. This is not to say they don't have "fun" in the bedroom, but technically, according to your strict definition, they cannot consummate this marriage.  What is the difference between this scenario and the scenario of any homosexual couple?


----------



## cuchuflete

The material quoted below is worthy of reading if the reader accepts the premises that

1- There is a god
2- That this particular god, among the many gods perceived to exist by people, has created institutions, rather than simply creating people, and leaving it to them to create their institutions.

For the hundreds of millions who don't accept either of those ideas, what follows may be taken as myth.

"Right conduct" may be found among practioners of polytheism and among atheists.

3- What of marriage between people of advanced years (formerly known as 'old folks') who are not biologically capable of consumating a union heterosexually, and have no interest in procreation? Is their union any less sacred than that between aroused adolescents who join in matrimony in the church or civil office of their choice?



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> (1) Marriage is a God-given institution, so I think that is enough to qualify it as "sacred". I think one could also argue this even from a non-religious or non-Christian point of view.
> 
> (2) You are probably aware of nature's physical laws that guide the behavior of material objects. "Natural law" refers to the moral code, present naturally, that guides right conduct.
> 
> (3) No. As long as they can consummate the marriage the union is valid. Some face the misfortune of infertility; this alone cannot bar a couple from marrying, nor does it make them any less married (where do you come up with these things?). Two men or two women are physically incapable of consummating a marriage together.


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The material quoted below is worthy of reading if the reader accepts the premises that
> 
> 1- There is a god
> 2- That this particular god, among the many gods perceived to exist by people, has created institutions, rather than simply creating people, and leaving it to them to create their institutions.
> 
> For the hundreds of millions who don't accept either of those ideas, what follows may be taken as myth.
> 
> "Right conduct" may be found among practioners of polytheism and among atheists.


Natural law is not a solely Christian or even theistic belief.  Objectivists, for example, who are quite atheist, also have such a concept.



> 3- What of marriage between people of advanced years (formerly known as 'old folks') who are not biologically capable of consumating a union heterosexually, and have no interest in procreation? Is their union any less sacred than that between aroused adolescents who join in matrimony in the church or civil office of their choice?


This is a common question, and not a bad one.  But the answer is quite simple (though many STILL don't manage to understand it): when discussing acts, one must distinguish between their _essence_ and their _circumstances_.  When a man and women past childbearing age have sexual intercourse, the _act_ they commit remains natural; it is in itself capable of procreation and unity.  However, their _circumstances_, in this case their age, prevent children from being born, just as in the case of infertile couples.  However, the validity of the _act_ remains unchanged.

In the case of homosexuals, none of the various forms of sodomy that replace natural intercourse are ever capable of reproduction, one of the natural ends of sex (the other is unity); this is not by accident (circumstance), but in their very *essence*.  

And GenJen54, in the case of the couple, I must humbly say, "I don't know" about the legitimacy of their actions.


----------



## cuchuflete

I guess I wasn't explicit enough with



> not biologically capable of consumating a union heterosexually



Just read it as "incapable of sexual intercourse".  Your reply assumed that I had implied intercourse between infertile people.  That was a reasonable possibility.  What I meant was
that intercourse was not possible.  The question can easily include others than the elderly.  Many younger people are incapable of intercourse for various biological reasons.  Are they denied the possibility of 'sacred' marriage, or is there a
theological loophole?  

Is a marriage between any people who use contraception at all times, and have no desire or intention of having children
'sacred'?  Does the essence of the act still override the effects of a condom, IUD, or hormone pill?


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I guess I wasn't explicit enough with
> 
> 
> 
> Just read it as "incapable of sexual intercourse".  Your reply assumed that I had implied intercourse between infertile people.  That was a reasonable possibility.  What I meant was
> that intercourse was not possible.  The question can easily include others than the elderly.  Many younger people are incapable of intercourse for various biological reasons.  Are they denied the possibility of 'sacred' marriage, or is there a
> theological loophole?


If they are not capable of consummation, that is an impediment to marriage.  Perhaps they are called to something else.  Not everybody is called to marriage.



> Is a marriage between any people who use contraception at all times, and have no desire or intention of having children
> 'sacred'?  Does the essence of the act still override the effects of a condom, IUD, or hormone pill?



The use of such is unnatural because it impedes a purpose of the act.  This will be an unpopular opinion, but it explains my opposition to contraception.

The validity of marriage between a couple who plans on using contraception (which describes most today), however, is still valid, since they are male and female and therefore capable of consummating the act naturally.


----------



## cuchuflete

> If they are not capable of consummation, that is an impediment to marriage. Perhaps they are called to something else. Not everybody is called to marriage.



Perhaps it is time to notice that this particular definition of marriage has been judged to be unsuitable or unattractive or just plain uninteresting to a large majority of people.

They continue to join together in marriages with a different definition than this one, which appears to be suited to populations for which raw increases in numbers of inhabitants seem to be of paramount importance.

Given the overpopulation in the world today, some might argue that a definition of marriage that is so closely tied to promotion of child-bearing is immoral.


----------



## coconutpalm

tvdxer, I can't agree with you. You said the sex between gays or lesbians are unnatural, but that's because you are straight, you can't imagine how to make love with someone of the same gender, and you find it weird, so you say it's unnatural! I bet many pure lesbians and gays find sex between a man and a woman a bit weird, too! The thing is that they can't claim our way to make love is unnatural, because they are the minor group and we are the dominant group! It's UNFAIR!


----------



## badgrammar

Coconut, I enjoy reading your fresh perspective on things and non-combatative way of expressing yourself...  Some very interesting observations.


----------



## coconutpalm

Thanks for your compliment, badgrammar. I think the reason why these issues are hot is that they are worth debating, but it's not good to quarrel or attack. 
Besides, I'm not a religious person and China is not a religious country, either, so I don't consider as much things as you do.


----------



## tvdxer

> Perhaps it is time to notice that this particular definition of marriage has been judged to be unsuitable or unattractive or just plain uninteresting to a large majority of people.
> 
> They continue to join together in marriages with a different definition than this one, which appears to be suited to populations for which raw increases in numbers of inhabitants seem to be of paramount importance.
> 
> Given the overpopulation in the world today, some might argue that a definition of marriage that is so closely tied to promotion of child-bearing is immoral.



Global "overpopulation" is little more than a myth.  From those shrieking about it in Roman times to Malthus to Ehlrich, time after time the predictions of devastation and havoc have shown themselves untrue.  Humans have always and will always continue to improve the efficiency and productivity of their technology and processes.  It's unlikely that today's population could have been supported by hunting and gathering means; yet the offspring of those hunters and gatherers invented agriculture, and their children, part of the ever-growing population, made further innovations and enhancements.  

Regional overpopulation, on the other hand, is a possibility, and probably occurred when the earth's population numbered in the thousands, hence migration.  

Bringing a new child into the world is far more of a contribution than any of the resources he or she will use.



> tvdxer, I can't agree with you. You said the sex between gays or lesbians are unnatural, but that's because you are straight, you can't imagine how to make love with someone of the same gender, and you find it weird, so you say it's unnatural! I bet many pure lesbians and gays find sex between a man and a woman a bit weird, too! The thing is that they can't claim our way to make love is unnatural, because they are the minor group and we are the dominant group! It's UNFAIR!



"Weird" and "unnatural" are two entirely different things.  Something that is merely weird to me is not necessarily immoral or unnatural.  "Unnatural" is an objective rather than a subjective term such as "weird".  

They cannot claim heterosexual sex is unnatural because it is necessary for the survival of the human race.  Quite simply, the cannot do so because heterosexual sex _is_ natural.


----------



## badgrammar

Just a note on the unnaturalness of homosexuality: Homosexuality, or acts of it, is a pan-species behavior:  It exists in one form or another in all species.  There have been some fascinating documentaries made on the subject which show that homosexuality is not at all unique to humans.  So if it exists in nature, I don't think it can be considered "unnatural", even if it does not fit into your definition of natural (which I imagine applies only to human behavior".

Respectfully, TV, what you deem natural or unnatural is not really very important to how others will choose to live their lives.  I think some arguments are not really worth the time you are giving them, arguing about the naturalness of homosexuality is pointless, because you will never change the fact that homosexuality is, in fact, part of nature...  That will never change, even through oppression and suppression.


----------



## coconutpalm

tvdxer said:
			
		

> "Weird" and "unnatural" are two entirely different things. Something that is merely weird to me is not necessarily immoral or unnatural. "Unnatural" is an objective rather than a subjective term such as "weird".
> 
> They cannot claim heterosexual sex is unnatural because it is necessary for the survival of the human race. Quite simply, the cannot do so because heterosexual sex _is_ natural.


 
Our ancestors (apes) millions of years ago might not make LOVE, they had SEX to reproduce. Men and women make love not only for reproduction but also (or more importantly ) for love.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> (1) Marriage is a God-given institution, so I think that is enough to qualify it as "sacred". I think one could also argue this even from a non-religious or non-Christian point of view.


 When did this giving occur?
Which God did the giving - marriage predates the Judaeo-Christian concept of a unitary, interventionist, deity.
Marriage is a purely human creation - normally arrived at to process inheritance of property.



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> (2) You are probably aware of nature's physical laws that guide the behavior of material objects. "Natural law" refers to the moral code, present naturally, that guides right conduct.


 I'm aware of several natural, physical laws, including those of genetics and heredity. I'm not aware of any natural moral laws which apply to other animals we share this planet with. How come nature chose us to have a set?
I'm sorry to have to tell you that morality is man-made also. "Moral" as a word has its root in the Latin _mores_ - customs. None of my dictionaries - Collins, Chambers, Oxford mentions anything about "nature" or "natural" in connection with the word "moral".




			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> (3) No. As long as they can consummate the marriage the union is valid. Some face the misfortune of infertility; this alone cannot bar a couple from marrying, nor does it make them any less married (where do you come up with these things?). Two men or two women are physically incapable of consummating a marriage together.


 Where do I come up with these things? I'm the one trying to figure out the unsupported assertions you keep making.
What you are so obsessed with consummation for. Does your understanding of a marriage really all boil down to penetrative sex? I pity you and your relationships.

As we cannot agree on some of the important terms in this debate I'll fire ahead and give you an overview on my thinking on the topic's themes.

*On Lesbian *(properly 'same-sex') *Marriage.*
Marriage is a human institution designed to ensure that a man would have a reasonable certainty that the son he passed on property to was actually his. This evolved in a society where men owned all the property, and only men could inherit it. Other aspects of marriage (love, companionship, support, trust and concern) came with this concept, but they were not its primary function.
Marriage as a property-transfer system has broken down, but it is still seen to be a good thing in that the other aspects have come to be valued in their own right.
Society has now reached a stage where property can be held by anyone, and can be left to anyone.
There has long been a section of society which was disbarred from the companionship, love, support and other facets of marriage. These people were shunned and outcast and even killed for their inability or unwillingness to enter into a "valid" marriage.
(Marriage at this time had come to be run by a Church which thinks that the sole purpose of humanity is to come through this life 'successfully' so as to enter into another where a deity wishes us to worship it, and sing its praises for all eternity. Part of our function here is to make more humans which will, in turn, also worship this deity.
Not wishing to make more humans was anathema to this Church.)
There is no valid reason why society should not give its approval to these people entering into unions which will allow them to avail of the other aspects which the rest of society enjoys.


----------



## la reine victoria

> Which God did the giving?


 


It depends on whether or not you are religious, Tony. To which I will add - Christian - Protestant or Roman Catholic or any other of the branches of Christianity.



> *The Christian marriage ceremony*:
> Marriage is a natural union of a man and a woman but it is a divine institution, ordained of God. Humans did not establish marriage. In the very beginning, God gave us the pattern for marriage by joining Adam and Eve. Marriage derives its authority from the divine will and law of God.


 
I have my faith in God but chose to be married in a Registry Office. My belief in the Bible isn't strong enough to accept the above quote. To me Adam and Eve are fairy tale characters, created by someone thousands of years ago in answer to the ever present question, "Who were the first people on Earth?"

No offense to those who accept that the Bible is *the true word of God*.



LRV


----------



## daoxunchang

True, according to those who study the true history of the entire human race, we created the institution for a more stable and effective pattern to ensure the sustenance of the next generation. But isn't this prove from the other round that a man-woman is not necesarilly the only choice? Think of Amazons, who you westners are familiar. Their fostering institution, that is, to raise children by a group of purely women, was also effective and stable.


----------



## coconutpalm

daoxunchang said:
			
		

> True, according to those who study the true history of the entire human race, we created the institution for a more stable and effective pattern to ensure the sustenance of the next generation. But isn't this prove from the other round that a man-woman is not necesarilly the only choice? Think of Amazons, who you westners are familiar. Their fostering institution, that is, to raise children by a group of purely women, was also effective and stable.


Good point!
You are always good at giving living examples!


----------



## timpeac

TVDXER - I would like to know, and perhaps try to understand, your views on these subjects I really would, but time after time I have to disregard your whole posts.

Why? Because time after time you fall back to your religious teachings as _reasons_. Surely you know that for those of us who don't share your beliefs your whole reasonings boil down to having at least parts based on "just because it is". This means that someone who wants to read a well-constructed argument has to disregard the whole lot - and that's a shame!

To give just one example of many many that I don't have the time or inclination to go into one by one :



> When a man and women past childbearing age have sexual intercourse, the _act_ they commit remains natural; it is in itself capable of procreation and unity. However, their _circumstances_, in this case their age, prevent children from being born, just as in the case of infertile couples. However, the validity of the _act_ remains unchanged.


I can only presume that you are producing here a belief of your church, because it just doesn't stack up - at least on face value. Old people having sex never can conceive, and I'm sure they have no illusions that they will either. It's just the same for gay couples - they are all doing it for fun, or to show affection or whatever. The circumstances are the same! It is such a strange thing to think is self-evident that I can only presume you have seen a much better, detailed argument presented by your church which has convinced you. But my point is that reproducing the sound-byte conclusions of such arguments here doesn't help anyone.

Anyway - I don't mean to have that specific argument with you - my point in quoting that is to show how _much_ all of your "reasons" boil down to other unsubstatiated beliefs - or at least unsubstantiated for those of us that don't share your faith.

I don't really understand why you keep doing it. You must know that it will cause a circular, boring, unresolved argument? The fact that it is based on religious beliefs, and thus an important part of your life, is no excuse I think. Introducing arguments in a discussion based on concepts which are not accepted by all is just woolly arguing - and I really wish you wouldn't do it. I hold some beliefs I know not everyone would agree with, but I wouldn't view it as worth my time basing another argument on them because we would always keep having to go down to the next level and argue that point - as it seems to me we always have to do with you. I can only presume that you don't realise the extent to which your "reasons" have people screaming at their screens "but what do you base _that_ comment on!" or "says who?" or "since when?". People who do this, whether based on religious teachings or not, loose credibility with others because the presumption is that you can't hold an argument on your own without recourse to "facts" that would themselves be disputed strongly by others.

If you would like to put forward an argument as to why you personally think these things are "an issue" or not then I would seriously love to read it. If you are going to base your comments on bald assumptions of what is "natural" or that marriage is "given by god therefore..." then you are wasting your time and mine I'm afraid.


----------



## Brioche

medeterian said:
			
		

> A stone may be a living thing. Yes. It is a nice point of view coconutpalm. What makes us or science say something is living. Maybe this is an extreme point. But it is clear that we can not say wheter a fetus is human or not. We can not know how she feels or knows.


 
A fetus is human.

A fetus is formed by the combination of a _human egg_ and a _human sperm._ The result is _human being_. Not a carrot, not a sheep, not a monkey.

The question is not whether a fetus is human, but what legal status is to be given to the fetus. 

According to English Common Law, only a *person* has legal rights, and to be person, you must be *born alive*. So in countries where the Common Law prevails, a fetus is not a person, and thus has no legal rights.


----------



## tvdxer

badgrammar said:
			
		

> Just a note on the unnaturalness of homosexuality: Homosexuality, or acts of it, is a pan-species behavior:  It exists in one form or another in all species.  There have been some fascinating documentaries made on the subject which show that homosexuality is not at all unique to humans.  So if it exists in nature, I don't think it can be considered "unnatural", even if it does not fit into your definition of natural (which I imagine applies only to human behavior".
> 
> Respectfully, TV, what you deem natural or unnatural is not really very important to how others will choose to live their lives.  I think some arguments are not really worth the time you are giving them, arguing about the naturalness of homosexuality is pointless, because you will never change the fact that homosexuality is, in fact, part of nature...  That will never change, even through oppression and suppression.



Hmmmm....I doubt it exists in asexual species.

And whether it exists or not in other species is not a valid argument.  Humans have the ability of right reason, to make moral judgments.  Some species fight savagely over some thing or another; others may consume their partner after mating.  The existence of a behavior in other species does not make it moral or natural in humans.  I am not saying homosexuality is a choice; I think it probably has roots before or slightly after birth.  What is should be considered to be is a disordered inclination, a sickness, one that leads to unnatural behaviors.

Whether or not a man or women wishes to practice sodomy in private is not of much import to me.  I find it a bit disgusting that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was a _constitutional right_, but at the same time I think the sodomy statues in most states were very hard to enforce and generally not worth keeping.  What matters to me is that in the case of same-sex marriage, the state, _my _state, will officially recognize these relationships as valid and equivalent to those of truly married heterosexual couples.  What we are doing is REPLACING the traditional definition of marriage, with basis in natural law and REASON, with what is essentially a non-definition.  If a two men or women constitute eligible marriage partners, why do we not extend it further to polygamous or polyamorous relationships, or to fathers and sons, or even non-consenting partners?  If there really is no natural law to be discerned, there is no basis for morality or rights other than our subjective thoughts.  And since subjective thoughts vary person to person, this is a very shaky foundation.



> When did this giving occur?
> Which God did the giving - marriage predates the Judaeo-Christian concept of a unitary, interventionist, deity.
> Marriage is a purely human creation - normally arrived at to process inheritance of property.



At the time of Adam and Eve.  But that really is not necessary in arguing the solely heterosexual nature of marriage.



> I'm aware of several natural, physical laws, including those of genetics and heredity. I'm not aware of any natural moral laws which apply to other animals we share this planet with. How come nature chose us to have a set?
> I'm sorry to have to tell you that morality is man-made also. "Moral" as a word has its root in the Latin _mores_ - customs. None of my dictionaries - Collins, Chambers, Oxford mentions anything about "nature" or "natural" in connection with the word "moral".



Since when is the dictionary a valid guide to ethics?

Humans, unlike other animals, have the capability of _recta ratio_, right reason.  They can discern the code and make judgments from it.  



> Where do I come up with these things? I'm the one trying to figure out the unsupported assertions you keep making.
> What you are so obsessed with consummation for. Does your understanding of a marriage really all boil down to penetrative sex? I pity you and your relationships.



No.  Marriage is far more than sex.  However, that is a necessary component of it, since it permits procreation and the natural family.


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:
			
		

> *On Lesbian *(properly 'same-sex') *Marriage.*
> Marriage is a human institution designed to ensure that a man would have a reasonable certainty that the son he passed on property to was actually his. This evolved in a society where men owned all the property, and only men could inherit it. Other aspects of marriage (love, companionship, support, trust and concern) came with this concept, but they were not its primary function.


Is this known with certainty?  I don't think so.

And whether it is or not is really not relevant. Marriage could have gone through various cycles of evolution, or of rise and decline throughout time. What may have been marriage 15,000 years ago may not be recognizable to us today as such.



> Marriage as a property-transfer system has broken down, but it is still seen to be a good thing in that the other aspects have come to be valued in their own right.
> Society has now reached a stage where property can be held by anyone, and can be left to anyone.
> There has long been a section of society which was disbarred from the companionship, love, support and other facets of marriage. These people were shunned and outcast and even killed for their inability or unwillingness to enter into a "valid" marriage.
> (Marriage at this time had come to be run by a Church which thinks that the sole purpose of humanity is to come through this life 'successfully' so as to enter into another where a deity wishes us to worship it, and sing its praises for all eternity. Part of our function here is to make more humans which will, in turn, also worship this deity.
> Not wishing to make more humans was anathema to this Church.)
> There is no valid reason why society should not give its approval to these people entering into unions which will allow them to avail of the other aspects which the rest of society enjoys.


They are completely incapable of fulfilling the ends of marriage.  

Again, through your last argument, anybody should be able to marry; including polygamous couples, polyamorous groups, even consenting parents and their children.


----------



## cuchuflete

Timpeac gently pointed out how useless circular reasoning can be.  It is true because...it is true.  Why?  Because my source says so. What is your source?  The truth!   and on and on and on.



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> And whether it exists or not in other species _is not a valid_ [Of course it's valid. In a discussion of what is 'natural', the biology and behavior of creatures is perfectly valid.]
> argument.   *Some *Humans have the ability of right reason, to make moral judgments.  Some species fight savagely over some thing or another And now you have extended your discussion beyond humans to include other species. Is this valid when it suits an argument, and invalid when it leads to a broader range of thought?; others may consume their partner after mating. The existence of a behavior in other species does not make it moral or natural in humans. I am not saying homosexuality is a choice; I think it probably has roots before or slightly after birth. What is should be considered to be is a disordered inclination, a sickness, one that leads to unnatural behaviors. It is, and has been for many thousands of years,
> a fact of nature. To label this unnatural is illogical. To call it a disordered inclination is no more than a majority declaring a minority to be flawed by dint of being a minority. That is not logic. That is not reasoned thinking. That is just another expression of fear-based tribal thinking, in which anyone who is different is condemned, and then a bunch of logically specious arguments are adduced to "prove", with circular reasoning based on falsehoods, the 'rightness' of the assertions.
> 
> Whether or not a man or women wishes to practice sodomy in private is not of much import to me.   Shall we assume that you make this statement in regard to all people, including heterosexuals, married and unmarried? There have been reports that some of them practice anal sex. I find it a bit disgusting that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was a _constitutional right_, I find it a bit tragic that any court should make any statement whatsoever about what consenting adults may choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.but at the same time I think the sodomy statues in most states were very hard to enforce and generally not worth keeping. The same is true of laws against adultery. Unenforceable laws are often bad laws to begin with.  They are frequently unnatural attempts to impose behavior favored by those in power, and they go against natural instincts.  That is why they are so hard to enforce.  They are examples of people trying to 'play God'.
> What matters to me is that in the case of same-sex marriage, the state, _my _state, will officially recognize these relationships as valid and equivalent to those of truly married heterosexual couples.   "Truly" here means nothing more than those who do it your way. The word has no further significance outside of this personal, circular reasoning. What we are doing is REPLACING the traditional definition of marriage, with basis in natural law which remains undefined beyond your circular reasoning and REASON which, even in uppercase letters, is just another label for a narrow view of the world with what is essentially a non-definition Sorry, but a distinct definition that is at variance with your own preference is not a non-definition, no matter how much you may wish it to be one. If a two men or women constitute eligible marriage partners, why do we not extend it further to polygamous or polyamorous relationships, or to fathers and sons, or even non-consenting partners? This is a very frequently used, and totally illogical non sequitar used in debates on this topic. If the point of marriage is the perpetuation of the species, then by a similar stretch of logic, we should declare all marriages null and void once it is established that (a) a couple cannot or will not bear children, and (b)as of the date that offspring reach puberty.If there really is no natural law to be discerned, there is no basis for morality or rights other than our subjective thoughts. The alterative is to embrace any person's singular, subjective, religion-inspired definition of morality and impose it on all. Then we can enjoy uniform, consistent injustice, and call ourselves 'right-thinking' and 'natural'. And since subjective thoughts vary person to person, this is a very shaky foundation. We are in total agreement on this last statement. Religious faith is subjective. It has no logical and no rational proof. Therefore it is "a very shaky foundation" on which to make uniform rules about marriage or anything else.
> If you accept the idea that there is a god/God/Higher Power,
> then note that the presumed creations of that force or being (humans) have created a multitude of religions. Some, with typical human arrogance, claim to be the only right/natural/moral one, thereby asserting that most of humanity is wrong/unnatural/immoral.
> 
> Most human creatures have a sex drive. This includes homosexuals and heterosexuals. They are all supposedly created by the same god, that seems to persist in creating some of each, century after century, since long before the making up of today's religions. Some of those in the majority
> have declared that this sex drive is good for the majority to employ, while it is to be suppressed by non-majority members.
> 
> Next the majority has constructed legal and economic benefits for itself--supposedly god-given, whatever that may mean-- and tried to declare these off-limits for non-members. This sure appears to be self-serving and unjust, however 'natural' it may be for humans.
> 
> 
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve.  But that really is not necessary in arguing the solely heterosexual nature of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is the dictionary a valid guide to ethics? Since when is the choice of someone's idea of 'sacred' writing a better guide to ethics than someone else's, or even a dictionary? Your sacred book may be immoral to people who use a different sacred book. Why is yours better? Yes, we know, "It is because it is sacred because it is god-given because it is true because......"
> 
> Humans, unlike other animals, have the capability of _recta ratio_, right reason.  They can discern the code and make judgments from it.  Yet the cockroach can reason well enough to survive where humans cannot, and they don't create wars.
> How _recta_ is recta?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Marriage is far more than sex.  However, that is a necessary component of it, since it permits procreation and the *natural* family.


 And you have ended with another tautology.  How natural.


----------



## moodywop

tvdxer said:
			
		

> What is should be considered to be is a disordered inclination, a sickness, one that leads to unnatural behaviors.


 
I'd like to make two points:

1) Although I'm not suggesting that tvdexer has ever claimed to be speaking for all Christians, I'd like to say that all the Christians(of various denominations) I know would find statements such as this to go against the spirit of Jesus Christ's preachings

2) Tvdexer, what matters is not only what we believe but how we put our beliefs into practice.

If one of your children told you he/she is gay, would you ask/force them to receive treatment, since it is a sickness?

If they disagreed with your beliefs and accepted their homosexuality, would you still welcome them in your home?

What would you do if one of your children had a gay friend?

Do you avoid socializing with people who suffer from this "sickness" but do not make any attempt to overcome it?

I think these are legitimate questions


----------



## timpeac

Well done, TVDXER. Another two posts that anyone who already agreed with you 100% will have been cheering along to and that the other 99% of people have been pulling their hair out at assumptions taken as facts presented as proof (hint: "because it allows something natural" is only going to convince those who think whatever it is is already natural - see what I mean!!) The sad thing is that you're expending all this time and energy clogging up the threads and not giving yourself a chance to put your point of view across. Is there no debate team you could join to get the ideas of how to construct a persuasive argument?


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Marriage could have gone through various cycles of evolution, or of rise and decline throughout time. What may have been marriage 15,000 years ago may not be recognizable to us today as such.


Then, having said this, you would have us stop the clock, so to speak, on the evolution of the practice, and embalm it in a block of epoxy, dated 1534. Well, you are welcome to engage in good old-fashioned, traditional, natural, godly, just, morally correct, procreative, proper marriage, as you and a partner see fit. 

Others are welcome to practice marriage as they see fit. They might find your version as disgusting as you have said you found a court decision. More likely, they will practice a 'live and let live' approach, and not try to force you to adopt their approach.




			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> They are completely incapable of fulfilling the ends of marriage.


 *Your* ends of marriage are not *the* ends of marriage.  


Let's see if this might help--

You are preaching theories with a base-six number system, and you are doing so in an Indo-European language. You are trying to generously inform them that their math is all wrong. Your listeners use a base-ten number system, and speak Ugaritic languages. They don't get what you are trying to communicate, so you just keep repeating yourself.

It doesn't work.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

> What is should be considered to be is a disordered inclination, a sickness, one that leads to unnatural behaviors.  TVDxer)



Since when is "because I say so" considered to be a logical, reasoned argument?  How does this advance the topic of the discussion at hand?  Since when are statements like this a keystone of the Christianity you purport to represent?

The only people to whom Jesus responded in anger were those who set up commercial enterprises in the temples.  The new testament draws a picture of a man more likely to chastise money-obsessed churches than to lecture people on the way in which they love each other.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Hmmmm....I doubt it exists in asexual species.


Cop yourself on, sunshine! In an asexual species there *cannot be* heterosexuality.

> Asexual Cnemidophorus species are all-female and reproduce via parthenogenesis.
> "Fertile" diploid or triploid eggs are generated directly from oocytes via a 
> pre-meiotic endomitosis, which occurs without cellular or nuclear division.

Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean, without all the beating about the bush? Doesn't it all boil down to… _Homosexuality is wrong because your God doesn't like it, you think._


----------



## tvdxer

_ And whether it exists or not in other species is not a valid [Of course it's valid. In a discussion of what is 'natural', the biology and behavior of creatures is perfectly valid.]
 argument.   *Some *Humans have the ability of right reason, to make moral judgments.  Some species fight savagely over some thing or another And now you have extended your discussion beyond humans to include other species. Is this valid when it suits an argument, and invalid when it leads to a broader range of thought?; others may consume their partner after mating. The existence of a behavior in other species does not make it moral or natural in humans. I am not saying homosexuality is a choice; I think it probably has roots before or slightly after birth. What is should be considered to be is a disordered inclination, a sickness, one that leads to unnatural behaviors. It is, and has been for many thousands of years,
a fact of nature. To label this unnatural is illogical. To call it a disordered inclination is no more than a majority declaring a minority to be flawed by dint of being a minority. That is not logic. That is not reasoned thinking. That is just another expression of fear-based tribal thinking, in which anyone who is different is condemned, and then a bunch of logically specious arguments are adduced to "prove", with circular reasoning based on falsehoods, the 'rightness' of the assertions. 
 
*They are hardly specious.  They certainly may appear to be so to those who have been inculcated in moral relativism and secularism.  The end of marriage, as the state should see it, is the creation of a family unit: the joining together of a man and woman, through a binding, loving contract, and from there procreation (to provide a safe, stable environment for children) and the raising of children.  Homosexuals are completely incapable of doing this.  Now, some heterosexual couples are as well...but their act is the same as that of fertile couples. 

And you may go about calling the natural law illogical...but let me ask you this.  Where do YOU posit the idea that the state ought to extend rights equally to all members of society from?  
*
Whether or not a man or women wishes to practice sodomy in private is not of much import to me.   Shall we assume that you make this statement in regard to all people, including heterosexuals, married and unmarried? There have been reports that some of them practice anal sex. I find it a bit disgusting that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was a constitutional right, I find it a bit tragic that any court should make any statement whatsoever about what consenting adults may choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.but at the same time I think the sodomy statues in most states were very hard to enforce and generally not worth keeping. The same is true of laws against adultery. Unenforceable laws are often bad laws to begin with.  They are frequently unnatural attempts to impose behavior favored by those in power, and they go against natural instincts.  That is why they are so hard to enforce.  They are examples of people trying to 'play God'.  

What matters to me is that in the case of same-sex marriage, the state, my state, will officially recognize these relationships as valid and equivalent to those of truly married heterosexual couples.   "Truly" here means nothing more than those who do it your way. The word has no further significance outside of this personal, circular reasoning. 

*I am re-stating something, not making an argument by saying "truly".
*
What we are doing is REPLACING the traditional definition of marriage, with basis in natural law which remains undefined beyond your circular reasoning and REASON which, even in uppercase letters, is just another label for a narrow view of the world with what is essentially a non-definition Sorry, but a distinct definition that is at variance with your own preference is not a non-definition, no matter how much you may wish it to be one. If a two men or women constitute eligible marriage partners, why do we not extend it further to polygamous or polyamorous relationships, or to fathers and sons, or even non-consenting partners? This is a very frequently used, and totally illogical non sequitar used in debates on this topic. If the point of marriage is the perpetuation of the species, then by a similar stretch of logic, we should declare all marriages null and void once it is established that (a) a couple cannot or will not bear children, and (b)as of the date that offspring reach puberty.

*No.  It's hardly illogical.  The question is simple: if you deny the existence of a natural law or absolute morality or its part in marriage legislation, then how CAN we place limits on who can be married?  If it is illogical and baseless to limit marriage to two heterosexuals, what makes it any more sensible to limit it to two adults, as most same-sex "marriage" proponents wish to do?  *

If there really is no natural law to be discerned, there is no basis for morality or rights other than our subjective thoughts. The alterative is to embrace any person's singular, subjective, religion-inspired definition of morality and impose it on all. Then we can enjoy uniform, consistent injustice, and call ourselves 'right-thinking' and 'natural'. And since subjective thoughts vary person to person, this is a very shaky foundation.

*In the United States, the majority is opposed to same-sex marriage.  I would hardly call my views "singular".

Again, what moves you to believe we should grant equality to homosexual relationships?  Why grant anybody equality?  If there's truly no objective moral code, what's the point of even caring?
*
We are in total agreement on this last statement. Religious faith is subjective. It has no logical and no rational proof. Therefore it is "a very shaky foundation" on which to make uniform rules about marriage or anything else.
If you accept the idea that there is a god/God/Higher Power,
then note that the presumed creations of that force or being (humans) have created a multitude of religions. Some, with typical human arrogance, claim to be the only right/natural/moral one, thereby asserting that most of humanity is wrong/unnatural/immoral.

*Let's see...traditional Christianity, and most of modern Christianity, is opposed to homosexual actions and unions...orthodox (real) Judaism is...Islam is...Buddhist scholars generally argue against it, as do Hindus...while all these traditions have very much differing views, most can agree on certain things, like murder being wrong, stealing being wrong, and homosexuality being wrong or unnatural. *

Most human creatures have a sex drive. This includes homosexuals and heterosexuals. They are all supposedly created by the same god, that seems to persist in creating some of each, century after century, since long before the making up of today's religions. Some of those in the majority
have declared that this sex drive is good for the majority to employ, while it is to be suppressed by non-majority members.  

Next the majority has constructed legal and economic benefits for itself--supposedly god-given, whatever that may mean-- and tried to declare these off-limits for non-members. This sure appears to be self-serving and unjust, however 'natural' it may be for humans. 
 
*Yes, the "evil" majority.  Your reasoning reaks of Marxism, perhaps the most destructive philosophy of the 19th century (though its affects primarily were in the 20th).  

Men and women are naturally attracted, and that attraction has a purpose that has demonstrated benefits to humanity.  Homosexual relationships are devoid of this.  I doubt you can state any such benefit.
* 
At the time of Adam and Eve.  But that really is not necessary in arguing the solely heterosexual nature of marriage.



Since when is the dictionary a valid guide to ethics? Since when is the choice of someone's idea of 'sacred' writing a better guide to ethics than someone else's, or even a dictionary? Your sacred book may be immoral to people who use a different sacred book. Why is yours better? Yes, we know, "It is because it is sacred because it is god-given because it is true because......"

*I am not using any "sacred" writings to defend my point.  Perhaps to make a few logically unnecessary statements, but the basis of my beliefs is the natural law, a philosophy hardly limited to Catholics or Christians.  *

Humans, unlike other animals, have the capability of recta ratio, right reason.  They can discern the code and make judgments from it.  Yet the cockroach can reason well enough to survive where humans cannot, and they don't create wars.
How recta is recta?
 
*Those animals are adapted to their environments, and use their natural instincts to guide them.  Humans have the ability to make logical arguments, to discern between abstract concepts such as right and wrong, etc.

And certainly human reasoning can be misguided...such as in wars, or the idea of recognizing equality in things that are by their nature unequal.
*
No.  Marriage is far more than sex.  However, that is a necessary component of it, since it permits procreation and the *natural* family.
_


----------



## tvdxer

moodywop said:
			
		

> I'd like to make two points:
> 
> 1) Although I'm not suggesting that tvdexer has ever claimed to be speaking for all Christians, I'd like to say that all the Christians(of various denominations) I know would find statements such as this to go against the spirit of Jesus Christ's preachings



Christ's mercy certainly extends to those who have indulged in homosexual lifestyles.  But mercy does not mean acceptance of actions; it means forgiveness of them.



> 2) Tvdexer, what matters is not only what we believe but how we put our beliefs into practice.
> 
> If one of your children told you he/she is gay, would you ask/force them to receive treatment, since it is a sickness?



I don't really think any effective treatment has yet been developed.  If they told me this, I would love them, pray for them, and exhort them to live a life of chastity.



> If they disagreed with your beliefs and accepted their homosexuality, would you still welcome them in your home?



Yes.  I am a person of love, not of hate.  I would not tolerate their actions; but I would still love them.  I have had many friends and acquaintences over time, and most do or believe something or another that I do not approve them; but I do not let that be an impediment to friendship.  



> What would you do if one of your children had a gay friend?



I would be a bit nervous.  It really depends on the specifics of the situation, though.



> Do you avoid socializing with people who suffer from this "sickness" but do not make any attempt to overcome it?



No.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tvdxer said:
			
		

> The end of marriage, (1)as the state should see it, is the creation of a family unit: the joining together of a man and woman, through a binding, loving contract, and from there procreation (to provide a safe, stable environment for children) and the raising of children. Homosexuals are completely incapable of doing this. Now, some heterosexual couples are as well...but their act is the same as that of fertile couples.
> 
> And you may go about calling the natural law illogical...but let me ask you this. (2)Where do YOU posit the idea that the state ought to extend rights equally to all members of society from?



1- As you would have the state see it.  This is not 'as the state should see it' for many other people.   Please note that yours is but one opinion of many.  

2- If you have read this thread with a little care, you would have observed that I have posited the idea that marriage is not the state's business, and that the state should stay out of the arena.   I think it is terrible and tragic that the state, through tax policy, encourages overpopulation, while offering financial incentives to some--heterosexual--citizens, while denying those same financial rewards to other taxpayers.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Let's see...traditional Christianity, and most of modern Christianity, is opposed to homosexual actions and unions...orthodox (real) Judaism is...Islam is...Buddhist scholars generally argue against it, as do Hindus...while all these traditions have very much differing views, most can agree on certain things, like murder being wrong, stealing being wrong, and homosexuality being wrong or unnatural.




Therefore, according to your interpretation, some, but not all, religions say something should be opposed.  And so you exhort us all to oppose it.

Why not advocate in favor of the portion of Christian religion that has no issues about homosexuality?   You have implied that non-orthodox Judaism is not "real".  What is your source of wisdom about Judaism in general, and what constitutes reality?   

Are non-orthdox followers of Judaism as bad as those Christians who disagree with you?  You have provided a laundry list of those organizations that are nominally on your side.  How about the list of those who are opposed or indifferent?  This is not a numbers game, and simply saying that lots of people share a belief doesn't make it right.
Most "major" religions had no problems with slavery until relatively recently, and justified oppression with convoluted biblical arguments.   That didn't make slavery right or natural.

Majorities may be right, and they may be wrong. Using "most people say..." is not proof or evidence of rightness, or of error.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> The question is simple: if you deny the existence of a natural law or absolute morality or its part in marriage legislation, then how CAN we place limits on who can be married?



Why do you seek to "place limits" on people?


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Again, what moves you to believe we should grant equality to homosexual relationships? Why grant anybody equality? If there's truly no objective moral code, what's the point of even caring?



What moves me is the appreciation of my fellow humans, who come in many different varieties.  I don't judge them to be unnatural for those variations.  You do. We disagree.  

Why grant anybody equality?  Because by my sense of what is moral and right and natural, equality of opportunity is fundamental.  You have a different viewpoint.  We disagree.

Like it or not, there is truly no objective moral code.  Moral codes are made by people.  They may be logical and effective, or not.  They change over time.  Most often they serve the well being of most people, and as circumstances evolve, the codes evolve to deal with either new situations, or to correct for the well-meaning errors of older positions.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> And certainly human reasoning can be misguided...such as in wars, or the idea of recognizing equality in things that are by their nature unequal.



"And certainly human reasoning can be misguided..."  Amen to that!

I believe in the sanctity, the sacredness, of human love. I believe in the natural right of people to feel and express their affection in physical ways.  I believe it is none of my business to try to dictate limitations on how mutually consenting adults go about such expressions.  I believe it is not the business of the state to dictate such limitations.


----------



## coconutpalm

tvdxer said:
			
		

> _Most human creatures have a sex drive. This includes homosexuals and heterosexuals. They are all supposedly created by the same god, that seems to persist in creating some of each, century after century, since long before the making up of today's religions. Some of those in the majority_
> _have declared that this sex drive is good for the majority to employ, while it is to be suppressed by non-majority members. _
> 
> _Next the majority has constructed legal and economic benefits for itself--supposedly god-given, whatever that may mean-- and tried to declare these off-limits for non-members. This sure appears to be self-serving and unjust, however 'natural' it may be for humans. _
> 
> _*Yes, the "evil" majority. Your reasoning reaks of Marxism, perhaps the most destructive philosophy of the 19th century (though its affects primarily were in the 20th). *_
> 
> _*Men and women are naturally attracted, and that attraction has a purpose that has demonstrated benefits to humanity. Homosexual relationships are devoid of this. I doubt you can state any such benefit.*_


 
Lesbians and gays are naturally attracted, and that attraction _demonstrates love,_ which I believe is what makes human human, and thus the most beneficial thing in the world.

So why can't we grant a marriage to lesbians and gays? Basically speaking, they don't need to get married since they love each other. Yes, I think inheritance law and spouce fringe benefits are pushing forces for some to get married. But the reason that motivates most of them to long for a marriage is that they want to get recognized, in terms of longly recognized, traditional, "normal" way. 

Please remember that they are not abnormal, but only different from us in ONE aspect. If you think lesbian or gay marriage is unnatural, is not beneficial for humanbeings, hey, there are many many people that don't want to get married or give birth to children. Look at the minus-growing population in Germany and many other countries! Are they immoral or unnatural? If reproduction is the only cause and purpose of a marriage, they certainly are.


----------



## cuchuflete

For some additional viewpoints...here are another 337 posts on 
closely related, and unrelated, topics:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=24613


----------



## suzi br

Brioche said:
			
		

> I have nothing against adults doing pretty much what they like with other consenting adults.
> 
> Equally, I see no reason for the State to be involved in the domestic arrangements of adults.
> 
> The push for same-sex marriages is all about money. The partners want the help of the State to get their hands on their ex's stuff if the relationship breaks down, or when their partner dies.
> 
> By my lights, there should be no "legal marriage", whether same or opposite sex.
> If adults want to form partnerships, they should follow the normal civil law regarding commercial partnerships. I don't see why people should get special rights because they have sex with each other.


 
haha - I sooo agree with this, though I am a lesbian and I just got "married" (though from a linguistic point of view the government insists it is NOT a marriage, it is a "civil partnership" 

we now have the same rights as other "couples" -- and yes, they are mainly financial

however, you don't have to be having sex to have a civil partnership in the UK, so manybe some single people will agree to the promises to get each other's pension rights?
To be honest I thought the government here was more likely to take the pension deal OFF heterosexual couples than to extend it to me, so I am very entertained - except that by the time I'm old enough to retire there will be no pensions left, the way things are going!

PS - I'm so sorry for anyone who thinks homosexuality is not natural -- of course it is ! I am a part of nature, and I do it - how else can I define natural?


----------



## emma42

_And_, you don't have to be having sex if you are a heterosexual, married in a Registry Office. It's only some Churches/religions which insist on "consummation".


----------



## suzi br

I do amaze at contributions (like I read here from tvdxer) which seems to shore up such a strength of feeling AGAINST other people. 

 Is that really the Christian way?

Here is a poem  that seems vaguely relevant 

it was written by a Mancunian woman, Mandy Precious:
* *

* *

*Lesbian*


Strange how in your mouth 
it reels like an expletive:
“Lesbian!” you said,
as if you really meant it.

[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## suzi br

emma42 said:
			
		

> _And_, you don't have to be having sex if you are a heterosexual, married in a Registry Office. It's only some Churches/religions which insist on "consummation".


 
ah well - the financial deal is open to all then!


----------



## tvdxer

Quite obviously, there will no agreement in this thread.  It's essentially me vs. everybody (which is interesting, since the vast majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage, as are the majority or plurality in some European countries).  

I believe in the existence of a natural law.  If there was no such thing, what would the point of arguing these things be?  Certainly, if there were no universal morality, no objective right and wrong, no absolutes, there would also be no true rights, only human-made conceptions of them.  Therefore, slavery, murder, genocide would not truly be "wrong" - only the opinions of some (most).  Denying rights to homosexuals would also not be "right" nor "wrong", just a matter of opinion, which in objective reality would have no weight or value.

There is no doubt in my mind that humans are choose good rather than evil, and that "good" and "evil" are not conceived of, but perceived and reasoned.  I am certain, for example, that murder is wrong, because it deprives a person of their natural right to live.  And is the natural right to live not self-evident?  In the relativistic system that most of you here seem to espouse, it is not; it must be a human construction.

Likewise, homosexual acts are wrong (although probably not to the same extent as murder) because they are incapable of procreation by their very essence.  Male and female exist; there is a reason for two sexes, that is reproduction.  And indeed the primary purpose of the sexual act, one of the most powerful human acts, and therefore certainly very much under the jurisdiction of the natural law, is procreation.  And to humanize the act, unity also results.   No homosexual act is, nor will ever naturally be, capable of reproduction.  The purpose of this powerful and sacred act is completely frustrated; and by this it is a complete perversion, a mockery of the true meaning of sex.  For most cultures over time, sex has always been a rather restricted thing, loaded with mores and taboos - perhaps some things I recognize as evil, or even homosexuality, were permitted in some groups, but this is beside the point.  There is a reason why these peoples restricted this act - because it is immensely powerful, and incredibly sacred by its ability to create new humans.

But homosexual acts are not the focus of this discussion.  Homosexual marriages are.  Marriage is condoned and regulated by our government, and in today's society serves important purposes - 1) to join together male and female, to humanize the animal draw of one towards the other, and codify it in a promise to ensure monogamy, and 2) to provide a stable family environment and situation for the children who will indeed come out of 1).  Marriage, then, is an institution for the family.  Two men and two women are completely incapable of creating a natural family - not just because of accidental circumstances such as infertility, but by complete sexual incompatibility.  Therefore, if marriage is instituted to serve the end of creating a family, it is completely insuitable for homosexual partners.

If you want to tell me my reasoning is "absolutist", fine.  It is.  That's not my problem.  I believe your relativistic reasoning is wrong, not only for me but you.  If you think that's arrogant, fine.  I don't care - I am saying what I believe to be the truth.  If you do not believe there is a universal morality, I can't see you as having any point to argue that we _should_ legalize homosexual marriage.  After all _should _alone, in this context, implies the existence of some sort of morality, a type of right and wrong.  If there are no universals, and my (and your) morality are solely personal or societal constructs, then there is no true reason to argue either way, other than your personal desires.  And your personal desire could just as well be for more ice cream, or that reality TV shows are banned, etc.

Edit: You may also cry out "separation of church state" or "those are your religious beliefs!".  Well, number one, my opposition to same-sex "marriage" is not solely religious.  And also, I believe Christian moral values SHOULD be taken into consideration when making and repealing laws.  If you do not like that, fine.  You may disagree.  And what values do you propose the government go by?  I would rather see Christian influence rather than Socialist/Marxist influence or Secular Humanist influence.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> the *vast majority* of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage   Proof please! What are the sources for this assertion? Please define a vast majority, and then demonstrate that one exists, with facts.
> 
> I believe in the existence of a natural law.  If there was no such thing, what would the point of arguing these things be?
> The point would be, among other things, to show that the so-called existence of natural law is a falsehood, on which elaborate self-justifying arguments are made.
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, homosexual acts are wrong (although probably not to the same extent as murder) How very kind to say that homosexual acts are not as wrong as murder. Neither is bigotry or scratching in public. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are not wrong. They are the business of the adults involved, just like heterosexual acts. because they are incapable of procreation by their very essence. Most heterosexual coitus is not intended to result in procreation. It is done for pleasure, ideally shared pleasure and expression of affection. You have stated that something is wrong--though not so wrong as murder-- because it cannot result in procreation. That's the sum total of your argument.
> The purpose of this powerful and sacred act is completely frustrated; and by this it is a complete perversion, a mockery of the true meaning of sex. You like to use terms like 'vast majority'. The huge, overwhelmingly vast majority of sexual acts are performed with no interest in reproduction. A massive number of sexual acts are performed with considerable attention to the avoidance of reproduction. You have condemned much, maybe most human sexual contact as a complete perversion, as you have stated that the primary purpose is procreation, and that the frustration of this purpose results in perversion.
> 
> 
> If you do not believe there is a universal morality, I can't see you as having any point to argue that we _should_ legalize homosexual marriage. We have a point of accidental agreement here. I believe that we should not legalize or criminalize any marriage. A marriage is a compact between two people. I see no value added by the state.
> 
> I believe Christian moral values SHOULD be taken into consideration when making and repealing laws. If you do not like that, fine. You may disagree. And what values do you propose the government go by? I would rather see Christian influence rather than Socialist/Marxist influence or Secular Humanist influence. Your preferences are clear. You prefer Christian moral values over Buddhist moral values and Taoist moral values and over any other moral values than your own version of Christian moral values.
> 
> Your set of moral values are your own affair; when you try to introduce them into the legislative process they become of interest to all potentially affected citizens, who have every right to tell you that your values are horribly flawed and ugly and perverse *as a basis for legislation*.
> 
> What you do with them in the privacy of your own home, with consenting adults, is none of my concern. What you do with those values in your place of worship is none of my business.
> When you bring those values into the public policy arena, they will be subject to logical scruntiny, and held up for close examination in terms of their concordance or lack of same with constitutional principles.


Awaiting proof. When you post the statistics for Americans against non-heterosexual marriage, why not also show how these compare with the number of citizens who oppose the income tax, and those who favored slavery before it was abolished, and the numbers who opposed allowing women to vote.


----------



## suzi br

For all you know I could have children - I was married to a man for many years ... (OK - I admit it, we were very unnatural and we we didn't have children) It is a total nonesense to assert that the only purpose of sexual contact is procreation ... ! Maybe if this were true we'd all be seeing families of 12 or 15 in every household. Or we'd all be celibate? 





> The purpose (babymaking) of this powerful and sacred act is completely frustrated; and by this it is a complete perversion, a mockery of the true meaning of sex.


 Does this apply to any straight couple who make love without making a baby?

Are families where only one of the parents is a biological parent also 





> incapable of creating a natural family ?


 Maybe you cast divorcees in the same evil and unnatural bracket as me?

In any case, if my lovely lesbian lover and I *did* have any kids we would make great mothers for them now.

Research suggests that kids grow up just fine in families with two mums - check out the New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6670

btw - 
you make massive assumptions about other people's belief systems, based on very little evidence. If you are really interested in my spiritual beliefs, they are guided by the principles of yoga / hinduism and the teacher I study with impresses on me that being judgemental of others is not a good thing.


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Awaiting proof. When you post the statistics for Americans against non-heterosexual marriage, why not also show how these compare with the number of citizens who oppose the income tax, and those who favored slavery before it was abolished, and the numbers who opposed allowing women to vote.



Maybe "vast" is going a bit too far, but here: http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=22882 .

And let's not forget the ten or eleven resolutions that passed at election time in 2004.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Maybe "vast" is going a bit too far, but here: http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=22882 .
> 
> And let's not forget the ten or eleven resolutions that passed at election time in 2004.


What resolutions do you refer to?  If these are at a state level,
please note that there are fifty states, and ten or eleven are
not a vast or small majority of fifty. If they are cosmetic congressional resolutions, without force of law, they are meaningless pandering to an extremist portion of the electorate.

There is no majority in favor of a change to the U.S. Constitution, although a majority state opposition to legalizing gay marriage.



> In the latest Gallup Poll, 50% said they supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage; 47% opposed it. Nine other Gallup surveys since 2003 have produced similar results. There's no evidence supporters have established the overwhelming social consensus that should accompany any effort to amend the Constitution on this issue.


Los Angeles Times, 4 June, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-na-outlook4jun04,1,6281414.column?coll=la-news-columns



The article continues, saying that this is a manufactured political issue, designed to appeal to a minority of voters:



> Whatever else Americans may think about gay marriage, few consider it one of the country's most serious moral challenges.


----------



## maxiogee

suzi br said:
			
		

> PS - I'm so sorry for anyone who thinks homosexuality is not natural -- of course it is ! I am a part of nature, and I do it - how else can I define natural?



Hiya suzi, 
Hope the ceremony went well and that the honeymoon was a blast!

I think you misunderstand those poor benighted creatures.
Never normally shy of expressing themselves forthrigthly, I think what they really mean by "not natural" is "not *nice*-natural"  
Nice-Natural is lickle fluffy lambikins and saucer-eyed calves, not nice-natural is slavering wolves with strands of wool caught in their teeth, and cruel Mr Knife, the butcher, advertising veal!  

Regards to your missus!


----------



## lizzeymac

Hello All
tvdexer has unknowingly posted a restricted site - you won't be able to see the actual poll, just a summary - and a slanted summation.

I have posted the URL of a public site where you can read virtually *all* the professional surveys taken on gay marriage, civil union, gay adoption, etc, for the last few years.  It gives a more balanced view of American opinions.
The site is not affiliated with any group or viewpoint, it is an independant organization that tracks professional polls by subject.  You can look at other topics if you like, as well.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm


Tvdexer is perfectly correct that the majority - not vast majority - of American are against "gay marriage" - it has ranged from 49% up to almost 80%. 

What tvdexer either doesn't know or chooses to ignore or withhold from this discussion is that the majority if Americans - a slim but consistent majority - is *not* opposed to civil unions.  Americans also tend to split evenly on the issue of gay adoption.

The conservative right-wing knows that the term "gay marriage" is guaranteed to raise a strong negative reaction, they will not talk about civil unions.

The topic of profit & financial benefit has been mentioned a few times, does someone think this is an issue of making money or becoming rich?  
Let's just think about the impact on children - everyone wants children to be safe, healthy, protected - right?

America is not a "welfare state" in the sense that many European countries are & so many health, housing, quality of life issues are not automatically & unconditionally provided by the government.  If you are gay you do not have the same access to benefits as other Americans - and your children don't, either.

Example: America does not have a national health system, many Americans do not have insurance at all & healthcare is very expensive.  If a gay couple has children only the biological parent can list them on his/her insurance policy & you can't list your "spouse". Many states will not allow a gay non-biological parent to adopt the shared children to create the legal family & be able to access private insurance.
A step parent - with no biological ties - can list step-children on insurance policies.  
Gay families do not qualify for Medicaid - free healthcare for low-income families.  
It is very difficult to qualify for foodstamps in the few states that theoretically allow it for gay families.  

Inheritance is a huge problem - if a spouse dies, you & your children may lose your house or your apartment & have no legal recourse.  You do not receive government survivor's benefits for your children.  You may not be able to collect your spouses pension on your childrens's behalf.  You may lose custody of you "non-biological" children even if you have legal guardianship - biological grandparent can sue & many win. 

There are legal measures that can protect non-traditonal families from some of the problems but not all of the problems. 
Creating these legal protections cost a great deal of money, thousands & thousands of dollars in legal fees, and there are more 15 states in American that specifically disallow these measures.

I understand & respect that to religious people, marriage is a religious concept with a finite & discrete definition.  
I do not understand why they might object to a legalized civil union.
I do not understand why the children of gay Americans are denied the same protections & benefits as the children of straight Americans.
-


----------



## suzi br

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
> 
> 
> The topic of profit & financial benefit has been mentioned a few times, does someone think this is an issue of making money or becoming rich?


 
Hi Lizzeymac - that was a very interesting read

Just to pick up on this one point - since I have mentioned the financial implications in earlier posting. 

No, I don't think it is about getting rich!

I am pleased to have been given equal rights financially with other couples I am especially pleased that my pension contributions will no longer just be sucked back into the financiers' pockets when I die and that my LLL will be able to benefit from my contributions over the years .. when I am gone (or vice-versa)

However, I do understand why SINGLE people feel hard-done to. I think this is part of what chuflete has said: It is puzzling that the state and other financial institutions reward couple-dom in a way that isn't fair to single people. 

Elsewhere I have expressed my amazement that our govt (in the UK) has extended pension rights to gay couples when all the talk is of how unsustainable our pensions system will be, very soon. My thoughts had been that the rights would be REDUCED for all, not extended as they have been.

As for children, indeed I agree with what you say - tho in my case that is not directly relevant to me.


----------



## Fernando

As a single, I am entitled to say I am ready to pay more taxes to avoid(heterosexual) families to pay them. Most of them have or are ready to have children, contribute with stability to society and give continuity to it. Other ways of civil unions (homosexual couples, poligamy, associations of cats' friends and condominiums) are not entitled to, since they do not give the same to society.


----------



## suzi br

Fernando said:
			
		

> As a single, I am entitled to say I am ready to pay more taxes to avoid(heterosexual) families to pay them. Most of them have or are ready to have children, contribute with stability to society and give continuity to it. Other ways of civil unions (homosexual couples, poligamy, associations of cats' friends and condominiums) are not entitled to, since they do not give the same to society.


 
I think that is highly debatable.  In my role are a teacher I am sure that I conrtibute more to the stability of our society than some of the erratic and unstable parents it is my misfortune to meet!


----------



## Fernando

suzi br said:
			
		

> I think that is highly debatable.  In my role are a teacher I am sure that I conrtibute more to the stability of our society than some of the erratic and unstable parents it is my misfortune to meet!



Law is made of generalities.

And Microsoft (1) probably has made more for Mankind that many families but Microsoft is not entitled to inherit tax-free nor to adopt children.

(1) Well, I reckon that Microsoft is a bad example.


----------



## lizzeymac

Fernando said:
			
		

> As a single, I am entitled to say I am ready to pay more taxes to avoid(heterosexual) families to pay them. Most of them have or are ready to have children, contribute with stability to society and give continuity to it. Other ways of civil unions (homosexual couples, poligamy, associations of cats' friends and condominiums) are not entitled to, since they do not give the same to society.



Dear Fernando - 
With respect:
Cat associations - if you mean shelters for abandoned cats, are not a civil union.  However, they qualify as a tax exempt charity in America & pay zero taxes.  The Association of Cat Fanciers is a business & pays taxes on any profits it makes.
Condominiums are a business entity not a civil union, a financial structure of private owners of a single property - one of the qualities of this structure is that it reduces the amount of tax paid to the government.
Polygamy is illegal in America but we do have a few polygamous communities in the Southwest.  Polygamous families tend to procreate largely.  Procreation was mentioned as a "good" thing in several posts, no?



> Most of them have or are ready to have children, contribute with stability to society and give continuity to it.



You mention contributing to society.  
OK, let's not talk about a person's rights, lets talk about their responsibilities to society.

Which of the above contributions do you feel a homosexual couple would not be able to fulfill?   

They have jobs, pay taxes, own property, own their own businesses & create jobs, vote, some even go to church - what is it they do not do?

Do heterosexual couples who chose to adopt children rather than give birth to them qualify as "contributing" in your opinion?

Homosexual human beings can give birth to children - so it can't be that, right? 

In America, we have at least 200,000 "older" children waiting to be adopted.  The adoption agencies call them "hard to place" or "un-adoptable", many have health issues or behavior issues, or they are just not cute little babies. Every year almost 2,000 children turn 18 years old & graduate (age out) from foster care, never having had a family of their own.  Many have lived in more than 8 different foster homes.  There is a huge shortage of  adoptive & foster parent so many children live in "group homes" - these are very nice orphanages. 
Only 10 states in America allow gay individuals or couples to adopt.  

Not allowing civil unions *prevents* homosexuals from contributing to society as fully as other citizens.
-


----------



## Fernando

Note: Legal terminology can differ. 



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Cat associations - if you mean shelters for abandoned cats, are not a civil union.  However, they qualify as a tax exempt charity in America & pay zero taxes.



Cat associations are associations (civil unions). They can not inherit (in Spain) without paying taxes (with a reduction).
They can not adopt (except cats, of course).



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Condominiums are a business entity not a civil union, a financial structure of private owners of a single property - one of the qualities of this structure is that it reduces the amount of tax paid to the government.



Sorry for the confusion. In Spain they are civil unions (they have not personality). Thay can not adopt nor inherit tax-free.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Polygamy is illegal in America



I can not understand why. Is it not a free consensual association of free people? 



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Which of the above contributions do you feel a homosexual couple would not be able to fulfill?



Having a child?



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Do heterosexual couples who chose to adopt children rather than give birth to them qualify as "contributing" in your opinion?



Yes, under some circumstances. In all legislations, adoption is a solution for abandoned children (not in behalf of the parents) in susbtitution of natural parents. During 3,000 years or so we have checked it works (more or less). It is conceded only with strong requirements. 

By the way, I can not adopt, as a single (or I would under very severe restrictions). Is the State limiting my rights? No, simply is protecting the children.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Homosexual human beings can give birth to children - so it can't be that, right?



Until some lesbian US groups success homosexuals can not give birth a child of the couple.


----------



## Sallyb36

I think that anyone should be able to amrry anyone else regardless of sex in a civil ceremony.  Obviously the church will never agree to same sex marriages because they think that it is wrong.


----------



## lizzeymac

Hi Fernando - 
I see there are differences in the legal terms.  In America, "civil union" does not have the many meanings that it does in Spain, thank you for explaining.  Civil union is a partnership between 2 human beings, not any type of business or corporate entity.  

In theory I think you might have a point about polygamy, if it were a consensual association of adults.  One problem is that American polygamists are grown men & the mostly underage girls they marry against their will, some girls as young as 14 years old. That is child abuse.  Almost all polygamous communities in America are considered "cults," excomunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) about 100 years ago.  Sorry - off topic.

American laws governing adoption are not applied equally.  
In America, heterosexual single persons can adopt.
Homosexual singles cannot adopt in most states & cannot be foster parents in many states.
This is one of the reasons I believe American laws about civil union & adoption are wrong, they are applied in a discriminatory manner.

I respect your opinions but the general consensus of medical & psychiatric associations in America (& a few countries in Europe) is that children raised by homosexuals in a stable, committed relationship are not more likely to be unhappy, unhealthy, or to become gay. 

After all, most homosexuals are raised by heterosexuals.  
Be well -


----------



## timpeac

Given this recent discussion I was interested to see this news item.

http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=adimarticle&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=2960327&d=20060606&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252

It suggests that there is a difference between civil partnerships and "marriage". I thought that the partnerships effectively were marriage - what is the difference then, or is it purely a matter of terminology?


----------



## cuchuflete

Many posts back, I posted a link to an earlier thread on similar topics, with well over 300 posts. In that earlier thread I had argued that a homosexual marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriages. The fear tactic used by opponents of homosexual marriage often includes declarations that if gay people are allowed to marry, the very institution of marriage itself will totter and fall. Of course that is illogical. Marriages between deaf people present no threat to married people with full auditory capabilities. Marriages among left-handed spouses have no impact on homes in which one or both spouses are ambidextrous.

Some facts from the US: Massachusetts is a state which allows homosexuals to marry. It has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. It had a very low divorse rate before passing a law allowing for homosexual marriage, and it continues, years later to have a much lower divorce rate than tvdxer's state, which does not allow for homosexual marriage. 

In 1994, Massachusetts had a divorce rate that was 50% lower than that of Minnesotta, and in 2004, the statistics remained constant. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm offers the numbers, together with PDF files you are welcome to download for detailed analysis.   These are not opinions.
There are no words like "vast".  Just facts.  

Tvdxer compared homosexual acts with murder. He was kind enough to suggest that the latter is probably worse. I know of no laws in his state or country that deny the right to marry to murderers. Odd, isn't it? Convicted murderers can marry and raise children? Homosexuals with no criminal records cannot. I wonder what the absolute moral right makes of this. Is it natural law and the primacy of procreation at work?


----------



## lizzeymac

timpeac said:
			
		

> Given this recent discussion I was interested to see this news item.
> 
> I suggests that there is a difference between civil partnerships and "marriage". I thought that the partnerships effectively were marriage - what is the difference then, or is it purely a matter of terminology?



This is one of the difficulties we Americans have.  
We do not have a *national* legal definition of marriage or civil union. We are like Europe before the EU, probably worse. ;-)
Some rights & legal concepts are controlled by the federal government & apply to all states, some rights & legal concepts are controlled by each individual state & only apply within that state. Abortion is a state-controlled right.  Some of federal laws conflict with state laws.  State A is not required to respect the laws of State B & neither the federal nor the state government are required to respect a foreign Civil Partnership.

George Bush is promoting an amendment to the US Constitution that makes same sex marriage illegal on the federal level supposedly because state judges are "distorting" the Constitution" to make same sex unions legal.
We already have a law called "The Defense of Marriage Act."
As long as the Government makes laws about & grant benefits to "Marriage", which is a religious concept, many Americans will demand that the same laws & benefits be applied to a Civil Union.  
The laws say you can't discriminate against persons based on religion, race, gender, age, _sexual orientation_.
Any law that applies to one American, applies to all.  
If we allowed civil unions for heterosexuals we would by law have to allow civil unions to homosexuals.  
Unless there is a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.


----------



## cuchuflete

While politicians pander, there has been a (dare I use the adjective?) _vast _change in public opinion on this topic in recent years.  Perhaps we should give thanks to the enemies of freedom, the phoney pseudo-conservatives who violate conservative principles by advocating more government interventionism, who have given these issues so much prominence.  People are apparently thinking, and armed with information, they are changing their minds:



> Americans' views of gay marriage have been evolving. In March 1996, 27 percent of Americans believed homosexual marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, according to the Gallup Poll. Today that number is 39 percent.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0606/p01s01-uspo.html


----------



## Fernando

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Hi Fernando -
> I see there are differences in the legal terms.  In America, "civil union" does not have the many meanings that it does in Spain, thank you for explaining.  Civil union is a partnership between 2 human beings, not any type of business or corporate entity.



As a matter of fact, I was wrong. I will get informed and, if I visit the thread again I will try to convey my feelings in a more appropiate legal English/US terminology (since we are talking about laws, after all).


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm not sure that "civil union" carries the same definition in every jurisdiction in the U.S.

Here is a _beginning_ of some understanding of what the term may mean.



> *From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> The *Connecticut General Assembly* passed a bill to adopt *civil unions* in Connecticut, ensuring that same-sex couples get the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. It was signed into law by the Governor on April 20, 2005. (Civil unions provide same sex couples with many of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, including a voice in medical-care issues and legal standing to inherit money and property.). Connecticut became the fifth state in the United States (following Vermont, Maine, California, and New Jersey) to adopt civil unions or domestic partnership, and the first to do so without judicial intervention.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Connecticut


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> As a single, I am entitled to say I am ready to pay more taxes to avoid(heterosexual) families to pay them. Most of them have or are ready to have children, contribute with stability to society and give continuity to it. Other ways of civil unions (homosexual couples, poligamy, associations of cats' friends and condominiums) are not entitled to, since they do not give the same to society.



How does a single "give the same", or do they?
I can think of many people in my life who had no children and they, and I, would be highly offended if "society" were to have said that they "did not give the same".

Did Florence Nightingale give nothing to society?
Did Mother Teresa?
Did Leonardo Da Vinci, Beethoven, Cervantes, or even Jesus Christ?


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Quite obviously, there will no agreement in this thread.  It's essentially me vs. everybody (which is interesting, since the vast majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage, as are the majority or plurality in some European countries).



What's "interesting" about that?
Do you think we're all misrepresenting our opinions, or stifling comment from people here who feel as you do, or are you suggesting something else altogether?

When people are asked if they are "opposed to same-sex marriage", are they ever asked if they are opposed to "ordinary" marriage? it seems to me that many people are shunning marriage - statistics, fecky little things, aren't they?


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:
			
		

> When people are asked if they are "opposed to same-sex marriage", are they ever asked if they are opposed to "ordinary" marriage? it seems to me that many people are shunning marriage - statistics, fecky little things, aren't they?



Those same statistics caused one foreror, quite recently, to open a thread decrying the lack of prolific begetting by Europeans!  Could it be that those heterosexual European people get married for other reasons than being baby mills?
Is that not proof positive that heterosexuals are perverting the prime purposes of sex and marriage?


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Those same statistics caused one foreror, quite recently, to open a thread decrying the lack of prolific begetting by Europeans!  Could it be that those heterosexual European people get married for other reasons than being baby mills?
> Is that not proof positive that heterosexuals are perverting the prime purposes of sex and marriage?



Mmm... the same countries that admit homosexual marriage. Interesting.

Thanks God that homosexual couples are going to recover birth rate. 

Disclaimer: This is a kidding post. When I say "kidding" I am not (intendedly) insulting the goats nor is an allusion to the male organ read otherwise.


----------



## cuchuflete

In all fairness to the goats, the effects of homosexual marriage on fertility rates among 'straight' couples is pretty amusing.

I had always thought it was something in the water!

That is not meant to imply any insult against European water


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> That is not meant to imply any insult against European water



In a chauvinist note I must say that US water has the same effect (see post #3):

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=43975&highlight=swan


----------



## cuchuflete

> ''Maybe it's the water that's causing all this lunacy."


 Those words were spoken by a citizen of Massachusetts.  Anyone from Maine would tell you that words spoken by Massachusetts citizens should generally be ignored.


----------



## suzi br

Hi again - I am very pleased to hear on the news today that the US Senate has rejected the President's bid to get gay-marriage "banned" centrally.  

I  call this a triumph for both common-sense and the majority of Americans.

The BBC news report here is only short, but gives interesting links to various other related sites:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5056474.stm


----------



## cuchuflete

One county in Oregon, northwestern US, has stopped allowing all marriages, including those among heterosexuals:

          	 "It may seem odd, but we need to treat everyone in our county equally," county commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters.

Now that is real progress.  Get the government out of people's private matters.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> One county in Oregon, northwestern US, has stopped allowing all marriages, including those among heterosexuals:
> 
> "It may seem odd, but we need to treat everyone in our county equally," county commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters.
> 
> Now that is real progress.  Get the government out of people's private matters.



What do they mean by "allowing"?
What role did that county have in the marriage of AB & YZ?


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What do they mean by "allowing"?
> What role did that county have in the marriage of AB & YZ?



Previously the county issued marriage licenses, giving people the legal right to get spliced.  When the State courts got involved with trying to decide if such licenses could be issued to some--heterosexual--folks but not to others, the country decided to remove itself from the marriage license business until the courts could sort it all out.


----------



## Fernando

But I thought all this marriage stuff was about law, wasn't it?

You mean in that county can I marry all my friends and family? I mean, at a time.


----------



## cuchuflete

In that county, a marriage license is required.
In that county, the county government will not issue a marriage license.

Therefore, in that county, you cannot legally marry any one.
You would have to travel a few miles to an adjoining county to marry whoever the other county allows you to marry.

If you don't like the rules in Oregon, you could go to Alabama, where only heterosexuals are allowed to marry, or to Massachusetts, where that restriction does not exist.  

Luckily, Mr Bush's cynical political tricks have failed, and this issue is still, by Constitutional law, still decided locally, and not by a collection of federal nincompoops.  The local clowns do a better job of legislating in accord with the wishes of their constituents.


----------



## Fernando

Correct me if I am wrong but, basically, that county has introduced a new disturbation to its citizens, since it recognizes others' marriages.

Even if I reckon that this topic is not so "core" to be regulated in Constitution, it would advisable (even if the eventual result is pro-homo marriage) a federal law, because the anarchy would result in a total mess:

A homosexual marriage in Mas. moves to Alabama: Are they entitled to get reductions in federal taxes? In local taxes? In state taxes?


----------



## cuchuflete

Legally, it is already very confused.  Some, but not all states, recognize some, but not all legal conventions from other sates.
There is no such thing as total reciprocity.

Federal tax law has a tax rate for married couples.  I don't know if the federal government does sex verification before deciding if a couple, legally married in a state, are eligible for that rate.  

The last article of The Bill of Rights, part of the US Constitution says,



> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


  That is part of the fundamental basis of law under which this country has existed with reasonable progress and success for a few hundred years.  Conservative "strict constructionists" very often invoke the principle of States' Rights as a core value.  On the issue of homosexual marriage, they are acting in contrary fashion, trying to take local rights from the states, and give them to a central authority.  Hypocrisy.


----------



## Fernando

Well, I only expect not to see a Madison-Dixon line about this subject. Utah had to abandon its "special" way to understand marriage to enter into the Union.


----------



## lizzeymac

One of the reasons many (/some) Americans believe Bush's Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution is political pandering & a ploy to distract the public is that 35 of 50 states _already have_ laws or state Constitution Amendments defining marriage as male/female.  Local governments have the ability to legislate marriage, there is no reason to butcher the American Constitution.

Prohibition of alcohol (18th Amend.) was another bad Amendment to the Constitution & eventually was repealed (21st Amend.)  
It destroyed many family businesses, had a significant negative impact on federal & local law enforcement budgets, virtually created "organized crime" in America, & it had no measurable positive effects on alcohol consumption.  It too was a response to a social issue that "threatened the moral character" of the nation.

Our Constitution protects the rights of citizens, this would be the only Amendment to deny rights to Americans.


----------



## maxiogee

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> One of the reasons many (/some) Americans believe Bush's Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution is political pandering & a ploy to distract the public is that 35 of 50 states _already have_ laws or state Constitution Amendments defining marriage as male/female.  Local governments have the ability to legislate marriage, there is no reason to butcher the American Constitution.



But wouldn't those who might wish to change those 35 states' laws have been hampered had the Constitution been changed?
Which is easier for a lobby-group - to change individual state laws, or to change the Constitution?
I know that changing the Irish Constitution is difficult for a lobby group, but seemingly easier for a political party in office.


----------



## pickypuck

> By the way, I can not adopt, as a single (or I would under very severe restrictions).


 
In Spain you can adopt as a single, under the same very severe restrictions required to couples.

¡Olé! 8)


----------



## lizzeymac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But wouldn't those who might wish to change those 35 states' laws have been hampered had the Constitution been changed?
> Which is easier for a lobby-group - to change individual state laws, or to change the Constitution?
> I know that changing the Irish Constitution is difficult for a lobby group, but seemingly easier for a political party in office.



Bush wants to block any possible change in current states laws, to prevent the states from reverting to allowing any type of domestic partnership. The most direct & final way is a federal Constitutional Amendment.

Yes, the federal Constitution is difficult to change - it requires a 2/3 majority of _both_ the House & Senate.  Or, you can convoke a convention of all State governments & propose the Amendment.  It would require a 3/4 majority to pass - I don't know if this has even been done, hmmm.  The federal Constitution is purposefully difficult to change, to avoid "the tyranny of the _simple_ majority" & the pendulum reaction.

Bush et al. want to change the Federal Constitution because that would effectively block all lawsuits challenging heterosexual-only marriage laws at the state level. 
At a very simplified level this would result in one big "No" that governs federally & at the state level, instead of 50 possible "Yeses" or "Maybes" at the state level.  The federal Supreme Court is the arbiter of federal Constitutionality. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by  Presidents, not voted for by citizens.  Our current Court is thought to be conservative & likely not to challenge the constitutionality of this Amendment.  

State's Rights is a messy but important concept of American law, most "moral" or "cultural" issues are left to the states as opinions vary so radically from one region to another in America - abortion, marriage, divorce, inheritance, drinking age, etc.  Lousiana laws still contain a significant portion of the Napoleonic Code!
-


----------



## tvdxer

> What resolutions do you refer to?  If these are at a state level,
> please note that there are fifty states, and ten or eleven are
> not a vast or small majority of fifty. If they are cosmetic congressional resolutions, without force of law, they are meaningless pandering to an extremist portion of the electorate.
> 
> There is no majority in favor of a change to the U.S. Constitution, although a majority state opposition to legalizing gay marriage.



The fact that ten or eleven different states went through the effort of putting such a thing on the ballots, and that they all passed against same-sex marriage is a quite significant indicator I think.

Opposition to gay marriage does not necessarily equate to support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.  Even I'm a bit queasy about modifying the U.S. constitution, although that doesn't mean I'm opposed to it.

Lizziemac, same-sex marriage and civil unions are two separate things.  This thread is about the former, not the latter.  



> In 1994, Massachusetts had a divorce rate that was 50% lower than that of Minnesotta, and in 2004, the statistics remained constant. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm offers the numbers, together with PDF files you are welcome to download for detailed analysis.   These are not opinions.
> There are no words like "vast".  Just facts.



Thank you for that very nice link (that's a cool site, I love statistics) but I don't really see the point.  MA had same-sex marriage legal for what, one year in 2004?  It takes time for social changes to sweep through society.  And I never said same-sex marriage will destroy real marriage, although I fear it.



> The laws say you can't discriminate against persons based on religion, race, gender, age, _sexual orientation_.
> Any law that applies to one American, applies to all.
> If we allowed civil unions for heterosexuals we would by law have to allow civil unions to homosexuals.
> Unless there is a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.



Nobody is denying marriage to homosexuals or bisexuals.  They are perfectly capable of marrying somebody of the OPPOSITE sex.  Marriage by definition brings a man and woman together; by its very nature it is a union of those of opposite genders.  Otherwise it has no point.  I already explained this earlier.

I'm starting to get really bored debating this.  Obviously those who have differ from me here are coming from a completely different religious and philosophical background - one that does not admit the existence of any sort universal moral truth.


----------



## timpeac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> I'm starting to get really bored debating this. Obviously those who have differ from me here are coming from a completely different religious and philosophical background - one that does not admit the existence of any sort universal moral truth.


Amen to that! When you have a lot of people from different cultures, different religions and different beliefs come together to discuss something you have to start from first principals because no one is going to accept the "universal" truth of someone else. Even within the same religion people might have different ideas as to what the universal moral truth should be. Moreover, as you say, many do not agree that there is such a thing at all. As long as you continue to argue starting from the point of view that _obviously_ your moral beliefs are true it is not only yourself that you are boring by debating it.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Nobody is denying marriage to homosexuals or bisexuals.



Looking at this purely from a civil point of view - what *is* marriage?

It appears to be to be a civil contract between two people, which has state recognition. The state involves inself by making (in many instances) certain tax concessions to the contracting parties. It also involves itself, as in any contractual disputes/disagreements, when at least one of the parties wishes to be released from the terms of the contract.

In secular states, why should this purely legal contract's availability be denied to certain cagetories of people?


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Looking at this purely from a civil point of view - what *is* marriage?
> 
> It appears to be to be a civil contract between two people, which has state recognition. The state involves inself by making (in many instances) certain tax concessions to the contracting parties. It also involves itself, as in any contractual disputes/disagreements, when at least one of the parties wishes to be released from the terms of the contract.
> 
> In secular states, why should this purely legal contract's availability be denied to certain cagetories of people?


Yes - I asked this earlier. As far as I am aware civil partnerships = marriage, or at least I'd like to know in what way they are different. In both there is a civil element, the joining of legal estates, and then you can add on top of that a religious or personal meaning as suits you. I'll repeat what I said earlier but no one answered - surely a "marriage" between a man and a woman if not sactified on the relevant religious ground is not viewed as a "marriage" in the eyes of religious people. In the eyes of a devout Jew what differentiates a civil partnership between two men or a man and a woman from a "marriage" in a church by a christian man and woman? (and vice versa).


----------



## emma42

I suppose a tolerant and humane religious person would accept that if two people call their relationship/state-sanctioned civil partnership/marriage conducted in a temple, mosque, church or gurdwara, a "marriage" in all sincerity, it is, indeed, a marriage. Or am I completely barking up the wrong runner bean pole?*

*This is not a idiom in common usage - I just made it up.


----------



## timpeac

emma42 said:
			
		

> I suppose a tolerant and humane religious person would accept that if two people call their relationship/state-sanctioned civil partnership/marriage conducted in a temple, mosque, church or gurdwara, a "marriage" in all sincerity, it is, indeed, a marriage. Or am I completely barking up the wrong runner bean pole?


I quite agree - that is what is confusing me about people saying "a civil ceremony is different from marriage". Surely it is only different for religious people who would consider anyone married in circumstances other than those sactioned by his particular religion as "not really married".


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> I suppose a tolerant and humane religious person would accept that if two people call their relationship/state-sanctioned civil partnership/marriage conducted in a temple, mosque, church or gurdwara, a "marriage" in all sincerity, it is, indeed, a marriage.  Or am I completely barking up the wrong runner bean pole?



Well if it has been performed on religious premises then it probably is acceptable to that tolerant and humane religionist.
What I was asking about was a contract undertaken on secular premises, without benefit of clergy of any persuasion.


----------



## emma42

That was included in my answer, though.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here's a question for the religious:
If, as has been suggested earlier in this thread, a specific religious group or sub-group requires that a marriage be consumated by a heterosexual sex act, and one or both members of the marriage are not capable of that, for whatever reason, is their church marriage automatically null and void?  Do the members of the congregation or church hierarchy do anything to attempt to verify that the marriage has been consumated, or do they just happily assume that it has, following the issuance of a state license, if required, and the religious ceremony uniting the couple?

To put it another way, does the church hierarchy or congregation give a damn, much less know, which marriages are consumated?


----------



## moodywop

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If, as has been suggested earlier in this thread, a specific religious group or sub-group requires that a marriage be consumated by a heterosexual sex act, and one or both members of the marriage are not capable of that, for whatever reason, is their church marriage automatically null and void?


 
Cuchu

The "inability to consummate" is one of the most common reasons for annulments of marriages by the Sacra Rota, an ecclesiastic court in Rome whose members are appointed by the Pope and whose sentences are written in Latin.

Some Italian magazines have published these sentences for the amusement of readers. The language is incredibly convoluted and puts bureaucratic gobbledygook to shame. The most common reason for an annulment is _incapacitas assumendi onera coniugalia _(inability to fulfill conjugal duties). _Impotentia coeundi_ is usually grounds for annulment, but in one case the _monsignori _ruled that "the failure to generate offspring could not be linked to the uncertain consummation"


----------



## cuchuflete

Yes Carlo, but what of all the potentially unconsumated unions that are not anulled?

The point is simple:
Some opponents of homosexual unions broadly proclaim that such unions are inherently invalid, for the reason stated-- inability to procreate, inability to engage in heterosexual sex acts..etc.

They further state that such unions threaten the sanctity of what they see as "normal" marriage, as an institution.

That's convoluted thinking, and wrong.

If two 85 year old people marry, the odds are rather good that they will be unable to engage in sex.  Does their union threaten "normal" marriage?  Of course not.

No one union threatens any other.  What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is (1)unknown to others, and (2)of no consequence for institutions.

The idea of "live and let live" seems to have escaped some zealots.


----------



## emma42

I could not agree more, and, to my mind, it just shows the bankruptcy of such illogical theorising.


----------



## moodywop

Cuchu

I agree with everything you wrote in your post. 

Of course the Vatican court only annuls the marriages of people who ask for an annulment.


----------



## lizzeymac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> The fact that ten or eleven different states went through the effort of putting such a thing on the ballots, and that they all passed against same-sex marriage is a quite significant indicator I think.
> 
> Opposition to gay marriage does not necessarily equate to support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.  Even I'm a bit queasy about modifying the U.S. constitution, although that doesn't mean I'm opposed to it.
> *
> Lizziemac, same-sex marriage and civil unions are two separate things.  This thread is about the former, not the latter.*
> .....
> Nobody is denying marriage to homosexuals or bisexuals.  They are perfectly capable of marrying somebody of the OPPOSITE sex.  Marriage by definition brings a man and woman together; by its very nature it is a union of those of opposite genders.  Otherwise it has no point.  I already explained this earlier.
> 
> I'm starting to get really bored debating this.  Obviously those who have differ from me here are coming from a completely different religious and philosophical background - one that does not admit the existence of any sort universal moral truth.



Thanks for your opinion, you may or may not have a point, I will happily accept a Moderator's opinion on my post.

What is the difference between marriage & a civil union, and how can you apply religious standards to a non-religious contract?  

Or have I missed something?  Seriously - 

In this thread, when we say "marriage" are we _only_ talking about a religious ceremony sanctified by a religious authority?  
In that case, I agree with Tvdexer - I don't believe the State has the right to force any religious faith to consecrate as a "marriage" any union that does not conform to their definition of marriage. 

Are we debating the right to use the word "marriage" to describe a non-religious union, or the right to the responsibilities & benefits conferred by the State on _some_ unions but others?

America does not have national religon & in theory we do have a strict separation of Church & State.  
The laws of the State allow for & define the structure of non-religous "marriage" contracts.
A couple may contract a "marriage" (civil union) authorized by a judge (the State) in an entirely secular ceremony but the government places contraints on this civil contract that are based on religious principles. 

So...
Why is my right to form a civil union (marriage) & "contribute to society" constrained by a religous concept that I may or may not agree with in a country that has a separation of Church & State?
-


----------



## maxiogee

moodywop said:
			
		

> Cuchu
> 
> I agree with everything you wrote in your post.
> 
> Of course the Vatican court only annuls the marriages of people who ask for an annulment.



Aaah, but both parties do not need to ask.
They annul "marriages" (they say they were not marriages to begin with) on the request of one party.
The "innocent" party is often not involved in the process.


----------



## moodywop

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Aaah, but both parties do not need to ask.
> They annul "marriages" (they say they were not marriages to begin with) on the request of one party.
> The "innocent" party is often not involved in the process.


 
Not only that, Tony. Because of a special agreement with the Vatican that Mussolini signed in 1929 (in order to weaken potential Vatican criticism of his regime) and which is still in force (granting the Catholic church special privileges), an annulment granted by the Church court also invalidates the civil union, abolishing the right to alimony and making it necessary to start a legal battle for child support. I don't know if it's the same in other Catholic countries.


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> It appears to be to be a civil contract between TWO people, which has state recognition. The state involves inself by making (in many instances) certain tax concessions to the contracting parties. It also involves itself, as in any contractual disputes/disagreements, when at least one of the parties wishes to be released from the terms of the contract.



Why do you include the "TWO" point? I consider this as a rather euro-centric attitude. Are you saying that one billion people have an unnatural conception of marriage?

Mmm... Interesting


----------



## maxiogee

My actual post…


			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> It appears to be to be a civil contract between two people, which has state recognition.



Fernando's post…


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to be to be a civil contract between TWO people, which has state recognition.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you include the "TWO" point? I consider this as a rather euro-centric attitude. Are you saying that one billion people have an unnatural conception of marriage?
> 
> Mmm... Interesting
Click to expand...


Spot the alteration?  
I included, but did not highlight, "two" because that's how states tend see the *civil* side of marriage. You will also note that I used the expression "it appears to be". I wasn't ruling out anything.  
In places where polygamy is practiced (which I presume your mention of "one billion people" refers to) the actual marriages involved are still between two people - one person may undergo several marriage ceremonies and have, as a result, several spouses - but each "marriage" is a separate event.
If you know of a different, multi-partner marriage custom, I'd be interested to hear about both it and the billion to whom it relates.


----------



## vince

For those who argue that only heterosexual marriage is sacred, you would argue that Britney Spears's 55-hour split-second-decision marriage in Las Vegas wearing a baseball cap and jeans is more sacred and natural than  that between two committed, dedicated men who feel they were meant to be together, who intend to be exclusive non-adulterous non-promiscuous partners who have a gift for taking care of kids and would love to raise one one day?

Some of the opponents of gay marriage are pointing to "the ability or potential to bear children". If a straight couple adopts children, are the children then unnatural because they are not the fruit of a straight marriage? If they aren't, then why would a same-sex couple adopting children be any different?

Then some opponents make a fuss about the child not having a mother (in the case of two males) or a father (in the case of two females). This is again stereotyping gender roles! Somehow they are insinuating that the lack of a male ==> no strong, leadership influence (as though women can't have these qualities) and that lack of a female ==> no caring and emotional influence (as though men can't have these qualities).

I think the problem intolerant people and a lot of religious people have is with the term "marriage", they believe it is only defined for being between a man and a woman.

Okay then, instead of redefining marriage as a whole, let's redefine their definition of marriage as "Orthodox Islamic/Christian marriage" so that the term "marriage" applies to any two mutually-consenting adults. Let the religious groups that oppose gay marriage define their own definitions of marriage. So in this way, a marriage between two women is marriage, but it is just not an Orthodox Islamic marriage.

The only problem I see with same-sex marriages nowadays are with other kids making fun of them at school and the child being emotionally scarred from it. But this is due to society's current bigotry at large. Once people start to realize that yes, two men and two women can love each other in the exact same way a man and a woman can, this problem will go away.


----------



## emma42

I have to say that _all _of the children of gay partnerships and marriages that I know are lovely, well-adjusted children. This is only anecdotal, of course, and involves particularly nice and well-balanced people, but it would certainly appear to contradict any assertion that children brought up by two men or two women will necessarily be harmed or confused in any way.

Should I open a new thread if we are going to talk about this?


----------



## maxiogee

vince said:
			
		

> For those who argue that only heterosexual marriage is sacred, you would argue that Britney Spears's 55-hour split-second-decision marriage in Las Vegas wearing a baseball cap and jeans is more sacred and natural than  that between two committed, dedicated men who feel they were meant to be together, who intend to be exclusive non-adulterous non-promiscuous partners who have a gift for taking care of kids and would love to raise one one day?



Or Elizabeth Taylor, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Mickey Rooney et al. Seriously serial spouses! 
*Till death do us part? *Oh yeah? 
*What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder?* Right!


----------



## panjabigator

Is there a main question to this thread or are we just discussing Marriage?


----------



## maxiogee

Well to come to understand what attitudes people might have about homosexual marriage, we must first come to an understanding of the terms involved.
As we all know what we mean by homosexual, that just leaves marriage to be sorted. I was trying to separate the civil aspect from any religious attachments it has, as any voluntary organisation is free to assume any rules and interpretations it wishes regarding its functions and services.


----------



## panjabigator

panjabigator said:
			
		

> Is there a main question to this thread or are we just discussing Marriage?



I meant in reference to Gay marriage...


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I meant in reference to Gay marriage...



Yes, the main question is (was, once upon a time, in a thread far, far away) *Should gay couples have a "right" to get married?*


----------



## Ana Raquel

I don't know why they shouldn't have that right because if heterosexual couples have that right and don't marry to have a baby every time they use the reproductive system, I mean, the use of it is not restricted to have a baby, then what's the point that homosexual couples shouldn't marry because they don't have babies? 

What I don't understand well is why we humans use that system for another purpose, I mean, we use the breathing system to breath, the digestive system to digest the food, etc, every system has its purpose and is designed to its end, so, why we are phisically compelled to use the reproductive system not just to have babies but for enjoyement both hetero and homosexual couples? The two ends, reproduction and enjoyement, should be separated.


----------



## maxiogee

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> What I don't understand well is why we humans use that system for another purpose, I mean, we use the breathing system to breath, the digestive system to digest the food, etc, every system has its purpose and is designed to its end, so, why we are phisically compelled to use the reproductive system not just to have babies but for enjoyement both hetero and homosexual couples? The two ends, reproduction and enjoyement, should be separated.



Ana Raquel, you need to understand how evolution works. We are not compelled to use the reproductive system for enjoyment, that is the *enticement* we get from evolution to ensure the propagation of the species - which is the primary impulse of DNA —> divide&splice and replicate.
Just as the flower buys the bee's pollen-distribution service with nectar, so our bodies evolved a pleasure mechanism to ensure that we attempt the arduous investment which pregnancy demands. If people got no pleasure from the sex act, would relationships last long enough to see a child raised to adulthood?


----------



## Ana Raquel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If people got no pleasure from the sex act, would relationships last long enough to see a child raised to adulthood?


 
ah?! is that the reason? That would mean that that system has two purposes. How could you explain it? in terms of design, for instance, or whatever explanation you can offer, something that proves the purpose of seeing the child raised to adulthood not as an opinion or possibility, something that can be observed, do you know?


----------



## maxiogee

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> ah?! is that the reason? That would mean that that system has two purposes. How could you explain it? in terms of design, for instance, or whatever explanation you can offer, something that proves the purpose of seeing the child raised to adulthood not as an opinion or possibility, something that can be observed, do you know?



*I* can't explain it, and unfortunately I cannot remember where I came across the theory, but it might have been one of the David Attenborough type documentary series on life on earth.


----------



## Ana Raquel

ok, I see.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> If people got no pleasure from the sex act, would relationships last long enough to see a child raised to adulthood?


 
I was thinking and it can't be the reason because in that case, a father would never feel like having sex with another woman that wasn't the mother of his children, and a mother the same, and we know that it can happen.


----------



## maxiogee

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> ok, I see.
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking and it can't be the reason because in that case, a father would never feel like having sex with another woman that wasn't the mother of his children, and a mother the same, and we know that it can happen.



The pleasure is not exclusively generated by the couple involved. Often one party gets no 'pleasure' at all. 
The act is pleasurable, but that is often quite independent of the company involved!


----------



## panjabigator

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Yes, the main question is (was, once upon a time, in a thread far, far away) *Should gay couples have a "right" to get married?*



Definitely.  I see no problem in letting two committed people get married, regardless of gender.  What is the big deal about it?  Religious conservatism aside, the marriage police should be after the people in Vegas that are hooking up and divorcing 23 hours later (brittney spears).  How is her marriage of 23 hours for fun considered more sacred then a same sex marriage?


----------



## COLsass

panjabigator said:
			
		

> Definitely. I see no problem in letting two committed people get married, regardless of gender. What is the big deal about it? Religious conservatism aside, the marriage police should be after the people in Vegas that are hooking up and divorcing 23 hours later (brittney spears). How is her marriage of 23 hours for fun considered more sacred then a same sex marriage?


 
This borders on one of my pet peeves in this homo-argumentation deal: the institution of marriage is so off the tracks, so enmeshed and embroiled in straight failure, that we might as well allow gay people to marry.  "It couldn't possible debase marriage any more to allow gays to marry; I mean just look at it: marriage is a screwed up institution, so who cares."  While I'm personally against the superstition surrounded the instution of marriage (what is all the hullaboo about with our obsession with sanctity?) and as a result pretty indifferent to marriage itself, inequality, indeed, _inequity_, must not be written into law.

My question is: if gays do end up being "granted" (aren't those governments so giving) in more countries the right to marry, will it change the terrible mistreatment and discrimination?  This is a serious question for me, because I've always wondered how influential law-making is on standardizing public opinion on issues.  Obviously abortion has backtracked recently in the US, but has its acceptance at one point created a precedence that in the long run normalizes it or is society (specifically US society) going to be further enraged and divided by definitive legislation on the matter?


----------



## panjabigator

COLsass said:
			
		

> This borders on one of my pet peeves in this homo-argumentation deal: the institution of marriage is so off the tracks, so enmeshed and embroiled in straight failure, that we might as well allow gay people to marry. "It couldn't possible debase marriage any more to allow gays to marry; I mean just look at it: marriage is a screwed up institution, so who cares." While I'm personally against the superstition surrounded the instution of marriage (what is all the hullaboo about with our obsession with sanctity?) and as a result pretty indifferent to marriage itself, inequality, indeed, _inequity_, must not be written into law.


I do aggree with one thing I guess...it is a weak argument to point at one inadequacy to justify my argument. Now it sound's like I'm saying "hey, it's not that bad..." which is a weak point. I just do not see what the fuss is over Gay-marriage. Religious beliefs aside (as I cannot question that), what is the main argument against Gay marriage? Does it stem from the "choice" of being homosexual vs heterosexual? Does it stem from the evolutionary aspect of Man and Women, that if you aren't propagating the species, you shouldn't be married? But anyside from that, good point. 
**smacks forhead...stupid stupid stupid**

Side note:  I do not believe in marriage, but that is my personal issue.


			
				COLsass said:
			
		

> My question is: if gays do end up being "granted" (aren't those governments so giving) in more countries the right to marry, will it change the terrible mistreatment and discrimination? This is a serious question for me, because I've always wondered how influential law-making is on standardizing public opinion on issues. Obviously abortion has backtracked recently in the US, but has its acceptance at one point created a precedence that in the long run normalizes it or is society (specifically US society) going to be further enraged and divided by definitive legislation on the matter?


 I really do not thinks so...it may help, and perhaps future generations will be less likely to stare at a gay couple, but I don't see the mistreatment ever subsiding. I personally feel that if there were a law allowing Gay marriage in the US, the conservatives would have a fit and overturn it in ASAP. I do not see any resolution...


----------



## timpeac

I agree that saying "marriage is being undermined because of reasons xyz so it doesn't matter if letting gays get married too undermines it further" (not that I think it does) but this cuts both ways: It is equally nonsensical to think that giving gays the right to marry would undermine the institution between heterosexual couples.

At the end of the day if people love each other then let them show it! If religions, as a separate issue, wish to further sanctify and honour or otherwise recognise certain types of union and not others then let them get on with it.

For me marriage is what you consider it to be over and above the stark legal combination of estates. Anyone married in any religion, or in a registry office, or as a civil partnership, or as part of PACS (in France) etc have simply combined their estates. Which of these, if any, you wish to call "marriage" is a matter of pure semantics.

What a fuss over nothing.


----------

