Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[vyo476]

And you are inclined to making laws that are superflous and devoid of purpose, eh?

So now making laws based on the extension of equality and freedom is superfluous?

 

[vyo476]

The fact that gays want these rights, privileges, and responsibilities isnt really a rational purpose for the government to grant them.

So now the government grants rights?

Go read the Ninth Amendment and ask yourself if the government is meant to examine and "grant" every human right that it recognizes.

The government has to justify denying rights - not granting them.

 

[r0beph]

What I have said is the anthropological basis of the institution of marriage.

If it is dependent on how individual couples see it, as you claim, then it is entirely subjective, no?

Where is the sense in having the state legislate something that is entirely dependent on the couples, themselves, eh?

Yet the state does this by saying THEY CANNOT marry.

Circular.

Here HERE! This is not my statement this IS THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS PER THE DICTIONARY. If that itself is circular, then we have problems.

You need no one to 'afford' you of an intimate union save yourself and your partner. You needlessly involve the state with your own affairs.

*sigh*

No.

It is a consequence of the right to motherhood. When one recognizes this right as inherent in the FEMALE GENDER, the practical necessities for a woman to EXERCISE this right must be PRESENT.

This simply means that a woman's choice is made WITHOUT prejudice.

A woman who chooses to become a mother and is left alone to fend for herself and her child constitutes prejudice.

Not that women are incapable of this, only that it creates a bias to her entire gender.

Constitutes prejudice? So if a lone woman decides to go find a random man to procreate with, though she has no job, no income, she should be supported for the malfeasance? (well we DO support them no? Without marriage at all.)

This is unbelievably off-tangent!

The right to motherhood necessarily INCLUDES the conditions that does not prejudice a woman's choice to it.

And so, rather than scream for homosexual marriages, the more logical solution is a legislation that would afford single mothers financial security, no?

ever seen the cheques given to single mothers with 3 kids? There IS A LOT OF FINANCIAL SECURITY. Marriage doesn't effect this in the least bit.

The biological father is still responsible for the child concieved IN the union, whether he is still married to the mother or not, no? Isn't that a clear consequence of the family relations that result in marriage.

And if the mother divorces the second husband, is the husband liable for child support?

In truth, there are several ways to answer this. First, the biological father is pretty much responsibile union(marriage) notwithstanding. And the second husband. If he so much as acts as the father of the child, he too can be held responsible, adoption notwithstanding. So I think you're misconstruing some of the variables here.

Which solidifies my point, exactly.

As I said - the tax breaks given to married couples are there as support for the mother exercising her right to motherhood and the family relations that result from it.

Tax breaks are given to help mothers. Ok, so what of the tax breaks given to couples who never have children? Is this abuse of the system? Should this be legislated? Logical fallacy abound.

Correct again.

Motherhood is not conferred to a woman by a marriage license.

Marriage, in the legal sense, is simply a way by which the state recognizes this right and the family relations that accrue from it.

so you're denying the inherent right of family to homosexuals. You needn't legislate this right, you simply should not deny it, which the law currently does. And I quote 'Family n. "a social unit living together;" ' Which can easily be constituted by two homosexuals, male or females, in love.

Good for him. However, to legislate such a thing and compel all employers to it is absurd, no?

Maternity leave has NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE, this is simply straw.

It is a principle even the law upholds.

The mother is the first person an infant bonds with - even before birth.

Purely tradition indeed!

Again, what are YOU talking about, motherhood != marriage. Stop associating two nonassociates.

What are you talking about?

Adoption is a PRIVILEGE whereby the state transfers responsibility to parents that are not biologically related to the child.

I don't agree with excluding potential foster parents exclusively due to their sexual preference.

It doesn't mean, however, that sexual preference doesn't play a part in the family environment being contemplated for the child.

And well it shouldn't. Assuming that two males or two women would be less parents than any other, is completely ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of single parent (mother and father) households. This would be no less problematic to a child having two fathers or two mothers, than a single parent household would. However this is actually irrelevant to the argument here, and should not even be discussed. I really shouldn't have brought this into the thread.

What are you talking about?

I am FOR gender equality.

Motherhood for males and fatherhood for females are naive and fundamentally defective notions of gender equality.

Who is giving fatherhood to women, and motherhood to men? Does a single father of a child, with no mother in the picture (for whatEVER reason) also become the mother? or vice versa? you're logic is flawed.



** In finality, PLEASE LAY OFF THE ENTER KEY..... it makes replying so difficult. Paragraphs are your friend.

 

[numinus]

So now making laws based on the extension of equality and freedom is superfluous?

Making laws that are detached from ANY rational purpose is.

Motherhood for gay men indeed!

 

[numinus]

Yet the state does this by saying THEY CANNOT marry.

Nope.

The state does not recognize it as such, that's all.

The reason for this, as I have been saying since forever, is that homosexual unions do not contain the purposes for which the marital institution (hence its legal manifestations) exists.

Here HERE! This is not my statement this IS THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS PER THE DICTIONARY. If that itself is circular, then we have problems.

And you think the dictionary of common words is at par with the logical rigor necessary for debate, eh?

*sigh*

Constitutes prejudice? So if a lone woman decides to go find a random man to procreate with, though she has no job, no income, she should be supported for the malfeasance? (well we DO support them no? Without marriage at all.)

Malfeasance?!?

The pursuit of an individual's happiness is beyond the government's competence to define exactly. And yet, the government spends a considerable amount of effort to guarantee it, no?

How is this different, eh?

ever seen the cheques given to single mothers with 3 kids? There IS A LOT OF FINANCIAL SECURITY. Marriage doesn't effect this in the least bit.

You begrudge the actions of the state to effect a more humane society?

And how much, exactly, does the government spend to guarantee that YOUR existence is up to human standards, eh?

In truth, there are several ways to answer this. First, the biological father is pretty much responsibile union(marriage) notwithstanding. And the second husband. If he so much as acts as the father of the child, he too can be held responsible, adoption notwithstanding. So I think you're misconstruing some of the variables here.

Exactly what I'm saying.

The biological relations that accrue are INDEFEASIBLE by the state. Even the choice of the a second husband - hence a stepfather to her child - is absolutely left within the competence of the mother - as a consequence of her inalienable right.

Only in the absence of these biological relations within the marital union is the state obliged to assume responsibility for the child. And in the exercise of this responsibility, like adoption standards, the state is within its prerogatives.

Tax breaks are given to help mothers. Ok, so what of the tax breaks given to couples who never have children? Is this abuse of the system? Should this be legislated? Logical fallacy abound.

What are the tax breaks married couples without children get that aren't available to anyone without children, eh?

I've asked this a couple of times already. No luck yet with a reply.

so you're denying the inherent right of family to homosexuals. You needn't legislate this right, you simply should not deny it, which the law currently does. And I quote 'Family n. "a social unit living together;" ' Which can easily be constituted by two homosexuals, male or females, in love.

Does the udhr have YOUR dictionary definition in mind when they said the family is the 'NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF SOCIETY', hmm?

And to DENY an inalienable right requires coersive force. The state does not use coersive force if people wish to spend their lives in a 'de facto marriage'.

The government simply doesn't recognize it legally.

Maternity leave has NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE, this is simply straw.

But, like the marital institution, it has EVERYTHING to do with MOTHERHOOD.

Again, what are YOU talking about, motherhood != marriage. Stop associating two nonassociates.

Can't help you if you can't understand simple concepts.

Marriage is an institution that promotes the practical necessities of motherhood.

When a woman does not avail of it, as is her CHOICE, then that's that. It is enough that the institution exists to mitigate prejudice inherent in her gender.

Homosexual marriage is simply barking at the wrong tree.

And well it shouldn't. Assuming that two males or two women would be less parents than any other, is completely ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of single parent (mother and father) households. This would be no less problematic to a child having two fathers or two mothers, than a single parent household would. However this is actually irrelevant to the argument here, and should not even be discussed. I really shouldn't have brought this into the thread.

Not necessarily.

Homosexuals are human beings too, hence belonging to the family unit arising from that biology.

And since no biological relations arise from a homosexual union, it is but logical that there are no family relations may be formed from it, except those that the state deems fit to confer.

Who is giving fatherhood to women, and motherhood to men? Does a single father of a child, with no mother in the picture (for whatEVER reason) also become the mother? or vice versa? you're logic is flawed.

There is no flaw.

The paternity of a biological father, without the benefits of a marital union, is BY NO MEANS, absolute - unlike motherhood. It can be contested by the strenght of family relations alone. Ultimately, it is within the state's prerogative to adjudicate.

Within the marital union, however, paternity is defeasible ONLY by maternity.

In the absence of family relations, the state steps in.

** In finality, PLEASE LAY OFF THE ENTER KEY..... it makes replying so difficult. Paragraphs are your friend.

Sorry. That's for my convenience. I find reading very long paragraphs in a computer screen a burden to my eyes.

 

[numinus]

So now the government grants rights?

Go read the Ninth Amendment and ask yourself if the government is meant to examine and "grant" every human right that it recognizes.

The government has to justify denying rights - not granting them.

LOL

The government is MORE than justified in denying the rights of motherhood to gay men, wouldn't you say?

 

[jb_1430]

Silly, the rights associated with marriage that you long for are created by government.

So now the government grants rights?

Go read the Ninth Amendment and ask yourself if the government is meant to examine and "grant" every human right that it recognizes.

The government has to justify denying rights - not granting them.

 

[invest07]

Why would it be bad for Homosexuals to Marry?

This is one of the points raised in an earlier post under this topic.

My answer to this considers the "slippery slope" argument.

If you allow 2 of the same gender to marry, haven't you set a precedent for marriage to be legally defined as the union of anyone to anything?

How about brother and sister?
How about polygamy?
How about interspecies marriage?
How about father/daughter or son/mother marriage?

Exactly where do you draw the line and how do you draw that line? Once the door is opened, it will be next to impossible to close.

So what is wrong with 2 memebers of the same gender marrying? Nothing in itself but opening the door is a Pandora's Box.

I say, leave the door closed.

 

[Coyote]

This is one of the points raised in an earlier post under this topic.

My answer to this considers the "slippery slope" argument.

If you allow 2 of the same gender to marry, haven't you set a precedent for marriage to be legally defined as the union of anyone to anything?

How about brother and sister?
How about polygamy?
How about interspecies marriage?
How about father/daughter or son/mother marriage?

Exactly where do you draw the line and how do you draw that line? Once the door is opened, it will be next to impossible to close.

So what is wrong with 2 memebers of the same gender marrying? Nothing in itself but opening the door is a Pandora's Box.

I say, leave the door closed.

First off, the above is a logical fallacy.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:


Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.​

Second, people always bring up interspecies marriage and marriage to children. I've always contended marriage is between two consenting adults. An animal can never give informed consent. Legally, neither can a child.

Third, your arguments are the exact same arguments used by opponents of inter-racial marriage.

Either make an argument showing that this would allow interspecies marriage, or show me how gay marriage harms anyone enough to deny them equal rights?

 

[Coyote]

They have NO MORE right to these "legal protections, rights, benefits" than my girlfriend and I do. Just no rational purpose whatsoever denying me those rights, if you insist on taking procreation out of the equation.

I'm not saying they have MORE rights or that you and your girl friend have LESS rights when it comes to getting married.

If procreation matters, do we then deny benefits to all those who choose not to procreate or can not procreate or who's children are grown and on their own? Shall we anull all those marriages?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is one of the points raised in an earlier post under this topic.
My answer to this considers the "slippery slope" argument.
If you allow 2 of the same gender to marry, haven't you set a precedent for marriage to be legally defined as the union of anyone to anything?
How about brother and sister?
How about polygamy?
How about interspecies marriage?
How about father/daughter or son/mother marriage?
Exactly where do you draw the line and how do you draw that line? Once the door is opened, it will be next to impossible to close.
So what is wrong with 2 memebers of the same gender marrying? Nothing in itself but opening the door is a Pandora's Box.
I say, leave the door closed.

The slippery slope argument is fallacious. Marriage laws are restricted to consenting adults, that's all that's being discussed. Animals, refridgerators, and children are not consenting adults. Why is it that we can have heterosexual marriage without the slippery slope of men marrying little girls?

No one is asking for incestual marriage, in fact the only people who bring it up are the one's scrambling for SOME argument to disallow consenting homosexual adults to marry. Polygamy is already practiced around the world and here in the US (albeit not legally) and it works just fine, but no one is asking for that either. All we are asking for is the same rights that all other consenting adults already have in this country--that's all--if you add anything else to the mix it is done for the sake of obfuscation since you have no REAL reason to ban gay marriage.

 

[jb_1430]

Nobody is "banning gay marriage". Even here in conservative central Texas the local Church of Christ performs gay marriages on a regular basis. YOU want the government to license and regulate these relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before. I think you need to at least be able to state some reason for the government to do so, other than you really really want them to.
Men and women in an intimate relationship frequently produce children, gay couples do not. The fact that not all different sex couples produce children is an arguement against the need for such license and regulation of those couples, its not a reason to license and regulate gay relationships that can never produce children.

 

[Segep]

Im single, no kids. And ONLY a man and a woman can produce their child.

Well, maybe someday you'll have kids, and then you might understand why I would want to protect them. As to the second part of your statement--what, so now I'm not married anymore so I don't deserve to have my kid? What are you saying?

 

[Segep]

....its not a reason to license and regulate gay relationships that can never produce children.

Yo! A man and a woman aren't the only combination capable of raising a child! How dense can you get? You have no argument so you resort to repeating the mantra:

Only men and women can have children
Only men and women can have children
Only men and women can have children


Get a grip!

 

[jb_1430]

Well, maybe someday you'll have kids, and then you might understand why I would want to protect them.

ONLY by hooking up with a woman. If I were gay, there wouldnt be any need for concern.

As to the second part of your statement--what, so now I'm not married anymore so I don't deserve to have my kid? What are you saying?

???????? uuuuh, no, that's not what Im saying.