Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[invest07]

Marriage and the courts

As far as I know, marriage has not been legally defined as one man/one woman. Our definition of marriage has less of a legal basis than it does an historic basis. Our marriage customs have arisen from 1000's of years of human experience and less from the law.

Right now, EVERY person in this country has the same marriage right: to marry a member of the opposite gender. Since this extends precisely the same right to everyone, how is this discriminatory?

As far as courts deciding our fate, I would point to Roe v Wade as an excellent example of a sweeping social issue dictated by the courts. As citizens we had no input into this court decision. As a result of this decision over 40,000,000 Americans never got the chance to live.

If the courts can run roughshod over the American public in Roe v Wade, they certainly can if marriage is redefined. Once you open the door, no one can definitiely say what the courts will dictate. And once that is done, we are all stuck with the results.

It is my opinion that every group in the country that has a link to sex perversion will sue and they may very well prevail in the courts. NAMBLA, the animal sex groups, all the perverts will get in on the act.

I say, leave the door closed. Everyone has the same right now and if you change that, the results may be anarchic for the marriage institution.

 

[jb_1430]

We've all answered you. Because it would be fair. Because it would allow homosexuals to have families. Because abandoned children are and always will be a problem and the more families willing and/or eager to take them in, the better.
Allowing them to feel equal is within the purview of our government.

Nothing is stopping homosexuals from having families... well, other than that one distinction that they dont have the biological ability to create a family.
If there are any state adoption laws that prevent unmarried homosexuals from adopting, your problems are with the adoption law. But I doubt there are any such laws.
But I think you seem to be agreeing with what Ive said all along in that it is to allow homosexuals to "feel equal", or as I said it, feel better about themselves.
Other than the same ole arguement that if Heteros can marry its only "fair" that homos be allowed to as well, there is nothing here. Nobody can verbalize an underlying purpose for licensing and regulating gay couples. Kind of like demanding a license for your toy cap gun because your feeling inadequate compared to the real gun owners.

 

[jb_1430]

This is a good example of the emotional nature of your position. You have reduced millions of people to nothing more than putative sex acts--reductio ad absurdum. Hetero couples who decide not to have children or who are infertile engage in sex acts that will not produce children--are you including them in your orgy of reductionism?

That would be an arguement for denying infertile couples a marriage license and YET another arguement to deny homosexuals.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That would be an arguement for denying infertile couples a marriage license and YET another arguement to deny homosexuals.

Are you saying that you would support gay marriage if one of the partners had produced a child by peno/vaginal intercourse?

You might have a case if marriage was JUST for procreation, but it's not, it's a legal joining of lives for better or worse, it's about love, trust, committment, companionship, stability, support, friendship, intimacy, and all the other things of which humans are capable of sharing. And the idea that some people should be denied this panoply of benefits for religious reasons based on myths plagarized from other religious texts doesn't make any sense to me.

I haven't yet seen a good reason for denying homosexuals equal rights. Religion is not a good reason for this any more than religion was a good reason to deny women the right to own property or to enslave black people.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

You and I have a different definition of the "slippery slope".

Nothing inevitably follows any event on a slippery slope. My definition follows this line of reasoning:

If event "A" occurs, then Event "B" may also follow. This does not mean it automatically will but the occurrence of event "A" increases the odds of event "B" occurring.

The point I was making is that once you redefine marriage, you may very well have established a legal precedent to define marriage any way a person desires.

There are perverts now that advocate sex with animals and chilrdren under 10. How long will it take them to realize that the definition of marriage is now wide open for revision. And once you redefine it for one group, how to you deny another group the same right? Once redefinition is on the table, how do you stop it?

This is a slippery slope and it is my opinion that this Pandora's Box should remain closed.

By that logic then, interracial marriage should never have been allowed. That changed the "definition" of marriage. In ancient times in many cultures, particularly the biblical ones - polygomy was the definition of marriage. Yet that changed too. Despite these changes marriage never became "wide open" to anything but consenting adults.

 

[jb_1430]

I haven't yet seen a good reason for denying homosexuals equal rights. Religion is not a good reason for this any more than religion was a good reason to deny women the right to own property or to enslave black people.

???uuuh, they cant make babies, and I am an atheist. And I never said marriage was just about procreation. Procreation is simply why the government has stepped in to license and regulate the relationship.

 

[Coyote]

Other than the fact that the gays REALLY want it and the statement that gays should be treated the same just because, nobody has even attempted to even make a case. Any one care to? Whats the purpose?

Simply, equality. Our government recognizes marriage and provides certain benifets and protections to legally married couples. No church can be forced to marry a couple against their will or recognize such a marriage, but if the government is going to be in the business of recognizing and legalizing marriages, it must do so equally among all it's adult human citizens.

What possible benefit to society? You know, other than just helping gays feel a little better about themselves.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't hurt society, and it confers legal protections and rights. How does interracial marriage benefit society?

 

[Coyote]

???uuuh, they cant make babies, and I am an atheist. And I never said marriage was just about procreation. Procreation is simply why the government has stepped in to license and regulate the relationship.

Where do you get that idea? Children is only one of many reasons that the government is involved in marriage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2440/

 

[jb_1430]

Where do you get that idea? Children is only one of many reasons that the government is involved in marriage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2440/

I was refering to the present, not the 1600s. Back then the woman and her property, became the property of the husband. Yet another example of the purpose of marriage laws that simply doesnt exist in gay marriages.

 

[Coyote]

I was refering to the present, not the 1600s. Back then the woman and her property, became the property of the husband. Yet another example of the purpose of marriage laws that simply doesnt exist in gay marriages.

I AM referring to the present.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

???uuuh, they cant make babies, and I am an atheist. And I never said marriage was just about procreation. Procreation is simply why the government has stepped in to license and regulate the relationship.

"???uuuh," I gotta admit that I just LOVE this quote, why are you posting on this thread if you don't know anything about the subject? Coyote has kids and HE'S gay. Maybe you should study up on the subject before running your opinions on the rest of us. It's scary to think that you may actually vote for Christian-based laws discriminating against us because you simply don't know any better.

What possible reason has the government got for regulating procreation? A government license to have sex is a new concept for me.

 

[jb_1430]

Simply, equality. Our government recognizes marriage and provides certain benifets and protections to legally married couples. No church can be forced to marry a couple against their will or recognize such a marriage, but if the government is going to be in the business of recognizing and legalizing marriages, it must do so equally among all it's adult human citizens..

Well, I was looking for a REASON "it must do". A reason that isnt dependent on the fact that somebody else is recieving a benefit. Equality requires that people in the same situation be treated equally. Those under 18 are treated differently than people over 18. A resident of a state is treated differently than a non resident.A graduate is treated differently than a non graduate and intimate couples who could concievably procreate are treated differently than those who can not.

It doesn't hurt society, and it confers legal protections and rights.

Oh, thats debateable. Homosexuality seems to have been more prevalent in societies where it is openly accepted and endorsed by that society. The arguement can be made that encouraging the raising of children by the two people who created that child, is beneficial to the children and society as a whole. I cant even concieve of any benefit to encouraging gay sex and making it more prevalent in society. Thats just not a relm of life that government needs to be sticking its nose into, to encourage OR prohibit.

How does interracial marriage benefit society?

????? exactly the same way same race marriage benefits society. By encouraging the raising of children by the people who created that child.

 

[Coyote]

Well, I was looking for a REASON "it must do". A reason that isnt dependent on the fact that somebody else is recieving a benefit. Equality requires that people in the same situation be treated equally. Those under 18 are treated differently than people over 18. A resident of a state is treated differently than a non resident.A graduate is treated differently than a non graduate and intimate couples who could concievably procreate are treated differently than those who can not.

All citizens have certain fundamental rights including the right to marry a partner of their choice - an adult consenting partner. Only one segment of the adult population is forbidden. Why?

Oh, thats debateable. Homosexuality seems to have been more prevalent in societies where it is openly accepted and endorsed by that society.

You are assuming a false cause and effect here. Is it actually more prevalent? Or less hidden? I would guess less hidden since criminal penalties up to and including execution (depending on where you are) would certainly make me want to hide it were I gay.

The arguement can be made that encouraging the raising of children by the two people who created that child, is beneficial to the children and society as a whole. I cant even concieve of any benefit to encouraging gay sex and making it more prevalent in society. Thats just not a relm of life that government needs to be sticking its nose into, to encourage OR prohibit.

Marriage neither encourages nor discourages sex. Marriage, from the government's point of view is a legal contract who's primary purpose is to deal with property, estate, and inheritance rights. Second, gay couples can certainly have and raise children.

Whether the government needs to stick it's nose in or not is irrelevant. It already does by granting special rights to a select group of people.

????? exactly the same way same race marriage benefits society. By encouraging the raising of children by the people who created that child.

How? Blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites. Why do you need interracial marriage? Why did you need to change the definition of marriage? hmmm?

 

[Coyote]

"???uuuh," I gotta admit that I just LOVE this quote, why are you posting on this thread if you don't know anything about the subject? Coyote has kids and HE'S gay. Maybe you should study up on the subject before running your opinions on the rest of us. It's scary to think that you may actually vote for Christian-based laws discriminating against us because you simply don't know any better.

What possible reason has the government got for regulating procreation? A government license to have sex is a new concept for me.

I think you are confusing me with my brother coyote - Segep, who you likely know from another board.

 

[Segep]

lol I was just about to point that out, Sister Coyote.


Mare and I go way back so she's used to referring to me as Coyote....