Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[r0beph]

Excuse me, but you are the one assuming, and not a particularly correct assumption at that. You said:

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND"

How can there be space into which space can expand?

Throw away your euclidean notions of space for a while and imagine that space itself has a particular geometry. What lies outside this geometry is NOT space, nor anything anyone can imagine scientifically at the moment.

Personally, I think god's creative will exists outside of this.



You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.



Marriage is NOT an absolute right. It must adhere to certain LEGAL FORMS. It certainly is something more than the standard contracts between any two consenting adults,

You cannot marry under the age of 18.

You cannot marry more than one person at a time.

You cannot marry a relative within a certain degree of consanguinity.

You cannot marry your pet.

You cannot marry another person of the same gender.

Your right to privacy however, allows you to engage in whatever sexual behavior you wish. You just can't use this as a sole basis of marriage.

*sigh* So why shouldn't gays marry? listing what marriages entail serves nothing in your argument. There are two marriages, Legal and religious, I don't have to be christian to get married, I don't have to be muslim to get married, I can simply go to the courthouse and get a marriage license with a consenting woman and thus be married. So provide for me a valid reasoning that this should NOT be allowed for homosexual couples? And saying "because the law says so" is very far from valid. Denying couples marriage puts them at an extreme disadvantage to insurance claims, taxation, and other factors. You lose nothing by allowing them a marriage license, and you gain justice.

You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.

Of course you can change how you manifest them. But let's try it this way. Let's take hunger for example.

You are hungry, and have two foods to choose from, Chicken or Fermented green beans.

For each person their attractant gender is the chicken, the other the rotten beans.

This may seem silly but seriously, if suddenly the world flipped upside down and said that sleeping with a woman, as a male, was WRONG. Would you sleep with men?

 

[Coyote]

Excuse me, but you are the one assuming, and not a particularly correct assumption at that. You said:

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND"

How can there be space into which space can expand?

Throw away your euclidean notions of space for a while and imagine that space itself has a particular geometry. What lies outside this geometry is NOT space, nor anything anyone can imagine scientifically at the moment.

Personally, I think god's creative will exists outside of this.



You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.



Marriage is NOT an absolute right. It must adhere to certain LEGAL FORMS. It certainly is something more than the standard contracts between any two consenting adults,

You cannot marry under the age of 18.

You cannot marry more than one person at a time.

You cannot marry a relative within a certain degree of consanguinity.

You cannot marry your pet.

You cannot marry another person of the same gender.

Your right to privacy however, allows you to engage in whatever sexual behavior you wish. You just can't use this as a sole basis of marriage.

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. That's it.

A pet can't consent.

A close relative can consent but there are possible genetic problems if they have children.

A child can not consent.

Who cares if people have more then one spouse? Why shouldn't they?

Except for bigamy every one of those involves a partner who is not consenting or the potential for medical problems.

Gay marriage doesn't have that problem and that whole argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same legal benifits and protections with the consenting partner of their choice that marriage provides heterosexuals?

Why should they NOT marry if they marry?

 

[Coyote]

So what's the point of legislating something that you do in your own bedroom, eh?

Rather than keep it private, as is your right, you in fact invite other people to your bedroom.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[numinus]

I was using the term space metaphorically. If something is expanding it has to be able to expand in SOME sense. I was using the metaphorical "space" to refer to the area where you are postulating God's Creative Will exists. I would like to refer to that area with some word, but I am willing to allow you to pick the word if that will make you happy.

Space is FINITE. Our environment is FINITE. Time is FINITE.

That's that.

No one is arguing that marriage is an absolute right. I have always defined it as it is set forth in US Law, between consenting adults. The only reason that one cannot marry a member of the same gender is the deeply entrenched religious bigotry in this culture.

No. It is deeply entrenched in the natural rights of man - the right to motherhood and the rights of children, to be precise.

Don't go stupid here, Numi, pets are not consenting adults, neither are refridgerators. Under 18 (differs from state to state) one is not a consenting adult, and plural marriage is not legal in this country at this time but it has been in many countries down through history. Look at how many wives King Solomon had. There is no reason that I know of to ban plural marriages any more than gay marriages.

No.

The marital institution SERVES a set of the natural rights of man.

If a union or a contract merely manifests an agreement between 'consenting adults', then there is NOTHING for the marital institution to serve.

Even the free exercise of religion can't be accomodated in this definition of marriage (note the supreme court opinion regarding mormon polygamy).

As for the marriage of minors, it is again rooted on the rights of children, and NOT some arbitrary definition of legal age.

As for animals and inanimate objects, nothing is stopping you from treating them like your husband or wife. You just can't make the state recognize such a 'union' for the same reason stated above.

Bottom line - one cannot suppose to attach the impetus of the state to something that is exclusively the affair of 'consenting adults'.

 

[numinus]

Not really, because none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. The only "sameness" in human nature that pertains to this discussion is that nobody can control who they are attracted to.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue at hand.

The cornerstone of the law postulates the INHERENT EQUALITY of all human persons. This equality does not make sense when applied to the rights consequent to one's biological nature like motherhood and children.

No offense, but you are not invited to my bedroom. If you're in there it's because you want to be there.

None taken.

When you wish to legalize what goes on in your bedroom, then you are necessarily inviting me into it for the simple reason that the government you are petitioning is MY government as well.

 

[numinus]

*sigh* So why shouldn't gays marry? listing what marriages entail serves nothing in your argument. There are two marriages, Legal and religious, I don't have to be christian to get married, I don't have to be muslim to get married, I can simply go to the courthouse and get a marriage license with a consenting woman and thus be married. So provide for me a valid reasoning that this should NOT be allowed for homosexual couples? And saying "because the law says so" is very far from valid. Denying couples marriage puts them at an extreme disadvantage to insurance claims, taxation, and other factors. You lose nothing by allowing them a marriage license, and you gain justice.

Sigh

The marital institution is directly related to the right of women to motherhood and the rights of children as stated in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN - the us being a signatory of BOTH documents.

Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.

Of course you can change how you manifest them. But let's try it this way. Let's take hunger for example.

You are hungry, and have two foods to choose from, Chicken or Fermented green beans.

For each person their attractant gender is the chicken, the other the rotten beans.

This may seem silly but seriously, if suddenly the world flipped upside down and said that sleeping with a woman, as a male, was WRONG. Would you sleep with men?

What has this got to do with legislating what is purely a personal choice?

Do you even wish to legislate such a thing?

 

[numinus]

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. That's it.

No. It is not merely a contract between two consenting adults.

No other contract results in the birth of another human being, the responsibility consequent to the well-being of this person, and the family relations that accrue from it.

A pet can't consent.

But it can be the subject of a contract. And marriage, as you claim, is merely a contract.

A close relative can consent but there are possible genetic problems if they have children.

Exactly. The remote possibilty of endangering the well-being of the children that results from the union is enough reason to invalidate it.

The state is saying - proceed with your inclinations and choices at YOUR OWN RISK.

A child can not consent.

Of course a child can consent - only not legally binding. It has something to do with the rights of children.

Who cares if people have more then one spouse? Why shouldn't they?

Why shouldn't they indeed?!

The state's reasons for not making it legal, however, is quite clear.

A polygamous family setting is simply not the environment into which one brings children into this particular society.

Except for bigamy every one of those involves a partner who is not consenting or the potential for medical problems.

And since when does 'potential for medical problems' been cause for the state to prohibit one's choice, hmm?

Gay marriage doesn't have that problem and that whole argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

A homosexual union does not correspond to the right of motherhood nor the rights of children. Therefore, there is no reason to cover it within the institution of marriage.

Its that simple.

Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same legal benifits and protections with the consenting partner of their choice that marriage provides heterosexuals?

Because it will never result in family relations.

Why should they NOT marry if they marry?

They can do as they wish.

Just don't call it a marriage.

 

[numinus]

How do you come to that conclusion?

Because the government you are asking to legalize it is also everybody else's government.

 

[Coyote]

No. It is not merely a contract between two consenting adults.

No other contract results in the birth of another human being, the responsibility consequent to the well-being of this person, and the family relations that accrue from it.

It's a contract between two consenting adults. The issue of children is incidental to the contract. Originally, it was a political and legal contract to deal with inheritance and property rights and alliances. Many of these contracts do not result in children. If a couple does not have children, are they not allowed to call themselves "married"? What if a gay couple has children?

But it can be the subject of a contract. And marriage, as you claim, is merely a contract.

I claim it is a contract between consenting adults. That is the the important qualifier. In addition, a non-human animal can not enter into a legally binding contract.

Exactly. The remote possibilty of endangering the well-being of the children that results from the union is enough reason to invalidate it.

The state is saying - proceed with your inclinations and choices at YOUR OWN RISK.

However, these risks do not apply to gay unions.

Of course a child can consent - only not legally binding. It has something to do with the rights of children.

When I talk about "consent" I am talking about legally binding consent.

Why shouldn't they indeed?!

The state's reasons for not making it legal, however, is quite clear.

A polygamous family setting is simply not the environment into which one brings children into this particular society.

Actually the only reason it is illegal by the state is because of the religious values of a majority. That's it. I'm not saying I am pro-polygamy, only that there really isn't a logical reason to forbid it.

A homosexual union does not correspond to the right of motherhood nor the rights of children. Therefore, there is no reason to cover it within the institution of marriage.

What right of motherhood? How are the rights of children affected? Gay couples can be parents as well if that is an issue.

Because it will never result in family relations.

Neither will the marriage of infertile couples. So what?

 

[Coyote]

Because the government you are asking to legalize it is also everybody else's government.

Then I would assume the very fact that the government sanctions heterosexual marriage is not keeping it private but in fact inviting other people to your bedroom?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Space is FINITE. Our environment is FINITE. Time is FINITE.
That's that.

This is another example of why one cannot discuss with you, here you are again making ABSOLUTE statements with nothing to back them up. Humans have no proof if time and space are infinite.

No. It is deeply entrenched in the natural rights of man - the right to motherhood and the rights of children, to be precise.

Meaningless terms, empty rhetoric, "the right to motherhood", yet you would deny that "right" to a lesbian, but not to a woman who had to use a fertility clinic to become pregnant.

No. The marital institution SERVES a set of the natural rights of man.

You have not defined the "natural rights of man" therefore you have said nothing.

If a union or a contract merely manifests an agreement between 'consenting adults', then there is NOTHING for the marital institution to serve.

Nothing except the consenting adults who enter into the legal contract, and that would include all the heterosexual couples--but I guess you are saying that they aren't consenting adults, are you?

Even the free exercise of religion can't be accomodated in this definition of marriage (note the supreme court opinion regarding mormon polygamy).

That's silly, of course you can exercise freedom of religion, YOU JUST CAN'T LEGALIZE YOUR VERSION OF RELIGION AND FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO FOLLOW IT. Freedom of religion means ALL religions--like it or not.

As for the marriage of minors, it is again rooted on the rights of children, and NOT some arbitrary definition of legal age.

As for animals and inanimate objects, nothing is stopping you from treating them like your husband or wife. You just can't make the state recognize such a 'union' for the same reason stated above.

Bottom line - one cannot suppose to attach the impetus of the state to something that is exclusively the affair of 'consenting adults'.

This whole paragraph is nonsense. The impetus of the State can be attached to any damn thing that the law says it can be. Right now the law is giving impetus to Christian religious myths and dogma because Christians had the votes to abrogate the Constitutional right to equal protection. As Christian influence wanes people are coming to realize that many rights have been usurped by religious dogma and laws based on religious myths despite Constitutional guarantees.

We (not you) are discussing US Law and the legal contract of marriage as codified in those US Laws. Consenting adults are the only people allowed to marry and in the case of homosexual consenting adults they have been singled out and denied the legal contract of marriage for no reason except religious dogma--which is an abrogation of the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

I don't know, Num, you might be better of going back to Kant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

When you wish to legalize what goes on in your bedroom, then you are necessarily inviting me into it for the simple reason that the government you are petitioning is MY government as well.

You have the cart before the horse, when YOUR government crashed into Coyote's bedroom and made Coyote's activities ILLEGAL, your government trampled on Coyote's Constitutional rights because of religious dogma. All Coyote is doing now is trying to win back his legal and Constitutional rights that were stolen by the religious majority. All he is asking for is what you claim for yourself.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sigh

The marital institution is directly related to the right of women to motherhood and the rights of children as stated in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN - the us being a signatory of BOTH documents.

Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

Of course, homosexual people have children all the time. Are you really going to argue that children who are adopted or are the product of in vitro fertilization are somehow "less than" children who are the product of peno/vaginal intercourse? Are the families raising these children "less than" in some way and therefore not deserving of equal rights? If you are going to argue that a homosexual couple's relationship is "less than" because they don't have children, then I think you will have to acknowledge that a heterosexual couple's realtionship is also "less than" if they do not have children. It's called equality and there is no rational argument for excluding the few percent of homosexual people from the legal institution of marriage.

What has this got to do with legislating what is purely a personal choice?
Do you even wish to legislate such a thing?

Heterosexual people legislated their personal choice in such a way as to deny legal rights to other people. So why should not sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander? If sexual orientation is a personal choice for homosexuals then it has to be for heterosexuals too, therefore the two "choices" should still be equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[r0beph]

Sigh
The marital institution is directly related to the right of women to motherhood and the rights of children as stated in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN - the us being a signatory of BOTH documents.

Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

What has this got to do with legislating what is purely a personal choice?

Do you even wish to legislate such a thing?

If that's the case (in bold) why does insurance / taxation etc related to marriage, that's the biggest issue. I call shenanigans.

Article 23
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

The right of men and women (not of a man and a woman) does not have quantifiers related to the number of gender inclusive to the marriage. This has NO baring on the rights of women or children save the inclusion of the provisionary requirement for child protection in the case of dissolution (divorce). You're interpretation is outside of the obvious intention.

as for your question: Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

cleary supports [any man] (including those who wish to marry men...) and [any woman] (including those who wish to marry women). as there is again, no quantifier or designation that constitutes man + woman as the prerequisite to be subject to these inherent rights.

So as to your argument, you've sealed it yourself. Clearly denying homosexuals marriage is a violation of a treatise we are signatory to, since were the intention to provide ONLY for a man and a woman, it would have been worded as such rather than simply stating Men and Women to include all persons...good day sir.

 

[jb_1430]

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

cleary supports [any man] (including those who wish to marry men...) and [any woman] (including those who wish to marry women).

Just click the heels of your ruby read slippers and say three times, "there's no place like home".