Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

You are right, even if you are being raised by two men or two women. Glad you agree.

 

[r0beph]

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

please explain what exactly you mean here...I really don't understand your point.

 

[Segep]

Because it will never result in family relations.

They can do as they wish.

Just don't call it a marriage.

<~~~Link

 

[jb_1430]

please explain what exactly you mean here...I really don't understand your point.

Your statement,

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.

PURE FANTASY. None of the human rights conventions have included even a mention of sexual orientation or gender identity and such language is always proposed, debated and rejected. Most recently in the DOHA declarations in 2004.

 

[r0beph]

Your statement,



PURE FANTASY. None of the human rights conventions have included even a mention of sexual orientation or gender identity and such language is always proposed, debated and rejected. Most recently in the DOHA declarations in 2004.

what are you talking about? I quoted the UNDoHR =s

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


this has nothing to do with gender "identity" nor orientation, nor was that my intent. Simply stating to numinus that even though the wording distinctly mentions men and women, it makes no statement in regards to which gender either should be intent on marrying only that it is inherent that they BE ALLOWED... I'm still lost as to your interpretation of what I said.


That being said, I understand the argument as marriage should be maintained for procreational purposes, however I don't see any problem with those who cannot procreate, sterile, hermaphroditic, gay, lesbian, or otherwise couples without the ability to procreate, marrying. The idealism put forth by that argument makes no sense outside of a religious pseudomorality. That ideology itself is pure fantasy. However, it is not oz like, more of a brothers grimm fair.

 

[numinus]

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?

Inheritance and property rights are direct results of the FAMILY RELATIONS that accrue from marriage.

At the heart of these family relations are the biological ties consequent to the union BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

Granted that individual couples enter into marriage for whatever reason they can imagine.

In the point of view of the state, however, the institution of marriage, and the rights that are granted therein, cannot be for anything other than this fundamental human relation in society - the FAMILY.

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.

If it is like any other contract, then the agreement binds only the parties involved therein, no?

One cannot ask for certain privileges from the government just because one entered into a contract with another 'consenting adult', no?

And what exactly are the privileges gained in the marital institution that is absent from any other contract? They relate directly to FAMILY RELATIONS, do they not?

And so, your argument has gone full circle!

However, these risks do not apply to gay unions.

And neither do they relate to children being produced within the union.

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

But the thing is, legally binding consent is not the issue with minors. The issue is their welfare. If a minor entered into a simple agreement with an adult, the worst that could happen is that the agreement is null and void.

However, if a minor consents to sexual intercourse with an adult, the adult is liable for a criminal offense, whether he is aware of the age or not.

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.

But there is a logical reason for it.

Inherent in the institution of marriage is an ideal concept of family, which the state endorses.

It can't be for religious values since the constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. But it stops short of polygamy, even though polygamy is being argued for precisely religious reasons.

And so, you can exercise your religion all you want, but you cannot expect the state to make this exercise legally binding, especially when it conflicts with certain principles the state is contemplating.

What right of motherhood?

A woman has the inalienable right to become a mother. This is clearly derived from the natural fecundity of her GENDER. And because she has this right, the state must create an atmosphere conducive to this decision.

A man, on the other hand, has NO inalienable right to fatherhood. His fatherhood is dependent entirely upon the sufferance of his partner, and formalized within the legal institution of marriage.

How are the rights of children affected?

The upbringing of children rests INDEFEASIBLY within the biological mother, and extends to the father through marriage. The only thing that can nullify this is the child's welfare. In fact, no law nor contract can diminish nor supersed this.

This bond is not only the child's right, but also represents the ideal conditions of his welfare.

Gay couples can be parents as well if that is an issue.

The parenthood of homosexual men is a privilege conferred ENTIRELY within the subjective view of the state - in regard to orphans. The primary consideration is the conditions of family the child has a right to if he had biological parents.

The parenthood of a homosexual woman, on the other hand, arises from her natural biological fecundity. 'Paternity' rests on her own free choice and that of her partner, without the interference of the government, as it should be.

Neither will the marriage of infertile couples. So what?

But infertility is a condition that is within human reason to correct, in regards to human reproductive potential. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is NOT.

 

[jb_1430]

Pure fantasy. The UNDHR in no way "supports" same sex marriage. It is only your desparate need to believe so that leads to your conclusion. The gays have sought to amend the declarations because they do no "support" marriage between same sex partners. Precisely the opposite of what you claim.

what are you talking about? I quoted the UNDoHR =s

Article 16...

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1060

 

[numinus]

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?

Incorrect.

The government sanctions marriage as it relates to family relations - not the sexual act.

And since no family relations can ever come from a homosexual union, what is there to legalize except the sexual act?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

what are you talking about? I quoted the UNDoHR =s

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


this has nothing to do with gender "identity" nor orientation, nor was that my intent. Simply stating to numinus that even though the wording distinctly mentions men and women, it makes no statement in regards to which gender either should be intent on marrying only that it is inherent that they BE ALLOWED... I'm still lost as to your interpretation of what I said.


That being said, I understand the argument as marriage should be maintained for procreational purposes, however I don't see any problem with those who cannot procreate, sterile, hermaphroditic, gay, lesbian, or otherwise couples without the ability to procreate, marrying. The idealism put forth by that argument makes no sense outside of a religious pseudomorality. That ideology itself is pure fantasy. However, it is not oz like, more of a brothers grimm fair.

This argument is based on the two different kinds of interpretation placed on law by different groups. In some situations something is legal as long as the law does not specifically DENY its legality, conversely in some situations everything is illegal unless it is specifically ALLOWED in the wording of the law.

This sometimes referred to as interpreting the law "broadly" or "narrowly". The fact is that the law is ambiguous on this point and each one of you is correctly arguing from one of the two positions. In the US we have tended to interpret law broadly so as to give the greatest amount of freedom possible, but people who are unhappy with any activity tend to try to get the law read narrowly--religious people to a large extent--as a way of restricting freedom. Of late, anti-discrimation law has been read narrowly, if someone is not specifically named in the law then they are excluded (transgendered people have been excluded from anti-gay legislation by the courts even though almost everybody in this silly country thinks trannies are gay). Again, religious people have been behind this narrow definition of the law because they are fighting against other people's sexual expression every step of the way, they want a terribly narrow definition of "acceptable sexuality" based on their religious myths and taboos and they are willing to ignore all science and reason, and even re-write law to force others to comply with their relgion's tenets.

 

[numinus]

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.

Nothing to back them up, you say?

You claim the universe is infinite metaphorically.

I claim the universe is finite scientifically.

Who exactly is making statements with nothing to back them up, eh?

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.

A lesbian has the right to motherhood. Parenthood of her biological child, however, cannot be legally transferred to her lesbian partner.

And while her lesbian partner may act as 'de facto' parent, that is within the exclusive province of her choice. The state may not legally bind her to it whenever she chooses otherwise.

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

You need only browse social and political philosophies to realize that the natural rights of man are indeed defined.

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?

A contract is an agreement between parties. There is no reason for the government to interfere with an agreement between consenting adults.

But a marriage, on the other hand, involves the lives of children that result from this union. So there are compelling reasons for the government to involve itself in marriage.

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.

EXACTLY!

If one cannot compel the government to attach legal impetus to one's free exercise of religion (which is guaranteed in the constitution), what makes you think you can in regards to your choice of sexual orientation, eh?

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.

And how exactly is that being done, eh?

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.

And what rights are those, eh?

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.

Consenting homosexual adults have every right to live their own lives as they please. If cohabitation is their thing, nothing is stopping them.

They cannot, however, claim certain privileges granted married couples because these privileges are there as the result to FAMILY RELATIONS.

And what, exactly, are these privileges? Mostly tax breaks. All other privileges can be had with the help of even the most mediocre lawyer and some foresight.

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

You think?

I find your interpretation of the equal application of the law a little absurd.

Are you in favor of giving an inalienable right to motherhood, the basis of all family relations and hence the marital institution, to gay men?

If a female employee is given maternity leave, is it logical to give this to male employees as well?

And in divorce proceedings, is the right of the husband to custody of the children equal to that of the wife?

And if some couples can adopt, why not everyone?

Spare me this patently defective notion of equality.

 

[numinus]

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.

Since when is sex illegal?

Prostitution is illegal - not consensual sex.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Incorrect.

The government sanctions marriage as it relates to family relations - not the sexual act.

And since no family relations can ever come from a homosexual union, what is there to legalize except the sexual act?

The fallacy in your argument is bolded, the idea that homosexual people never have children, cannot have children is nonsense as demonstrated by the tens of thousands of homosexual families in this country alone. Homosexuals can have children through all the same ways that any other couple can have them--including surrogacy or in vitro fertilization like sterile hetero couples do.

You want to define "family relations" by one single kind of sex act and restrict legal rights based on performing that one single kind of sex act, you practically worship that one single kind of sex act--it becomes the be-all and end-all of your legal existence, when in point of fact it is just one of many kinds of sex acts and has no more intrinsic value than other. It does have utilitarian value in that it can produce offspring sometimes, but it isn't the only way to have children so it cannot be the Holy Grail that you are trying to make it out to be.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Since when is sex illegal?

Prostitution is illegal - not consensual sex.

Until the sodomy laws were declared un-Constitutional homosexuality was a felony in many places. I know a woman who had her son taken from her by the courts in Texas because she was in a lesbian relationship. She was arrested at work, handcuffed, placed in jail, her own Mother testified against her in court and she was declared an unfit Mother, convicted of the felony of having homosexual relations, and she has never seen her 6 year old son again.

You have got to be a very young man.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing to back them up, you say?

You claim the universe is infinite metaphorically.

I claim the universe is finite scientifically.

Who exactly is making statements with nothing to back them up, eh?

I never said that space was metaphorically infinite. At least quote me correctly if you are going to try to refute me.

YOU postulated that God's Will existed outside of space/time. I referred to the area where God's Will existed as a "space" metaphorically--how else could I refer to it since, according to you, it exists outside of space/time. I needed some way to refer to that God's Will area which may very well be infinite. Are you now saying that the God's Will area (come up with your own description of that area) is NOT infinite? Are you placing limits on God by doing so?

 

[numinus]

Of course, homosexual people have children all the time.

They have children within the union?

Please!

Are you really going to argue that children who are adopted

Children who have no surviving parents or relatives become the responsibility of the state.

And because the state is made responsible, the standards of adoption are ENTIRELY within its prerogative.

or are the product of in vitro fertilization are somehow "less than" children who are the product of peno/vaginal intercourse?

A woman has the RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, however else she chooses to get pregnant.

Are the families raising these children "less than" in some way and therefore not deserving of equal rights?

They deserve equal rights.

Tax breaks are not rights - they are privileges. Adoption is not a right - it is a privilege.

What rights do you think are conferred to married couples that cannot be enjoyed by homosexual ones?

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.

Correct.

Infertility is a ground for nullification of a marriage.

It's called equality and there is no rational argument for excluding the few percent of homosexual people from the legal institution of marriage.

They can enter into the legal institution of marriage. Only with another person of different gender. Same goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Equality enough for you?

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?

Nobody legislated marriage.

It is the natural union between a man and a woman for the purpose of FAMILY.

And if the purpose is family within the union, then a homosexual relation is NOT AN OPTION.

It has been this way long before any conception of law came to be.

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.

Correct.

The law cannot interfere in the peaceful exercise of your choices.

However, a child's existence was never the choice of the child. The child, more than anyone in any marriage, requires the protection of the state.