Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[BigRob]

What part of 'constitutive document of the united nations' or 'forms part of customary international law' or 'foundation of two BINDING un human rights covenant' don't you understand, hmmm?

As interpreted by you. Even the UN says GA resolutions are not legally binding. At best you can make the case that it will become customary law, but how many countries ignore this? Tons.

More to the point, what sort of sovereign nation affixes its consent on the udhr, uses the principles therein to apply diplomatic pressure on other nations and yet REFUSES TO APPLY IT WITHIN ITS OWN DOMAIN????

Uhm, China does, Saudi Arabia does, Iran does, Russia does. You do not seem to grasp how international politics actually works.

The udhr is the guideline by which states and governments are OBLIGED to comport themselves. And sovereign nations comport themselves through law. It represents the culmination of the logical principles of political philosophy started in ancient greece.

You say they are obligated to follow it and I point out there is no enforcement mechanism and countless countries violate its principles daily. If you cannot enforce an obligation, then it is not a real obligation.

What can be more powerful than logic stated as a UNIVERSAL LAW, hmmm?

If you ask me there are very few universal natural laws, and a declaration of human rights that is roundly ignored does not fit into this category.

 

[n0spam4me]

Ya know....

It really doesn't matter!

Under the law, or by any interpretation by Religious finatics,
It really doesn't matter!

The end result is that two men or two women decide to live together and do whatever they do behind closed doors and its none of my business what they do! Doesn't harm the rest of society! and really "marriage" should be rightly called under the LAW "Civil Union" and if anyone insists on using the word marriage, thats THEIR bit and has nothing to do with me, or the LAW!

Why do people insist on getting their knickers in a twist over NOTHING!

My neighbors are two men, who have lived at the same address for 14 years and are no trouble at all to the community, I have no idea what they get up to when they are alone together and its none of my business!

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

 

[Dr.Who]

What crap! Lots of gays have children, there is no reason to treat them any differently than one treats any other couple. A growing number of hetero couples are not having children and no one is arguing that they should be denied legal marriage. Equal protection under the law means EQUAL PROTECTION, gays pay the same taxes as straight people, they commit no more crimes, they have no more child molestors in their ranks per 100,000 than heteros, they don't contribute to the number of abortions, and they don't rape women.

You are usually a fairly intelligent poster, but how you got onto the "gays don't produce children" bandwagon I don't know. Get a grip, gays are raising a lot of children in the US and around the world. If the real issue is children, then I am willing to support laws that only allow people with children to marry, but of course that's not what you have in mind, is it? On the live birth of a couple's first child (or legal adoption of a first child) they are granted a marriage license retroactive for one year to help with the expenses of the gestation process or the adoption. No one else gets to marry or have the rights and privileges granted to legally married people by US Law.

That will work for me because I'm not looking to get rights for myself that I would deny to others, you on the other hand are doing just that. Not very Christ-like, but totally Christian.

You either don't know your biology or you missed the distinction between producing children and parenting children.

99.99999% of the gays in the world either produced children heterosexually (in which case the marriage laws apply) or they adopted children (in which case the adoption laws should apply).

Laws cannot be made to apply perfectly to every single instance of behavior in the country so they are intentionally broad brushed. Straight people generally have the ability to produce children so they are lumped together and treated alike under the law. Some will not have children and the law will mistreat them in some ways and offer priveleges in some ways that are not fair. Some straight people will choose to produce children and it will still not treat them perfectly in all way. your concept of waiting to grant a license only after children have been produced would not work; it does not encourage chastity until marriage which makes societies stronger (we are already getting quite a bit weaker and I do not want to see it get worse). But virtually no gay people produce children and so far the only time it has happened is when extraordinary technology has been applied.

And I guarantee you that marriage provides no protection to the individuals involved except as it supports mother hood and childhood or has been adapted to changing times. eg, child support payments are for the benefit of the child. Alimony is for the benefit of the parent who had a diminished career because they were raising children. Survivors benefits in social security are for the benefit of spouse who did not work because they were raising children. Inheritance laws are for the benefit of dependent spouses and children. Now I have heard you often say that married couples get thousand plus benefits as a result. Please tell us one that is not designed to benefit dependent spouses (generally motherhood) or children and we can talk about that.

Right now times have not changed enough to warrant restricting the rights of gays as the rights of straights have been restricted. But as soon as gay couples start producing children with any regularity then that time will have come. Marriage is about mothers and children!

 

[Dr.Who]

Ya know....

It really doesn't matter!

Under the law, or by any interpretation by Religious finatics,
It really doesn't matter!

The end result is that two men or two women decide to live together and do whatever they do behind closed doors and its none of my business what they do! Doesn't harm the rest of society! and really "marriage" should be rightly called under the LAW "Civil Union" and if anyone insists on using the word marriage, thats THEIR bit and has nothing to do with me, or the LAW!

Why do people insist on getting their knickers in a twist over NOTHING!

My neighbors are two men, who have lived at the same address for 14 years and are no trouble at all to the community, I have no idea what they get up to when they are alone together and its none of my business!

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

I agree. Two people doing whatever in their bedroom who don't harm anybody should be the subject of no law. marriage should not apply to them if they are not harming or potentially harming anyone. There can be no laws about gays forming unions because they are not harming anyone. On the other hand that straight couple that produces a child out of wedlock is harming the child if they do not provide it with a stable family life. That is why we have laws restricting what they can do.

(Maybe we should start a new class of laws to govern those who are so promiscuous as to pass STD around freely?)

I would also agree that when the state is involved it should be called a civil union and when the church is involved they can call it whatever they want to.

 

[samsara15]

Lesbian women can have children quite easily via artificial insemination. It's a bit harder for male homosexuals, but if a surrogate mother can be found, that can be done, too. Of course, that usually limits the paternity / maternity to only one of the lesbian / homosexual couple.

Considering how many children of divorces and remarriages live in families where the children have different fathers or mothers, I suppose the sitiaution would be fairly normal for the kids, all in all.

I can think of many commonly existing heterosexual marriage situations much worse for the kids.

 

[Dr.Who]

Lesbian women can have children quite easily via artificial insemination. It's a bit harder for male homosexuals, but if a surrogate mother can be found, that can be done, too. Of course, that usually limits the paternity / maternity to only one of the lesbian / homosexual couple.

Considering how many children of divorces and remarriages live in families where the children have different fathers or mothers, I suppose the sitiaution would be fairly normal for the kids, all in all.

I can think of many commonly existing heterosexual marriage situations much worse for the kids.

If their is sperm involved then it really is just a very detached and technological heterosexual relationship.

On the other hand women can have children with some difficulty if they have an egg removed and then have the genetic material used to "fertilize" another one of their eggs.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Right now times have not changed enough to warrant restricting the rights of gays as the rights of straights have been restricted. But as soon as gay couples start producing children with any regularity then that time will have come. Marriage is about mothers and children!

Your biology is as out of date as your stats on society. Lesbians have lots of kids, many gay men adopt children that were provided by surrogate mothers--sometimes with the sperm from one of the guys. We don't deny legal marriage to sterile hetero couples who adopt, do we? Why the double standard?

How many will be enough? There are more than 1 million children being raised by gay families in the US.

And why is the number an issue? If there was only one child, wouldn't that child deserve the best we could do for him/her? You act as if allowing gay people to marry will be a big overhaul of the legal system--it won't. All we have to do is pass a Federal Law granting them the right to legal marriage because all the paperwork and laws and ceremonies are already in place--in fact we have legal marriage in 6 of the States right now.

 

[dahermit]

Right now times have not changed enough to warrant restricting the rights of gays as the rights of straights have been restricted. But as soon as gay couples start producing children with any regularity then that time will have come. Marriage is about mothers and children!

Then it seems marriage is for the sole purpose of propagation? Does not seem to have applied to George Washington and Martha, both over 40 years old when they married, not likely expecting any children. Or, myself and my wife, both over 43 when we married...and for sure not for the purpose of having children.

 

[Dr.Who]

Your biology is as out of date as your stats on society. Lesbians have lots of kids, many gay men adopt children that were provided by surrogate mothers--sometimes with the sperm from one of the guys. We don't deny legal marriage to sterile hetero couples who adopt, do we? Why the double standard?

Keep it up and you will convince 100% of the readers out there that you just don't want to understand.

Lesbians do in deed raise lots of kids but virtually all of them were produced by heterosexual relationships of some sort. The law was designed to regulate relationships that produce kids. When a women has a kid with a man and then divorces him to live with a women the marriage laws regulates how the man supports the child.

Adoption also does not produce any kids. And we have adoption laws that govern how the parents treat those kids.

How many will be enough? There are more than 1 million children being raised by gay families in the US.

Again, I am not talking about gay couples raising kids. I was talking about couples that actually produce kids. marriage laws are about couples that will likely produce kids. Other laws are about people who raise kids.

And why is the number an issue? If there was only one child, wouldn't that child deserve the best we could do for him/her?

Because courts and legislatures don't make unique laws for every single individual. They make laws based on what tends to happen.

You act as if allowing gay people to marry will be a big overhaul of the legal system--it won't.

No I don't. I have said that I don't care if gays are allowed to marry. I am just pointing out that the marriage laws were made for a reason and that reason is not consistent with gay marriages that don't produce children mothers. if gay marriage becomes the norm a small percentage of people will use them and it won't have too much of an impact. Divorce is far more influential than gay marriage will ever be.

There will no doubt be some changes in legal precedents though. If we change marriage from being a duty to a right, from being about mothers and children and the needs of society to being about individual rights, to being something the state gives rather than something that is inalienable, then something else will change. I don't know what.

All we have to do is pass a Federal Law granting them the right to legal marriage because all the paperwork and laws and ceremonies are already in place--in fact we have legal marriage in 6 of the States right now.

They can do it just as you said. But the reasoning behind what you have said is wrong and that is how the justice system goes down rabbit trails.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Dr. Who,
Your argument is factually incorrect, marriage was NOT instituted to protect women and children or regulate couples who raise them. Marriage in the patriarchal culture was instituted to make sure that a man's progeny were actually his own blood, and this was done by de facto ownership of his women. This made sure that his lineage, his money, property, and titles went to blood heirs and not woodscolts.

Christianity is now, and was even more in the past, a very patriarchal religion in which women were said to not even have souls, they were chattel, could not vote or own property. Worldwide marriage has meant everything you can think of at one time or another--even wives and thousands of concubines, and marriage to wives of brothers and the like.

Gay marriages were accepted in most parts of the world (I can give you a list and sources if you wish) and even in Christianity it was accepted until fairly recently. The Catholic Church has a ceremony called the Marriage of Likeness that was used to join gay couples--including some of the Saints.

Marriage is about love and commitment, it's a contract between two people and the government, the religion is irrelevant because a marriage is not legal without the government marriage license--the religion adds nothing legal to the contract. Nothing implicit or explicit in the marriage vows requires children, nothing in government law requires children for a legal marriage. If you will deny it to gay people but allow sterile or old heterosexuals to marry then you are just another hypocrite.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr. Who,
Your argument is factually incorrect, marriage was NOT instituted to protect women and children or regulate couples who raise them. Marriage in the patriarchal culture was instituted to make sure that a man's progeny were actually his own blood, and this was done by de facto ownership of his women. This made sure that his lineage, his money, property, and titles went to blood heirs and not woodscolts.

Exactly! (well not exactly since you have managed to impose various problems that have occurred onto the schema of patriarchy as if they were universally present) In a patriarchal society what man in his right mind would would give his money to a women or a child if he had no assurance that the child was his or the woman was faithful. There needs to be some mechanism that ensures that men take care of wives and children.

Marriage is about love and commitment, it's a contract between two people and the government, the religion is irrelevant because a marriage is not legal without the government marriage license--the religion adds nothing legal to the contract. Nothing implicit or explicit in the marriage vows requires children, nothing in government law requires children for a legal marriage. If you will deny it to gay people but allow sterile or old heterosexuals to marry then you are just another hypocrite.

For most of history marriage was not about love and in many places it still is not. But supposing that it is about love; what business is it of the government who you love? There is no justification at all for government involvement if it is just about love.

 

[bododie]

It's not about love at all. It's about benefits and money. Do you really think that any gay person cares what you think about who they love? Do you care if someone else
"can't see" what you see, in the one you love?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Exactly! (well not exactly since you have managed to impose various problems that have occurred onto the schema of patriarchy as if they were universally present) In a patriarchal society what man in his right mind would would give his money to a women or a child if he had no assurance that the child was his or the woman was faithful. There needs to be some mechanism that ensures that men take care of wives and children.

We agree, that marriage is a mechanism founded to ensure male lineage. So? What has that got to do with gay people marrying? Nothing.

For most of history marriage was not about love and in many places it still is not. But supposing that it is about love; what business is it of the government who you love? There is no justification at all for government involvement if it is just about love.

Perfect! Just exactly correct, the government should not be enforcing laws about love. Love and the legal perks attendant thereto should be available to those who are willing to enter into the legal contract--no matter who they are.

 

[Dr.Who]

We agree, that marriage is a mechanism founded to ensure male lineage. So? What has that got to do with gay people marrying? Nothing.

Right. Gay marriage has zero to do with ensuring male lineage. There is zero reason for the state to write any laws whatsoever about it. There should be zero words on the books that are relevant to gay marriage. But there is a reason to make a law about straight marriage.

Perfect! Just exactly correct, the government should not be enforcing laws about love. Love and the legal perks attendant thereto should be available to those who are willing to enter into the legal contract--no matter who they are.

If the marriage contracts are legal then the state is wrongly involved. Gay marriage has no need to involve a legal contract. It should be a personal agreement between the parties involved.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Right. Gay marriage has zero to do with ensuring male lineage. There is zero reason for the state to write any laws whatsoever about it. There should be zero words on the books that are relevant to gay marriage. But there is a reason to make a law about straight marriage.
If the marriage contracts are legal then the state is wrongly involved. Gay marriage has no need to involve a legal contract. It should be a personal agreement between the parties involved.

Both of your comments make the assumption that ONLY male lineage is the reason for marriage, I didn't say that. It was started that way, but now it has come to mean many things in many cultures, it's a cultural icon, and marriage is connected intimately with the love lives of people, the care for partners as they age, Social Security, pensions, home ownership, and the care for children--more than a million of whom are being raised in gay households. All the laws on the books in the US dealing with marriage make it a civil rights issue because all consenting adults are allowed to legally marry EXCEPT THE FEW PERCENT who are gay, and this prohibition was put in place on the basis of religious dogma. That abrogates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.