Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

You are wrong.

Historically marriage was a legal and political contract. Indeed in earlier times (in European society), the commoner entered a "common law" marriage and state sanctioned marriages were reserved for the titled and wealthy who had lands, titles, and alliances to be considered.

The marital institution started in medieval europe, eh?

Try harder.

 

[palerider]

Who cares if we havent done it before? This is conservative thinking. Why not make an exception. Its going to benefit gays and nobody else looses out.

I have asked this question before of you, and others, and none of you have answered so let me ask again.

Exactly where do you draw the line with respect to who can marry who or what? And once you make an exception for one group based on their sexual preference, on what rational basis do you draw that line?

 

[palerider]

You are wrong.

Historically marriage was a legal and political contract. Indeed in earlier times (in European society), the commoner entered a "common law" marriage and state sanctioned marriages were reserved for the titled and wealthy who had lands, titles, and alliances to be considered.

He isn't wrong coyote. We have already been over the anthropological roots of marriage and the fact is that from the time we advanced beyond small hunter gatherer groups, marriage has been supported by the society and marriage has been between men and women. It is dissappointing to see you revert to the same old PC liberal line when you know they are not the truth.

 

[Coyote]

He isn't wrong coyote. We have already been over the anthropological roots of marriage and the fact is that from the time we advanced beyond small hunter gatherer groups, marriage has been supported by the society and marriage has been between men and women. It is dissappointing to see you revert to the same old PC liberal line when you know they are not the truth.

What I meant was that marriage was not historically a means to legitimize sex between two individuals. It was a legal contract primarily to legitimize inheritance rights, property rights and status. In that sense - though it meant between male(s) and female(s) in the majority of cases (but not all) sexuality had less to do with it then other matters.

There clearly have been exceptions to the male/female bond recognized in other societies - they are few and far between, but that is not the same as non-existant.

Aside from that - again - what is wrong with allowing a civil union or marriage between two people of the same sex?

We have changed our permissions of who can be granted what rights over time - yet, on this one issue, it would seem that we must be frozen in time and unchanging. Why?

Reasons to grant it:

Equality. Allowing consenting adults to form a legally recognized union that confers the same set of benefits and protections as heterosexual unions.

Marriage means (we always hope) a greater and more lasting commitment and stability. Stable couples and families benefit society whether they are hetero or homo.


Reasons not to grant it:

??

 

[9sublime]

I have asked this question before of you, and others, and none of you have answered so let me ask again.

Exactly where do you draw the line with respect to who can marry who or what? And once you make an exception for one group based on their sexual preference, on what rational basis do you draw that line?

This isn't the question I was asking. The question I was asking is why does it matter to you if the government legalizes and leglislates gay marriage, if gays benefit and nobody really looses out?

As for drawing a line, I think drawing a line at human/human relationships is probably fair enough. However, if someone wants to be stupid enough to marry a houseplant, why stop them?

 

[vyo476]

Exactly where do you draw the line with respect to who can marry who or what? And once you make an exception for one group based on their sexual preference, on what rational basis do you draw that line?

Let people marry people. Let there be a minimum age limit for consent purposes - eighteen sounds good to me. Polygamy is something we can discuss another day - while I think it ought to be allowed, for purely economical reasons it is something we'd need to look at in more depth.

To be honest, I already answered this question once, in post #633. It should be based on whether the union causes anyone actual physical or mental harm.

To which you replied that homosexuality does cause such harm to the children in post #638. You then backed it up with research in post #647.

Meanwhile, BigRob brought up that there is just as much research showing that homosexuality does not cause harm to children in post #641. After a few posts that amount to jabbing at each other, BigRob posted research to back his position in post #650.

Although I did respond to your research (from #647) that didn't go anywhere; you started to twist what I was saying and I decided not to pursue it any further. You have yet to respond to BigRob's research in any way. Perhaps you missed it. On my browser here it's the last post on page 65 of this thread.

As far as I can tell, that where the debate on where the line is drawn stands. If it's harmful to someone we don't allow it. It is now up to you to prove that homosexuality is harmful to the kids, by providing a study that shows that this is the case rather than attacking the methodology of those who have concluded otherwise (which, by the way, is a classic conspiracy theory tactic...for shame, pale rider), or by successfully refuting the evidence to the contrary of your point provided by BigRob.

 

[palerider]

This isn't the question I was asking. The question I was asking is why does it matter to you if the government legalizes and leglislates gay marriage, if gays benefit and nobody really looses out?

As for drawing a line, I think drawing a line at human/human relationships is probably fair enough. However, if someone wants to be stupid enough to marry a houseplant, why stop them?

So you are OK with brothers marrying sisters? Mothers marrying sons? Fathers or grandfathers marrying daughters etc? You are OK with multiple wives and or husbands (a situation that would certainly not be good for children)?

 

[palerider]

Let people marry people. Let there be a minimum age limit for consent purposes - eighteen sounds good to me. Polygamy is something we can discuss another day - while I think it ought to be allowed, for purely economical reasons it is something we'd need to look at in more depth.

So you are also ok with brothers marrying sisters, mothers marrying sons or daughters, fathers marrying sons or daughters, or grandparents marrying grandchildren?

... it. It is now up to you to prove that homosexuality is harmful to the kids, by providing a study that shows that this is the case rather than attacking the methodology of those who have concluded otherwise (which, by the way, is a classic conspiracy theory tactic...for shame, pale rider), or by successfully refuting the evidence to the contrary of your point provided by BigRob.

If the methodology of a study is flawed, then there is, and should be no requirement to accept the results of the study. Are you suggesting otherwise? Following that logic, no one ever gets to the truth because whatever they want to prove can be proved by tailoring the study to produce the results they wish to get. There are standard and accepted methodologies to achieve truthful and unbiased conclusions. If a group deviates from those standards, the results should be immediately called into question.

Take reliant's study for example that "proves" that conservatives are any number of terrible things. If you look at the study, however, you see that it is a psychological profile of conservatives by psychologists but no conservatives were actually talked to during the course of the study and some of the most notorious leftist dictators of the 20th century were held up as prime examples of right wing behavior. Do you accept the results of the study on its face even though the methodology was terribly flawed at its most basic level?

 

[jb_1430]

As far as I can tell, that where the debate on where the line is drawn stands. If it's harmful to someone we don't allow it. It is now up to you to prove that homosexuality is harmful to the kids,

While you seem to think that government should license and regulate a personal relationship if the relationship causes no harm, many of us believe that government needs some purpose for licensing and regulating the relationship.

 

[Coyote]

So you are OK with brothers marrying sisters? Mothers marrying sons? Fathers or grandfathers marrying daughters etc? You are OK with multiple wives and or husbands (a situation that would certainly not be good for children)?

Actually...I wonder about this. Why would it not be good for children? The reason I ask is not because I advocate bigamy or anything but I don't exactly see a reason for it being illegal.

Some of the problems with bigamy today exist mostly because of other practices of the cults that tend towards it - forced marriages, and children married to adults, and the fact that it is all underground and illegal.

In many societies it was or still is the norm and the children seem to fair just fine as it is rather like an extended family. Societies that practice it typically have requirements that a man must be able to support all his wives legally etc.

So - actually would it be bad for children?

 

[r0beph]

So you are OK with brothers marrying sisters? Mothers marrying sons? Fathers or grandfathers marrying daughters etc? You are OK with multiple wives and or husbands (a situation that would certainly not be good for children)?

Unlike homosexuality, where procreation isn't possible between the couple, close relatives creates another situation all together. Inbreeding reduces the genetic pool, increases recessive gene expression, and generally is a bad idea, whether it be those of the lower animal kingdom or humans. You can expect many problems in reproduction between siblings, such as;
* reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* increased genetic disorders
* fluctuating facial asymmetry
* lower birth rate
* higher infant mortality
* slower growth rate
* smaller adult size
* loss of immune system function.


How does this relate to homosexual marriage by any form? One cannot reproduce thus poses no health risk to a child bore by them and one likely will exhibit many genetic anomaly that not only will effect the child, but the future generations coming from the birthchild of such a relationship's children. To even associate such a generationally dangerous with homosexual relationships is a pure diversion from the fact. It's apples and oranges, you cannot use a comparison of apples and oranges to express the difference between the flavors of various apple breeds. thank you, come again.


As for being good for the children or not, I don't believe bigamy is necessarily a problem for the children, on paper. The problem with bigamy and children is a deeper rooted situation that involves the obvious traits associated with the practice. Patriarchal idealism is core to polygamy, 1 man; many wives. The inverse services similar equality bias where one woman has many husbands. If man or woman were equal in such practices, then polygamy simply would NOT exist since to exist it requires a lean to either the male or female aspects of the relationship, giving one more and the other less. The problem this causes with children would be that in which the child would be indoctrinated in either the lesser or higher value of ones gender, where the poly gender would be of less value. While on paper it may be sound, so is communism, but the human nature of these are both apparent. Whether this should be legally sanctioned or not, is not an object for discussion here, I personally find polygamous relationships to be unsound not only for children but all involved if due only to human nature of jealousy and inequality of the gender involved.

You're argument concerning both of these marriage types, again is apples and oranges, Homosexual marriages show NO problem with children, how can they, they're unable to reproduce, your data concerning the parental abilities of homosexual couples thus should be saved for an argument whether or not they should be allowed to adopt, NOT marry, as that is not a concerning factor of the union.

 

[r0beph]

If the methodology of a study is in disagreement with me, then there is, and should be no requirement to accept the results of the study.

there I fixed it for you

 

[palerider]

So - actually would it be bad for children?

Yes. Authority conflicts that exist between husband and wife send mixed and confusing signals to children. Inevetable conflicts between multiple mothers and or fathers or both can only compound the stress and confusion that the children must live with.

 

[palerider]

Unlike homosexuality, where procreation isn't possible between the couple, close relatives creates another situation all together. Inbreeding reduces the genetic pool, increases recessive gene expression, and generally is a bad idea, whether it be those of the lower animal kingdom or humans. You can expect many problems in reproduction between siblings, such as;
* reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* increased genetic disorders
* fluctuating facial asymmetry
* lower birth rate
* higher infant mortality
* slower growth rate
* smaller adult size
* loss of immune system function.

I can name heredetary diseases that can, and are passed via unrelated couples, if you like, that will produce problems far more serious than the possibilities that you list here. Do you favor genetic screening and denial of the right to marry of any couple who may transmit a genetic disease to their children?

 

[palerider]

there I fixed it for you

Are you arguing that the arguments that I put forth with regard to the methodology of the two specific studies noted are invalid or is this just some more childish sniping from the sidelines on your part?

If the flaws that I pointed out are invalid, by all means make the argument.