Technically, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Should homsexuals be allowed to live together and do what straight couples should do? Yes. Should they be allowed a ceremony that states their union? Yes. Should it be called marriage? No, since technically it isn't."Technically", that's been changing over time. The ancient Greeks and Romans allowed homosexual marriage, as far as I know. Then the Christians came along and condemned it.

"Technically", not outlawing consensual sex between men (what the greeks and romans did) and allowing homosexual marriage (what the greeks and romans didn't do) aren't the same thing.

Truthfully, I think this is more about a group of people who want others to accept their sexuality. I don't buy into the idea that they want to get married for the sake of marriage. I am a Christian by birth right, so I am going to try to keep this unbias as possible. I am certain to fail. Marriage 'The Religious' bond between man and women is sacred to religion, and God was very clear on how he wants people to behave. Marriage 'The Government' version of the bond is non-religious in nature, so anyone who doesn't have a religion can get hitched.

It is not God's way to shut a door on anyone. It is upto the person thenselves to find salvation. I have a problem when I hear, "We have evolved beyond the Bible." I find that as a foolish statement. We have not evolved far enough, and the Bible is light years ahead of mankind on several issues.

When it comes to the 'Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage' issue, I will fall back upon my faith for answers. God will not close a door to these people, for they are still his people. The problem is vice-versa, they have closed the door on God. When they are ready, God's door will be open. All they have to do is ask and listen.

I don't accept their sexual acts, but I do accept them as a humanbeing. They don't deserve to be married by a priest, for they turned their back on God. They do deserve a chance to learn from Sodom.

I'm sure you'd expect that I would disagree about your statement that the bible is "light years ahead of man," since it was written by a bunch of superstitious, Bronze Age nomads bent on killing each other over their ethnic feuds (see Samuel, Exodus, etc).

But I will defend you right to have your opinion of homosexuality and its incompatibility with your religious beliefs to the end.

If you don't like homosexuality and same-sex marriage, don't bump uglies with or marry a member of your own gender. I don't even need religious superstition, and I chose quite easily to marry the opposite sex. But I wouldn't presume to limit the freedom of two other people in love, even if they were the same gender.

Marriage 'The Religious' bond between man and women is sacred to religion, and God was very clear on how he wants people to behave. Marriage 'The Government' version of the bond is non-religious in nature, so anyone who doesn't have a religion can get hitched.

Exactly. Which is why its sooo stupid for people like george bush to try and stop GOVERNMENT homosexual marriage based on THEIR religious views. Government marriage should be open to anyone, whatever their race, creed, religion, eye colour, finances or orientation.

-

(OT but: Given your belief tht the bible is lightyears ahead of us, and we can't outgrow it, then i assume you believe that rape victims should be stoned or forced to marry their attackers and adulterers should be put to death. Though of course only christian ones.)

Exactly. Which is why its sooo stupid for people like george bush to try and stop GOVERNMENT homosexual marriage based on THEIR religious views. Government marriage should be open to anyone, whatever their race, creed, religion, eye colour, finances or orientation.
If the 'Government' version of marriage is based upon 'Religion's' version, I can see how this would be an issue. Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

If the 'Government' version of marriage is based upon 'Religion's' version, I can see how this would be an issue. Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

That isn't true. You don't have to be homosexual to support the issue.

Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

Are you saying that only homosexuals support Gay Marrage?

Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

Ever heard of the logical fallacy known as the non-sequitur?

Only 2% of the US population is homosexual.10%, according to a 1948 figure by Kinsey.

Much of Kinsey's work has been discredited. The 10% figure is considered to be on the high end of estimates, with the more likely figure being around 2-3%:

'In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent. While concluding that the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households, for the purposes of this study, we estimate the gay and lesbian population at 5 percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age, (209,128,094). This results in an estimated total gay and lesbian population of 10,456,405. A recent study of gay and lesbian voting habits conducted by Harris Interactive determined that 30 percent of gay and lesbian people are living in a committed relationship in the same residence. Using that figure, we suggest that 3,136,921 gay or lesbian people are living in the United States in committed relationships in the same residence. '4

So, if we accept that the data presented by the Human Rights Commission is indeed indicative of the real numbers, then it shows that the census data is only showing up a small percentage of the actual number of gay people living in America. Until, however, a nationwide survey is done, asking questions on sexual attitudes and behaviour, then we can only use data and analyses, such as the ones above, to work out an answer to the question of gay people living in America.

source:http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm)

As to the question of marriage, no. Don't see a reason. There are other legal means by which homosexuals can cohabitate and transfer property to each other. Marriage, as ED has pointed out, is by definition a union between man and woman.

Just like slaves, by definition, were only 3/5 of a human being?

Geez, ET, then don't forget about how the Nazis didn't include Jews, slavs, blacks and others as being not even human. Nor how liberals are quick to deny humans any rights till the doctor has removed them COMPLETELY from their mothers' wombs. But seeing as how homosexuals are not treated as other than human (at least under US law), it's hard to make the argument you seem to be insinuating. Much of law is merely a high powered game of semantics. Gay people here (and no doubt in many western countries) tend to be in a higher income bracket and as such can generate market forces to cater to their needs (eg, insurance etc..). As it stands, there is little or nothing that stops gay people from cohabitating or leaving thier money to each other in case of death. Maybe they can't leave their SS to each other, but I'm guessing that can be tacked on as a rider to some bill. Politicians like to be sneaky that way.

As it stands, there is little or nothing that stops gay people from cohabitating or leaving thier money to each other in case of death. Maybe they can't leave their SS to each other, but I'm guessing that can be tacked on as a rider to some bill. Politicians like to be sneaky that way.

I still fail to see a logical, reasoned argument against same-sex marriage. They're adults. They're consenting. They present no harm to others that can be measurably noted. The only excuse to disallow same-sex marriage is religious superstition -and such an excuse is not a reasoned one.

Well, most people don't see a logical, reasoned need for gay people to be married. Frankly, the main reason for marriage in the first place was mainly to provide a stable setting for the raising of children by a mother and father. If you want to take the attitude that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry either, makes no dif to me. I'm not saying homosexuals should be legally prevented from doing whatever they do behind closed doors as consenting adults, just that there's no demonstrable need for gay marriage. They can call it a union as ED suggested earlier and other legal provisions (much like private corps are doing even now) can be made for their financial needs, as it were.

Well, most people don't see a logical, reasoned need for gay people to be married.Nonsense. In fact, SkinWalker just listed them, and to shorten it down: "It does no harm to them or others, so what's the problem"?

Frankly, the main reason for marriage in the first place was mainly to provide a stable setting for the raising of children by a mother and father.Do you know that? Back in the Roman Empire and ancient Greece, marriage was for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals - as long as you married only within your class, I think. Skin will correct me if I'm wrong, I suppose.

And homosexuals can raise children. And before anyone spouts the "the kid will be tortured on the playground"-myth imported from the equally stupid movement against inter-colour marriage and adoption: Statistics from countries where gay adoption is allowed shows that's not the case. They're as accepted as children of inter-racial couples.

And how many kids await adoption in the US alone again? 100 000? It's funny how the neo-cons don't want abortion and still

If you want to take the attitude that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry either, makes no dif to me.It should. It makes a huge difference to the said sterile people.

I'm not saying homosexuals should be legally prevented from doing whatever they do behind closed doors as consenting adults, just that there's no demonstrable need for gay marriage. They can call it a union as ED suggested earlier and other legal provisions (much like private corps are doing even now) can be made for their financial needs, as it were.Going by that reasoning, there's no need for inter-racial marriage either, or for that case, heterosexual marriage.

If you think it's good enough for them, then surely it's good enough for you, no?

Marriage, as ED has pointed out, is by definition a union between man and woman.So?

Far as I know, there's no NEED for interacial marriage, nor is there any reason to ban it. I mentioned infertile couples b/c most people try to argue that if the prohibition on gay marriage is due to inability to reproduce, then shouldn't infertile heteros also be denied.

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should allow public masturbation and coitus so long as the people involved clean themselves up and not contaminate anyone/thing.

Actually, I believe you (or someone else) was corrected about that in an earlier post. Such marriages weren't sanctioned, but homosexual activity wasn't necessarily discouraged.

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should allow public masturbation and coitus so long as the people involved clean themselves up and not contaminate anyone/thing.

Your non sequiturs notwithstanding, lets stick to the issue at hand: same sex marriage. There are many more reasons for wanting to be married than to produce children. Indeed, if this were the sole reason for marriage, there wouldn't exist today many couples who chose to marry and not produce children. Indeed, I don't recall reproduction being mentioned in my marriage vows at all.

So, just because you fail to see logical reasons for joining with another adult in marriage, doesn't imply that they don't exist for the rest of us. Which brings us back to the main point: there are no reasons to restrict same sex marriage and many reasons to allow it. Reasons which I, and others, have already stated in the thread.

The only reasons I see you mention are basically "b/c I wanna" and "it's not (measurably) hurting anyone" and they're consenting adults. You really haven't demonstrated, logically or otherwise, any real reason to turn marriage upside down to include homosexuals. Outside of govt benefits (SS, govt pension, etc..) there is no pressing financial reason either. Private companies are already setting up benefit plans that are homosexual friendly, from pension plans to medical benefits.

Your comment about your marriage vows are equally non-sequitur in nature. Not mentioning procreation in wedding vows doesn't change the original reason for why marriage was created in the first place. I was merely responding to the non issue about it "not harming anyone" as a reason for allowing something.

I'll review the thread and give a post # later. Perhaps it was in one of the other many threads where the same topic was discussed. Either way, I'll summarize that point and the logical reasons later. Gotta run.

Far as I know, there's no NEED for interacial marriage, nor is there any reason to ban it.[/quote]Then support it. If you don't dislike it, what's the problem?

I mentioned infertile couples b/c most people try to argue that if the prohibition on gay marriage is due to inability to reproduce, then shouldn't infertile heteros also be denied.And it is a valid argument. You imply marriage without child-birth is wasted or not fullfilling the meaning of marriage. We point out that by that reasoning you should be against infertile marriage, too, or marriage between two people who simply don't want to have kids.

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should allow public masturbation and coitus so long as the people involved clean themselves up and not contaminate anyone/thing.Public sex is different from private marriage. Apples and oranges.

The only reasons I see you mention are basically "b/c I wanna" and "it's not (measurably) hurting anyone"It's not hurting anyone, period. Show me how it's "immeasurably" hurting somone, please.

You really haven't demonstrated, logically or otherwise, any real reason to turn marriage upside down to include homosexuals.The above-mentioned reason is a logical reason to support it. They deserve equal treatment, plain and simple.

Oh, and it was the disallowing of homosexual relationships turned it upside-down back in the day. We're merely repairing the damage.

Outside of govt benefits (SS, govt pension, etc..) there is no pressing financial reason either.Nope. Besides from the important ones, there aren't any important ones.

Your comment about your marriage vows are equally non-sequitur in nature. Not mentioning procreation in wedding vows doesn't change the original reason for why marriage was created in the first place.One word: Progress.

Originally, traditionally, the woman's place was in the home and the man's place was at work. Yet you're not complaining about them "turning roles upside-down" to allow women to work, do you?

I was merely responding to the non issue about it "not harming anyone" as a reason for allowing something.It's not intended to hurt anyone, and it does not hurt anyone. No more than the end of segregation hurt anyone. No more than inter-racial adoption did. No more than inter-religious marriage does.

The thread's alive once more, and once more everybody seems to be ignoring an important aspect of the debate. Marriage itself should be abolished.

Gay "marriage", straight marriage, interracial marriage, marriage 'twixt man and fluffy bunny slipper... they must all be abolished. Reasons: State or religious sanctioning of a romantic relationship does not make the relationship stronger, nor does it make it more stable; the divorce industry lives vampirically off the equally vampiric marriage industry. The still existing financial breaks for married couples are an injustice to single people; one should not be given money from the state for living together, as sharing bills is ENOUGH of a break, thank you very much.

Silly people refer to the legalising of gay marriage as "progress". But it's not social progress in any conceivable form. Progress would be throwing away this pseudo-mystical ritual of marriage. Throwing away the state's sanctioning of it. Let religious people throw whatever strangely dressed party they want, but state-sanctioned financially advantageous marriages must go.

Ya know, Spider, you almost convince me...

DE@ apples and oranges only in terms of both acts being intrinsically different. The underlying principle, however is not. Just because you think something isn't harmful (your argumnet) doesn't mean people should do it (hence my somewhat over the top examples).

Also, I say that if you want to set up a different type of union for infertile couples or people who want no chidren whatsoever, you'll get no argument from me. They can fall under the same style of civil union provisions that can be given homosexuals.

Since hurt is such a loaded concept, perhaps you should define your term before I deal with that issue. Also, your concept of progress seems a little odd. How is the inevitably higher rate of likely divorce amongst gay people going to benefit any one but wedding planners and divorce lawyers? Given that homosexuals have a higher rate of promoscuity than even heterosexuals, this isn't an unreasonable conclusion.

Ultimately, this goes to Skinwalker as well, there is no logical reason to change the traditional meaning of marriage, but arguably the law could be amended to deal with gay unions and their subsequent issues.

How is the inevitably higher rate of likely divorce amongst gay people going to benefit any one but wedding planners and divorce lawyers? Given that homosexuals have a higher rate of promoscuity than even heterosexuals, this isn't an unreasonable conclusion.You made all of that information up. I doubt you have any empirical evidence ot assume that there will be a higher rate of divorce, OR that homosexuals are inherently more promiscuous than heteros.
Just because equality doesn't seem like a logical reason to YOU, doesn't mean that it is not a logical reason. Homosexuals should be able to marry because heterosexuals are able to marry. You are intentionally discriminating against a specific group of people, just for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

Personally I'm partially in agreement with Spider, the only thing that I think is nice with marriage is the things like hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. While all these things can be arranged, there are about 8 million forms and other procedures to go through, when a single marriage license takes care of it. However, as marriage isn't likely to go away anytime soon, I'd say it's best to offer it to everyone and let the people who want it choose to have it.

ET, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the necessity of "homosexual marriage".

As to empiracal studies, there is one major problem with statistics. They're too easily skewed and often only reflect a small subset of opinion and behavior, while being extrapolated to reflect a much larger one. Further, given that you don't really know if the participants are being truthful, you have no way to know which parts of a study would have any validity. Everything is couched in assumptions. But, no, I didn't make the statement up. It is based on the claims of prolific sexual conduct on the part of many young gay males (perhaps lesbians are more monogamous). But as I've stated above, it's possible they are lying and that there is no real way to know. So, in the interest of fairness, I'll disclaim that statement.

For the sake of the possibly of making him a bit more happy than he already is, I fully agree with Mister AL.

I mean, I see no reason why anyone should be excluded from the right to get married, nor do I see a reason to limit the number of persons in marriage regardless of skincolour, gender and grade of underarm perspiration. Until everybody is married to each other, and we're all one big clan, if you want.

But seriously, why? To feel special?

Just because you think something isn't harmful (your argumnet) doesn't mean people should do it (hence my somewhat over the top examples).What I said was that they shouldn't be disallowed from doing it, not that they should do it (although, of course, I think couples who've decided to be together should marry, if they're sure it's right for them).

And it's not a "just": If something does no harm to others or themselves, they're free to do it. Homosexual marriage shouldn't harm the participants, nor the rest of society, so you have no reason to ban it. And if you have no reason to keep it illegal, don't keep it illegal. The "you have no logical reason to legalize it"-argument just doesn't hold water.

Also, I say that if you want to set up a different type of union for infertile couples or people who want no chidren whatsoeverI never said I did. I asked if you did, since you seem to have an issue with marriages that don't produce off-spring.

Since hurt is such a loaded concept, perhaps you should define your term before I deal with that issue.I don't need to define anything. Work by your own definition. What damage to others does homoseuxal marriage do?

But seriously, why? To feel special?Why what? Why legalize gay marriage?

In that case, no, it's not for them to "feel special". Equality has nothing to do with special treatment. It is, by definition, the opposite of special treatment.

Why marry? Better question. My aunt and uncle had two kids a decade before their marriage, and they're still together. They're just as good a family as the rest of them, but because they didn't marry earlier, they didn't get the benefits of married people.

The latter :p
They're just as good a family as the rest of them, but because they didn't marry earlier, they didn't get the benefits of married people.Ah, so this is where equality stops. A "good" couple, creating offspring, providing a stable and valuable home for their children, teaching them and take caring of them, and thus, in consequence, help to keep our species alife. And yet they are not getting the benefits of married people, while others, who are married without children, get them for no apparent reason but being married. Although the aim of being married is all so often stated as creating offspring and founding a base for a new family, and that's why these benefits for married couples exist in the first place.

DE you confuse a lot of issues. It's not a question of whether your aunt and uncle are good people or even good parents. If you don't like the rules of your government, you need to change them. If they didn't get married, then they didn't qualify for whatever benefits the government offered to MARRIED people.

I need not define harm b/c you're the one who brought up the issue by stating there was no harm being done. I'm merely requesting that you define your terms. Also, your playing semantic games on the whole question of "should" . Perhaps you would have had an easier time if I'd typed "should be allowed to" in it's place. You also miss the point, seemingly on purpose no doubt. I, at least, am not saying that gays should not be allowed to cohabitate in a secular society without some protections of law. I merely agree with those that say there's no need to call it marriage. And you clearly don't read too closely either. I didn't say that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, but that it was a nonissue to me either way. The original point was stated clearly enough already. Many people who push for gay marriage cite that their opponents are being hyopcritical on the issue of marriage for the purposes of procreation. If infertile couples can marry, as well as people who want NO childeren, then why should homosexuals not be allowed since they can't either. Makes no difference to me either way whether infertile couples or those not wanting children are allowed to marry or not.

I, at least, am not saying that gays should not be allowed to cohabitate in a secular society without some protections of law. I merely agree with those that say there's no need to call it marriage. There are quite a few gays that want to be 'married.' If there is no reason not to allow them - because 'marriage' is not an state institution that requires anything other than a willingness by both parties to abide by the commitment (aka contract) - then why are they not allowed? I'd be quite wary of taking 'status quo' or 'definitions' of marriage as a reason. Those haven't been very useful in the past on deciding similar issues in a way conducive to greater freedom.

By the way, I do think that absolutely everything should be allowed by default as long as it does not impact other people's freedoms. In my opinion, the right of heterosexuals to be not offended - which is a choice of theirs - does not justify actively excluding and descriminating against homosexuals in regard to the benefits/name of marriage, particularly when the situation of 'married' homosexuals is essentially the same as a 'married' heterosexual couple. There is no possible passive descrimination because the Constitution specifically states that all citizens are equal under the law.

DE you confuse a lot of issues. It's not a question of whether your aunt and uncle are good people or even good parents.Yes, it is. And as such, the system should allow them the same privilegues.

If you don't like the rules of your government, you need to change them.No ****? What's next, I need to eat when I'm hungry?

The whole "gays have civil unions, straights have identical marriage"-idea sounds suspiciously like the "segregated-but-equal"-system of the Apartheid regime.

Yes, it is. And as such, the system should allow them the same privilegues.

No ****? What's next, I need to eat when I'm hungry?

The whole "gays have civil unions, straights have identical marriage"-idea sounds suspiciously like the "segregated-but-equal"-system of the Apartheid regime. :rolleyes: :violin:


I don't know, how hungry are you? :marx1:

:rolleyes: :violin:That's what they said about segregation back then.

Or would have, had the Internet and violin icon been invented.

Well, last I checked, it was an accident of birth (ie undeniable genetic reason) that causes people to be whatever race they are. There is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is genetic, so strictly speaking, your comparison is apples and oranges.
Segregation was based on factors beyond the control of the individual (ie we dont determine our race, it's chosen for us), thus your comparison is forced at best.

Segregation was based on factors beyond the control of the individual (ie we dont determine our race, it's chosen for us), thus your comparison is forced at best.

Uh, sexual orientation is beyond the control of the individual as well, even if it's not genetic. I didn't choose to be straight, and gay people don't choose to be gay.

If it's not genetic (ie hardwired into the brain), it's not beyond our control. You might as well say people can't control any of their impulses, sexual or otherwise.

If it's not genetic (ie hardwired into the brain), it's not beyond our control. You might as well say people can't control any of their impulses, sexual or otherwise.

People can't control their impulses. At least not many of them. Just look at how many teenage girls are pregnant, how many people cheat on their spouse, how many people are ****ing fat as ****, and you'll come to the same conclusion.

The only conclusion I'll come to is that these peple have abandonned any sense of self control (probably from being told...if it feels good, do it) and are seeking to blame others for their problems. If people were as helpless as you suggest, then no would be physically fit and we'd all have STD's as well as a host of other problems.

Yes,.. I'm sure most gay people have consciously chosen to be among the most isolated and persecuted members of our society of our time. :rolleyes:

Sounds like a hell of a lot of fun to me... :dozey:

Face it: People are born homosexual. It's just one of the many variations that human beings take.
Science may not be able to prove it conclusively yet... but I've no doubt that they eventually will. It's simply not a choice people do (or would) consciously make. In fact, many will admit to fighting against it for much of their lives in order to try to fit into the "norms" set forth by our rigid and judgemental society.

Last time I checked, we had not stopped identifying what all of our DNA does yet. We don't know there is no "gay gene". Not that it matters anyhow.

Look, homosexuality is not a choice. I realize it makes you feels better about being against homosexuality, but there is just no logical reason whatsoever to believe it. Look at all the people who committ suicide for being gay when they could instead just "choose" to become straight instead.

Well, last I checked, it was an accident of birth (ie undeniable genetic reason) that causes people to be whatever race they are. There is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is genetic, so strictly speaking, your comparison is apples and oranges.
Segregation was based on factors beyond the control of the individual (ie we dont determine our race, it's chosen for us), thus your comparison is forced at best.

There are conclusions that at least show that genetics *is* involved. What hasnt' been shown conclusively is that homosexuality is 100% genetic. Homosexual males have been demonstrated to be more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers as well as homosexual maternal uncles and cousins on the mother's side (Hamer, et al, 1993). Near the tip of the Xq28 region of the sex chromosomes, researchers have found five identical markers shared by a high percentage of homosexual brothers. The evidence of a hereditary nature to homosexuality is clear, moreover, the pattern of incidence confirms this.

Now, having said that, one cannot simply say that because one has the "markers" for homosexuality, one will be homosexual upon maturation. These markers are more analogous to a recipe than a blueprint. Give an engineer a house and he can create a blueprint of it simply by close examination and perhaps by de-constructing it. A chef, however, cannot create a recipe simply by handing him a finished pastry. The parts cannot be closely examined enough or de-constructed to do it. This is what's involved in human maturation: a recipe of parts, instructions (DNA) and conditions.

But regardless of whether or not homosexuality can be conclusively demonstrated to be "genetic" or not, and even the American Psychological Association (APA) (http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html) recognizes homosexuality as a condition that cannot be cured or readily changed in a healthy manner. I mention the APA not as an appeal to authority, but because they offer some sound opinion with regard to same-sex marriage:

Prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and other members of their families the legal, financial and social advantages of civil marriage [...] The APA recognizes the importance of the institution of civil marriage which confers a social status with important legal benefits, rights and privileges."

The APA ends their position statement by noting that the United States Accounting Office (Shah 2004) cites over "over 1,000 federal statutory provisions exist in which marital status is a factor in determining a person’s eligibility to receive various benefits, rights and privileges." Many of these are rights and privileges that cannot be had by non-married couples through other means and no where can a single contract provide those that can be.

The rights and privileges include:
legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents
joint or coparent adoption
foster parenting
eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies
ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety - a special kind of property ownership for married couples so that when the spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property
automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner
protection of marital home from creditors
access to employer-based health insurance
ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act
abiltiy to obtain life insurance
ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies & family discounts
recognition as an authority in educational settings (register your kid for school, provide consent waivers, etc)
access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation
ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of parenthood
the privilege of not having to testify against a spouse in court
surviving parent's rights to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children
social security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children
tax exemptions for surviving spouse in property taxes
ability to roll a deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying a tax penalty
the right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased spouse

The fallacious notion that same-sex couples can't reproduce was mentioned, but this is obviously not true. They just cannot reproduce with each other. They can, and do, reproduce using surrogates and former partners. But they also adopt. Nationwide, over one quarter of same-sex couples are currently raising children. This is compared to 45.6% of heterosexual couples and 41.3% of single heterosexuals (US Census Bureau 2003). That so many obstacles exist for same-sex couples and yet they are raising children would indicate that there is a need for legalized, same-sex marriage.

There is no logical reason to disallow and some very good reasons to legalize it.

references:

Hamer, D.H., et al (1993) A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

Pawelski, JG; et al (2005). The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children. Pediatrics, 118, 349-364.

Shah, DK (2004). Defense of Marriage Act: update to prior report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf). US General Accounting Office, accessed Oct. 21, 2006.

US Census Bureau (2003). Married-couple and unmarried-partner households: 2000—Census 2000 special reports. Available at: www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf) [PDF]

Originally posted by SkinWalker:

There are conclusions that at least show that genetics *is* involved. What hasnt' been shown conclusively is that homosexuality is 100% genetic. Homosexual males have been demonstrated to be more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers as well as homosexual maternal uncles and cousins on the mother's side (Hamer, et al, 1993). Near the tip of the Xq28 region of the sex chromosomes, researchers have found five identical markers shared by a high percentage of homosexual brothers. The evidence of a hereditary nature to homosexuality is clear, moreover, the pattern of incidence confirms this.
Everyone always digs this study out, but they rarely note that its conclusions were not supported by another study conducted by Rice et al in 1999. Rice et al found no significant linkage between the xq28 chromesome and increased homosexual tendency.

It is perfectly possible that genetic involvement in the development of homosexual tendencies is negligible. It is conversely possible that the genetic linkage is quite appreciable. But there is insufficient evidence either way to make an informed judgement. The final answer is that we still don't know what the heck causes homosexuality. Could be 90% nature, could be 90% nurture. Could be 100% of either, but since nobody has very much compelling evidence, it's rather irrelevant to the debate to speculate.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

The fallacious notion that same-sex couples can't reproduce was mentioned, but this is obviously not true. They just cannot reproduce with each other.Is it just me, or is that rather stating the obvious? Like... "A man and a female bullfrog living in sin can reproduce, just not with each other." :D

It's sufficient to say they can't have children together. Does that make me a froggist? A froggophobic?

When hardline religious people say "but gay people can't have children" I think by and large they're fully aware of the possiblity of surrogate parents, artificial insemination for the ladies, and also the possiblity of adoption. It's just that they disagree with gay people doing any of THOSE things, too.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

There is no logical reason to disallow and some very good reasons to legalize it. Once again, the institution of state-sanctioned marriages should be disallowed FOR ALL. A couple of people have made the point that "well marriage isn't going to be phased out anytime soon, so it's better to allow gays to marry."

Wrong.

The only reason homosexuals have gained the right of civil partnerships is because people have campaigned for so long for it to happen. If all that energy had been properly directed towards the abolition of marriage as a state-sanctioned perk, then we'd probably have got it by now. But no, people have to think only of the small picture.

All these silly campaigners and bleeding hearts have done, is to excascerbate an already existing injustice. So now gay people can marry. Whoop-tee-doo. That means that all the rest of us, the people both homosexual and heterosexual who don't believe in marriage, or are single, are now put upon by a slightly enlarged group of overpriveliged wedding-victims.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

Look, homosexuality is not a choice. I realize it makes you feels better about being against homosexuality, but there is just no logical reason whatsoever to believe it. Look at all the people who committ suicide for being gay when they could instead just "choose" to become straight instead.Sorry, but the assertion "if they could choose not to be gay, they would" doesn't hold water. Many people consciously choose to be reviled and oppressed. People choose to be vegetarian. People choose to be promiscuous. People choose to be prostitutes. And people, homosexual or not, largely commit suicide because they're depressed. Things like "I'm topping myself because I'm homosexual" are excuses, rather than reasons. If suicides could adequately see logic while they were depressed, they wouldn't kill themselves.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuality is or is not a conscious choice. Logic dictates that some people who are more bi-sexual than others WILL be able to consciously choose one gender to lust after, more easily than the rest of us. But not all choices are instant, conscious choices.

How about the job you end up doing for your entire life? How did you end up in that job? Did you wake up one morning when you were seventeen and decide "Yep, from this day forth I will be office-man, defender of stationary supplies everywhere." Of course not. Most people will just drift into the job they end up doing. It won't be one conscious choice, it will be lots of little choices, subconscious and conscious, made along the way.

Yes, we chose our lives. For most, it wasn't one single moment of clarity, it was a gradual progression.

Combined with natural, genetic predispositions of some unknown degree, and social conditioning, I believe these three factors adequately explain the genesis all personality traits, not just sexual predilictions.

People can't control their impulses. At least not many of them. Just look at how many teenage girls are pregnant, how many people cheat on their spouse, how many people are ****ing fat as ****, and you'll come to the same conclusion.
Are you sure that those examples aren't due to an utter lack of personal discipline and self-control? The same could be said about substance abuse or even pedophilia. Too bad the legal system doesn't agree. Truthfully, I can't agree with that either, even though I have rotten self-control. :p

Straight people just can't relate to the gay mindset and will probably never understand it. Having never felt an attraction to anything other than the opposite sex, I know that I can't. That doesn't give me or anyone else the right to judge it or condemn it. I believe that all people should be allowed to live and believe as they please as long as no one is causing any harm to others. At the same time, I reserve the right to believe that homosexuality is disgusting. :barf: Please understand that I can't help but feel that way any more than gays can help feeling attracted to members of the same gender. I'm civilized enough to know that I have no right to judge others or to tell them how to live and what to think, AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE.

The problem is that people on EACH SIDE of this argument are guilty of trying to push their respective political agendas on society, and therefore BOTH SIDES are wrong. The gays are trying to justify their lifestyle by trying to convince everyone that it is a normal and respectable practice. Realistically speaking, that is never going to happen because the subject matter is too repugnant to too many people. The religous right is trying to justify their intolerance by citing that homosexuality is immoral. This is also never going to happen because too many people see it as judgemental self-rightous elitism. Without some form of compromise (which, BTW the US was supposed to be founded on, not bouncing back and forth from one extreme to the next every time there is an election), this issue will NEVER be resolved.

If anyone has any realistic ideas for a compromise, feel free to put them forth. There are lots of extremes in this thread and I'm wondering if anyone else was also thinking along the lines of a compromise on this extremely devisive issue. :ears1:

As for the proponents of the "gay gene" issue: How can you explain the occurences of identical twins having different sexual orientation? This would seem to disprove that theory. The reason I'm asking is because I went to school with a set of identical twins and one was straight and masculine and the other was as gay as a picnic basket.

Sorry, but the assertion "if they could choose not to be gay, they would" doesn't hold water. Many people consciously choose to be reviled and oppressed. People choose to be vegetarian. People choose to be promiscuous. People choose to be prostitutes. Things like "I'm topping myself because I'm homosexual" are excuses, rather than reasons.OK, let me re-phrase. They kill themselves, according to their minds, because they're homosexual and their parents, peers, society, and/or mythological denomination won't accept them for it.

If you're so tired of being homosexual, why not just choose to be straight? They've got nothing to lose, sans perhaps a boyfriend. Unlike quitting prostitution, which leads to monetary loss, or rebelling against oppressors, which might lead to reprecussions from the oppressing party, "switching sides" to heterosexuality would be completely harmless.

My point stands.

Oh, and isn't it possible for mentally sane people to kill themselves?
And people, homosexual or not, largely commit suicide because they're depressed.I was referring to the reason they were depressed.

Are you sure that those examples aren't due to an utter lack of personal discipline and self-control?Yes.

The problem is that people on EACH SIDE of this argument are guilty of trying to push their respective political agendas on society, and therefore BOTH SIDES are wrong.I beg to differ. Fighting for equality can be right even though it's done by "pushing agendas on society". In fact, I believe it's the only way to fight for equality.

The gays are trying to justify their lifestyle by trying to convince everyone that it is a normal and respectable practice. Realistically speaking, that is never going to happen because the subject matter is too repugnant to too many people.I know. Like the idea idea that N****s are are equal to us superior whites, the Earth revolves around the Sun and is therefore not the centre of our God-created universe, or that, God forbid, we descended from the amoeba growing on your bathroom wall[/sarcasm].

Without some form of compromise (which, BTW the US was supposed to be founded on, not bouncing back and forth from one extreme to the next every time there is an election), this issue will NEVER be resolved.Was the segregation question solved by compromise? As far as I know, the racists had to give up 100%, and the Apartheid regime was completely eradicated. Likewise with slavery, which was completely abolished.

Compromises and civil rights don't go well together.

If you're so tired of being homosexual, why not just choose to be straight? They've got nothing to lose, sans perhaps a boyfriend. Unlike quitting prostitution, which leads to monetary loss, or rebelling against oppressors, which might lead to reprecussions from the oppressing party, "switching sides" to heterosexuality would be completely harmless.

My point stands.Your point only stands if you completely ignore most of the reasoning in my previous response. Let me re-iterate:

Just because a choice isn't conscious, just because a choice isn't instantaneous, doesn't mean it's any less of a choice.

Let me give you an example. If you make a choice to say... get a certain job, it doesn't happen all at once. You decide over a long period of time that you want the job, for many many reasons, some you're consciously aware of, some you're not consciously aware of. Then you have to train for the job, then you have to apply for it, then you have to stomach all the unsuccessful job interviews, then you have to land the job, then, and only then, can you do the job.

Now that's a relatively minor life-choice. And it's not a one-moment choice, it takes lots of factors to come into being.

So your reasoning that "oh, homosexuality can't be a choice, because suicidal gays don't immediately choose to be straight out of self-preservation" is deeply, deeply flawed. Devoid of logic.

First, the choice to engage in a "straight" lifestyle is so much more complex than other choices, the suicidal person simply won't have time to make the necessary decisions before lassitude claims them and they jump off the roof.

Second, you presume that all the factors involved in a "choice" are conscious, i.e: consciously decided, when it's clear that they are not.

Third, homosexual people (and furries, and seemingly all others with "alternative" i.e: perverted sexualities) often define themselves by their sexual identity. Some could theoretically stop doing the things that they do that make them socially outcast, but like religious people, to deny this part of themselves is too high a price to pay.

Fourth, you, like many others, seem to be saying that there is NO factor of choice in what sexual activities you engage in. i.e: It is either 100% choice, or ZERO per-cent choice. This would seem to me to be just as fanatical a point of view as that held by the hyper-religious set. It is perfectly plausible that there is a percentage of choice involved. Just as there is an element of choice in everything we end up doing. You seem very anxious to imply that people have NO responsibility for their actions and attitudes, and I would find that quite patronising, if I happened to be of a homosexual persuasion.

The situation is just not as cut and dried as everyone likes to think it is.

I was referring to the reason they were depressed.There is rarely any "reason" to be depressed, and certainly very few reasons to kill yourself. There are few problems that cannot be solved. Reason and logic have little to do with clinical depression, however.

My point was that "reasons" are usually tertiary. One is either prone to black moods or not, and there are many mentally healthy homosexuals around, so the one does not necessarily follow from the other.

True, but they've earned the right to use it.

BTW, DE: I seem to remember stating that the religious right is just as wrong as the gay movement. You assume too much, and it shows.

The current generation that uses the "n" word as an insular and culturally excluding term of endearment for each other, has not insofar as I'm aware "earned" the right to use such an emotionally charged word and then complain when other races also use it.

I have never used racially derogatory language in everyday life, and fail to see how the black community's routine usage of said language is ANYTHING but a COMPLETE double standard.

But we digress. Back onto topic...

OK, let me re-phrase. They kill themselves, according to their minds, because they're homosexual and their parents, peers, society, and/or mythological denomination won't accept them for it.


Whew, that's a big assumption--there are so many different things that could be going through their minds besides lack of social acceptance. For instance, all of my gay friends/relatives except one have told me they were molested as children (either same-sex or opposite sex), and my one friend who hasn't said anything simply doesn't talk about his childhood. And yes, I do consider myself honored to have friends who consider me trustworthy enough for them to be able to share some of their deepest hurts as well as their greatest joys.

Now, not all gays have been molested as children, and the link between molestation and homosexuality is not my point here.

My point is that I think the trauma of molestation would have a far greater impact than the lack of social acceptance as a factor in suicidal behavior. That trauma, among many other issues, may be contributing factors.

Everyone always digs this study out, but they rarely note that its conclusions were not supported by another study conducted by Rice et al in 1999. Rice et al found no significant linkage between the xq28 chromesome and increased homosexual tendency.

Everyone? I've only seen it cited a few times in various discussions. I notice, however, that others are quick to cite Rice et al as if this study completely refutes Hamer. It doesn't. Rice et al demonstrated that by using a slightly different methodology, Hamer's results couldn't be duplicated. Rice et al studied a slightly different population and had 3 or 4 other methodological differences from Hamer and a few other studies.

I've read quite a few studies regarding the xq28 allele, particularly the Hamer and Rice studies. The results, briefly are as follows:

Rice et al (1999) studied 52 pairs of gay brothers and found that 46% shared the xq28 allele
Hamer et al (1993) studied 40 pairs of gay brothers who shared 82%
Sanders et al (1998) studied 54 pairs of gay brothers who shared 66%
Hu et al (1995) studied 32 pairs of gay brothers who shared 67%

When the above four studies are meta-analyzed, Rice et al included, the results are that 64% of gay brothers share the xq28 allele.

Does this demonstrate conclusively that homosexuality is genetic? Of course not. But it becomes highly suggestive of a commonality and gives researchers some clues of where to keep looking as the human genome is more fully understood.

I do, however, agree with SpiderAL with regard to being able to state whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not. We simply don't know. The point of referring to studies like Hamer et al is to remind those that are quick to say "homosexuality is a choice" that to state such things is to fall into a logical fallacy of false assumption. There simply isn't any reason to state it other than it might be a conclusion already reached and you want it to be true.

There are some other studies, that are more recent that are suggest much the same, that homosexuality is not a conscious choice and probably prenatal if not genetic.

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrated that the number of biological older brothers increases the probability of homosexuality in men. According to the study's author (Bogaert 2006) it suggests that prenatal mechanisms are at work rather than social ones in deciding sexual orientation.

When hardline religious people say "but gay people can't have children" I think by and large they're fully aware of the possiblity of surrogate parents, artificial insemination for the ladies, and also the possiblity of adoption. It's just that they disagree with gay people doing any of THOSE things, too.

Yes, but the argument, usually by those that attempt to distance themselves from the religious (or appear to), is that marriage is about reproduction. It isn't. That's part of marriage and may be the core reason for some, but there are many, many reasons to marry, regardless of your opinion on the practice. I listed some above, which are lifted from a Government Accounting Office (U.S.) report. My wife and I didn't marry to have a child. But for those that think marriage *is* about children, not being able to reproduce between them isn't a valid argument -it's a non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow that two people shouldn't be allowed to marry if they are unable to reproduce together. There are many couples where one partner is sterile or where genetically carried diseases and conditions are a valid consideration. I know a happily married couple where one spouse has has a family history of a particular disease (it might be Huntington's). They have a large and wonderful family. All kids adopted.


Once again, the institution of state-sanctioned marriages should be disallowed FOR ALL.

Yeah, yeah. We hear you. It's not going to happen. Since it isn't, gays and heterosexuals that want to marry within their gender should be permitted to do so. There simply is no legitimate reason to disallow it.

A couple of people have made the point that "well marriage isn't going to be phased out anytime soon, so it's better to allow gays to marry."

Wrong.

Really? You see any sign that marriage is about to be "phased out?" LOL.

The only reason homosexuals have gained the right of civil partnerships is because people have campaigned for so long for it to happen. If all that energy had been properly directed towards the abolition of marriage as a state-sanctioned perk, then we'd probably have got it by now. But no, people have to think only of the small picture.

One or two people opposed to marriage aren't likely to abolish the practice. Nor is there any serious talk of doing so. I think we can dismiss this argument with regard to the same-sex marriage issue. We can also dismiss the gays can't reproduce/marriage is about reproduction argument. The religious argument has no bearing, thus dismissed.

Is there any other argument against same-sex marriage that should be considered.

Anyone?


References:

Bogaert, AF (2006). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men's sexual orientation. PNAS, 103(28), 10771-10774

Hamer, D.H., et al (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

Hu, S.; et al (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 11, 248–256

Rice G, et al (1999). Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science1999; 284:665–667

Sanders, AR; et al. (1998). poster presentation 149, annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Just remember, homosexuals and heterosexuals still have the same basic right when it comes to marriage. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex. :lol: