Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Coyote]

Yes, women and their property both became the property of the man. Much of marriage law was enacted for the protection of both women and children.

Not necessarily. It depends on the culture you are talking about. Marriage was also about political alliances.

The point is: the definition of marriage has changed many times over. It is primarily a legal contract that endows certain benefits on a particular group of people. Why should any two consenting adults who wish to form a permanent union be denied these legal benifits and protections? Why is it considered "special rights" for one and not for the other?

 

[Coyote]

?????? In some kind of weird, alternate universe that you dwell in. Throughout the course of Human history, it has almost universally been men and women as the only acceptable form of marriage. The fact that in some cultures men had many women, or vice versa, doesnt really do anything for your gay marriage arguement. The institution likely would have never even evolved BUT FOR the fact that when men and women are in an intimate relationship, they frequently produce children. Some kind of pathetic self loathing of the gays that have them clamoring for a chance to pretend they are just like heterosexual couples. Elevating the fact that they help get each other off to that of procreation and the continuation of mankind. Weve declared unconstitutional the laws that criminalized the diddleing of Billy in the but by Bob, there just isnt really any purpose in the government even being involved in such things. What you do in your bedroom is of really no importance to society as a whole, and certainly isnt something I think the government has any business promoting.

Stripping off the hysterical hyperbole, lets look at facts:

FACT: The government is ALREADY involved in the business of the bedroom by the simple fact that it legalizes and recongizes marriages and convers special benefits on married couples. Your obsession with Billy Bob's diddling is silly.


FACT: The definition of "marriage" has changed. In some cultures "marriages" appear to have occured and been recognized, between individuals of the same sex. This has been referenced previously. Whether it is the "same" as "marriage" as we recognize it, or not is a matter of semantics not reality since what ever it was - it was a recognized union of two individuals.

FACT: The following has defined "marriage" through out history....

One man/one woman
One woman/several men
One man/several women
One white man/one white woman
One black man/one black woman
One Catholic man/one Catholic woman
One woman/one diety

Marriage is defined by culture. It changes. But for some reason that seems to no longer be applicable and the default misconception is that it was always and must be always one man/one woman. Why?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I know a father and daughter who live together raising her child. A brother and sister raising her children since her husband died. Both cant get married. Long time room mates sharing the parenting duties who dont want to get married. What in the world makes you think a gay couples should be given special recognition above ANY other possible group of unmarried adults that might raise children?
And like Ive always said. Government encourages intimate heterosexual couples to get married because they frequently produce children. Its just NEVER going to happen in the case of a gay couple.

I don't. I think all consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage. How many times do I have to write this? Are you too dim to read accurately? All consenting adults should have the right to marry and share in the benefits of legal marriage. Hello? All consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage and all the benefits that accrue therefrom. Are you getting any of this? Earth to JB, INCLUSIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE. Marriage is a good and useful thing, a contract that legally binds people together for the betterment of themselves and the society in which they live. Every consenting adult should be allowed to marry. Can I explain this any more plainly? What? Do you need bigger print? Yes, I can do that:
I think all consenting adults should have the right to marry and share in all the legal rights and privileges that are guaranteed in US law. Yes, ALL OF THE CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD HAVE THIS RIGHT!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I didnt say in ALL kinds of cultures. I said Throughout the course of Human history, it has almost universally been men and women as the only acceptable form of marriage. Almost precludes "all" from being the case.

So what? So some cultures did and some didn't, how does that help your case? The fact is that "almost universal" is a guess on your part, and not a very accurate one either. Parthenogenesis is almost unheard of too, but it has happened and that means that it's possible. As far as I know there is no compelling reason to disallow gay people from getting married. And you haven't yet provided one, nor have you explained why in the world you are on this site bashing at gay people if you aren't religious. What are you doing it for? Are you a recreational bigot and this is how you have fun?

 

[jb_1430]

I don't. I think all consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage. How many times do I have to write this? Are you too dim to read accurately? All consenting adults should have the right to marry and share in the benefits of legal marriage. Hello? All consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage and all the benefits that accrue therefrom. Are you getting any of this? Earth to JB, INCLUSIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE.

Uuuuuh????? I think everybody here is clear about what you think ya freakin loon! Marriage is for men and women. They are the only ones who make babies. Ya gettin any of this?

 

[jb_1430]

As far as I know there is no compelling reason to disallow gay people from getting married.

There is no compelling reason to disallow me from getting married to my left hand, but thats not a reason for government to issue me a license. And my relationship with my left hand has as much an impact on society as two gays in an intimate relationship. None.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Uuuuuh????? I think everybody here is clear about what you think ya freakin loon! Marriage is for men and women. They are the only ones who make babies. Ya gettin any of this?

You ARE dim. Oh well, I hate to break this to you my friend, but homosexuals and lesbians ARE men and women, and they manage to have children through a variety of ways--some of them the same way that heterosexuals do, some use surrogate mothers just like some heterosexuals do, some adopt just like heterosexuals do, and some use in vitro fertilization just like heterosexuals do.

You are trying to use an arbitrary standard to exclude a small portion of the consenting adult population from full citizenship and there is NO REASON that supports your standard, it doesn't exist.

 

[jb_1430]

You ARE dim. Oh well, I hate to break this to you my friend, but homosexuals and lesbians ARE men and women, and they manage to have children through a variety of ways--some of them the same way that heterosexuals do, some use surrogate mothers just like some heterosexuals do, some adopt just like heterosexuals do, and some use in vitro fertilization just like heterosexuals do.

You are trying to use an arbitrary standard to exclude a small portion of the consenting adult population from full citizenship and there is NO REASON that supports your standard, it doesn't exist.

Only a man and a woman can "make" a child. Their biological child. Any other method to "have" children involves a third person with rights and responsibilities as a biological parent.
Everything in your arguements regarding children apply equally to any two unmarried people raising a child. None of your arguements support the view that gays should be treated any differently than any other combination of unmarried adults.
And everything in your arguements regarding children, is an arguement to change the adoption laws, not the marriage laws.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Only a man and a woman can "make" a child. Their biological child. Any other method to "have" children involves a third person with rights and responsibilities as a biological parent.
Everything in your arguements regarding children apply equally to any two unmarried people raising a child. None of your arguements support the view that gays should be treated any differently than any other combination of unmarried adults.
And everything in your arguements regarding children, is an arguement to change the adoption laws, not the marriage laws.

So an infertile hetero couple has in vitro fertilization and you think that should fall under adoption laws? What are you talking about? Do you have any idea?

All consenting adults should have the right to marry, children are irrelevant. Marriage is a legal contract in US Law and has nothing to do with adoption.

 

[numinus]

So women who adopt are not mothers?

Correct.

You came up with this on your own?

 

[numinus]

I have a question for you. Why does this matter?

Because human society must be governed by the principles of human nature.

Duh?

Why did you think it was important?

 

[palerider]

My position then, vis a vis gay rights is analogous to yours on abortion. You never provided an example that was more credible than mine are.

More lies mare. My position is that unborns are human beings and I provided ample credible, peer reviewed science that supports that position. My position is that human beings have a right to live. I have provided the very founding documents of this nation to support that position. My position is that all rights are secondary to the right to live. Again, that position is corroborated by the founding documents of this nation.

As to your examples, you have yet to provide any or any credible corroboration to back them up.

Bloviating, what a great word, applied to you it conjures up a picture in my mind of a small, pale, bad-tempered fish swollen up with self-righteousness lurking under a rocky outcrop glowering at life as it passes him by.

Nice to see that you still must resort to personal attack in lieu of any actual argument or support of that argument. You talk talk talk, but fail to back up any of it.

You claim 1000 rights that married couples have that gay couples don't. Name a few for me if you don't mind and provide some corroboration to back up your claim. And as you are naming them, be sure to check to see if the "right" that you claim heterosexual couples have can't be had by homosexual couples via a decent lawyer or legal contract.

 

[palerider]

What weird alternative Universe do you live in? Marriage has not been restricted to just hetero people in all kinds of cultures. Mostly the restrictions have come from the desert religions, patriarchal religions. You need to study more history.

Mare there are no cultures that called any sort of homosexual relationship a marriage. There have beencultures that accepted homosexual relationships few cases certain relationships have even encouraged, but none of them have been called a marriage.

 

[palerider]

I think all consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage.

You believe that brothers and sisters should have the right to marry? You believe that fathers and daughters shoud have the right to marry? You believe that mothers and sons should have the right to marry? Do I have you right? You believe that grandfathers and grandaughters shoud have the right to marry?

I just want to be sure that I am understanding what you are saying.

 

[numinus]

It is simple - in fact, it's an oversimplification. Marriage means a bit more today than that. It means something for the people who are getting married. The manifest function of marriage has changed. It is no longer the production of children - it is now the joining together of two people. The production of children is now considered by many to be a latent function of marriage.

Basically - people get married primarily because they love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, not primarily because they plan to have children together. It's about them - not their hypothetical children.

That's how it is today, and that's why gays want to and should be allowed to get married - because marriage is largely seen as an expression of love and affection and they want to have equal rights to express themselves in that manner.

Pay attention so that no one need repeat the obvious.

The state doesn't give a rat's ass who you want to spend the rest of your life with, nor how you like your sex.

The states obligation is to motherhood and the family relations consequent to it.

There is no motherhood for gay men - only for women. Lesbians do not become mothers through a homosexual union. It is dictated by the biology of her gender.

There is no equality in pretending that men could be mothers or women could be fathers for the simple reason that their genders are NOT the same. Motherhood and family relations proceed EXACTLY because their genders are NOT the same.

Understand?