Übergeek 바둑이: Not true. Some do, some don't. there has been quite a debate within the Anglican church over being gay and the roles as such within the church.

Judaism does not condemn gay orientation, and depending on the persons views does not condemn homosexual acts. Lesbian acts are not condemned by the Torah at all.

As for "heterosexual marriage is diminished or reduced in meaning."... a documentary blamed much on the pill and that this contraceptive method made 'men' less secure.

Czuch: Equal rights is all most minorities ask for. Ok... you get fringe groups asking to be special, but as a rule. Ignore them. The high majority just want to be treated the same.

And I agree.. common law man and wife ought to have the same rights as married couples. But a certain minimal length of being together has to be in place to stop tax and other fraud.

Artful Dodger: I think ubergeek said it already, but there is a portion of the gay marriage movement that is less interested in rights as they are in just making homosexuality more legitimate, and they are interested in all the semantics as well as changing the definition of marriage and the trimmings that would go with that.

Artful Dodger: Yes we have a will and other legal means to make up for a lot of things... there are a few sticky issues still, like inheritance tax and gifting money come to mind.... but except for the time and expense in drawing up legal documents, we can basically get most what we want done, as can gay unmarried couples!

Artful Dodger: Really... what are you doing for the state, as a married person, that I am not doing as an unmarried person? You pay them a fee for a license, thats one. What else? Its not like it is against the law for you to get a divorce. What does the state get in exchange for your marriage vows? Have you promised to raise x amount of children? Tell me the advantage the state gets in exchange for your tax breaks and other benefits?

Artful Dodger: Easy dude... read what I have written.... the only thing I ever said is that I have a right to fight for more rights... I also said that it was not discrimination to deny me those rights, and i also said that things are not always equal, nor do they need to be, and that a state has the right (with permission from its voters) to do whatever they believe is in their best interest!


I also never wanted anything just by living with someone, there has to be some form of intent and contract involved.


Question... do you believe that I should not be able to legally set up assurances that my girlfriend will inherit and any other rights I want to infer (or whatever the word should be) upon her?

Übergeek 바둑이: Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!


I am with you..... but I cannot sit here and say, that as an unmarried couple, we are discriminated against by the state

Another example.... the state gives out tax credits etc. if I do energy efficient upgrades to my home. Is it discrimination because someone who doesnt meet these criteria dont get the same tax benefits????

Übergeek 바둑이: As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together.

But, isnt there some merit to the argument that the states have a right to promote certain lifestyles that they believe will benefit them? If I have a good job and a healthy life style and have 5 children who grow up with a good education and these children end up productive, tax paying members in my state, then that is a good thing, as far as my state is concerned.

States already give tax incentives and other benefits to certain businesses that they want to attract to do business in that state. The state does not have to give the same incentives to a business they do not want. I might want a wind farm company in my state, but not a tobacco company, so I give incentives to the wind company to come here.

Well, they have the same right to promote families the way they want to as well. They give certain incentives for families that meet the criteria they want to promote, and those that dont meet that criteria, they dont give those incentives.

Gay couples cannot have 5 children to add to the tax revenues for the state.... single parent families are traditionally not as stable, and therefore less likely to produce productive tax paying members of society...

The state isnt discriminating against gay families etc, as much as they are simply giving extra reward and incentives for what they think will benefit the state more!

So to the state, gay families are akin to a tobacco company, and traditional families are like the wind farm

Czuch:
>  Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!
 and


Artful Dodger:

>  You already do have equal rights tho.

First, if marriage is just a label, then it should not matter what the union is called: marriage, civil union, common-law marriage, shacking up together, etc.  The problem is not just using marriage as a word, but rather how the law is structured.

Unfortunately, in most countries there are many laws that relate specifically to marriage (in the US there are 1138 statutes).  In some countries marriages require registration and documentation, while other countries accept "common law" marriages which are defined as people cohabiting in the same residence or owning property together.

In the United States not all states recognize common-law (or similar) marriages.  For that reason not all states give equal rights to unmarried couples living together.

Of course, as we all know, there is opposition to allowing a change in the legal definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry.  The opposition comes from a confusion between the legal definition of marriage and how individuals define marriage outside of the legal context.

Since people cannot separate their own concept of marriage from the definition in the law, they insist in keeping the legal definition as a union between a man and a woman.  The perception is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, then somehow heterosexual marriage is diminished or reduced in meaning.

There was a time when it was impossible for people to marry outside of the church.  If people were not married by some member of the clergy, then their marriages were not legal.  Civil marriages (those outside the church) took a long time to be recognized and became acceptable as the separation of the church and the state became the norm in many countries around the world.  As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together. Those remnants of prejudice and iscrimination will take a long time to overcome because as individuals we impose our own morality on the law, and western Judeo-Christian morality still sees homosexuality as an abnormal, unnatural taboo.  The process of accepting homosexual marriage will be as long as accepting marriage outside the church.

Tuesday: I understand that gays are hard wired that way, and that they wonder how someone could be attracted to the opposite sex in the same way we (heterosexuals) do not understand how anyone could be attracted to the same sex.....


But now talk about someone being hard wired to be attracted to children, everyone thinks that is abnormal and against what nature intended, (except for ubergeek, who seems to only have an issue with the consent issue) That is a clear example where nature has messed up, and it is not a hard leap to feel the same about being hard wired attracted to the same sex either

Tuesday: I dont know for sure, except that for me it seems more like I am hard wired to be attracted to women, not men, and I know gay people say the same about themselves.

I also know that nature has evolved us to be attracted to the opposite sex so we will propagate our species.... I dont know, maybe being gay is just another step forward in our evolution, and we are to evolve into a being that doesnt require sex to propagate our species, in which case, all of us still hard wired to be heterosexuals are someday going to be the abnormal ones.... EW! making babies by having intercourse with the opposite sex, how disgusting!

Tuesday: BTW we are above the other species right?

I thought you might be being factitious...

Because of the advancement in our brains, yes we are above other species.... and that does make us unique in nature, and in that regard it is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges when you try to talk about humans and other parts of nature.

Artful Dodger: Not really.... there are tax and other issues where single couples cannot compete with married ones.

However, there are many legal estate planning measures that do help give single couples, including gay ones, the same protections as married couple enjoy, it just takes a little bit of foresight and time!

Tuesday: Having sex outside of marriage is just as "abnormal" as being gay.

Really???? I am not using a religious argument..... in nature there is really no such thing as marriage, all other species have sex outside of marriage, so in nature, it is not abnormal to have sex outside of marriage.

(V): You cant do that.... thats the whole point! It is impossible for "gay" to be normal in nature, since it is impossible to propagate your species.

Lets say for example that you are right though.... gay people propagate the species and heterosexuals dont....
I am heterosexual, I am in the minority by a long shot, my tact is to forget the sex label and to fight it as I have said before, as equal rights for a caring couple, and not based on who I have sex with!

My situation right now is no different from a gay couples.... I am not married, (except that I choose not to be) But I am in a loving and committed relationship, and I want the same legal protections that married folks have!

Thing is, I am fighting for equal rights without getting married, and gays want equal rights to be able to marry.... we should simply get together and have equal rights without getting married!

From what I see , Gays are fighting for the right to be like heterosexuals, but what they(we non married folk) should be fighting for together, are the same rights without being married!


Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!

Czuch: equality...

ok... reverse the situation. gay is normal and hetro is fighting for equality.

Justify yourself.

(V): But that does not mean that gay folk have to have their lives intruded on by your own prejudice.


Explain to me how I have intruded on any ones life, with prejudice or otherwise?

Because I have voted against changing the definition of marriage?

Because I believe that hard wired sexual attraction to someone else of the same sex is abnormal in nature?

(V): Point is, in fact my girlfriend and I can enjoy most of the protections etc. that married folks enjoy, we can leave property to each other and have visitation in hospital etc.... I am not sure what gay couples cant get through other means than marriage anyway?

Czuch: Because it's your the law. If you find it wrong, then do as many people do and get the law changed. duhhhhh

""gay marriage"" No just marriage.

Artful Dodger: You didn't come up with anything anyway, just a C&P from a right wing site that compares same blood sex to same sex sex. They are not the same.

If you want to forget that a man and women can have children and then work out they are gay.. by all means. If you want forget that love is not an animal thing .. by all means.

And btw... "As communities we all live within the parameters of the standards set by the State."

ahhh you like the state now just because it supports your views. So be it.. but be honest and say so.

Czuch: Ok.. I'll never convince you. But that does not mean that gay folk have to have their lives intruded on by your own prejudice.

Ferris Bueller: I dont give a crap about your bedroom, and it id obvious that it is much more than "right wing garbage" when 30 states have held elections against "gay marriage".

I have a close personal friend who voted against gay marriage and her brother is gay.

I believe that there should be rights and protections given, the same ones marriage provides, for committed couples in loving relationships.... lets put the shoe on the other foot for a minute..... gays want to get married, but what about someone like myself that doesnt want to get married???? I am in a committed loving relationship, why should I have to get married to enjoy the benefits and protections that marriages allow?

You tell us to stay out of your bedroom, but it is you who shoves the bedroom in our faces! Gay and homosexual refers to nothing but the bedroom, they are words that only describe your sexual(IE bedroom) preference... so when you say you want "gay marriage" you are saying you want to get married based on what you do in the bedroom!!!!

You may call it absurd, but that does not make it so, explain why it is absurd to say that being attracted to the same sex is a quirk in nature?

GET A FRIGGIN LIFE & STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS.  MY BROTHER IS GAY & I AM SICK & TIRED OF THE DAMN RIGHT WING GARBAGE.  I MAKE A REASONABLE ARGUMENT & 24 HOURS LATER, I COME BACK TO 40 POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT.  MOST OF THEM ABSURD.  GEEEZZZEE!!!

Artful Dodger: so what is different LOL

(V):   I didn't think you could come up with an example.  Proves you were wrong and I am right. 

(V): You will never convince me that a man doing it to another man in his anus is a normal and natural attraction

The reason nature makes us hard wired to be attracted to the opposite sex is to propagate our species... because of the advancement of our brains, we are able to do more that what we are hard wired for(IE have sex for pleasure purposes only), but if you are hard wired to be attracted to the same sex, that is not the normal condition as nature meant it to be (notice I did not say "how God meant it to be") To me it is no more normal than if you are hard wired to be sexually attracted to small children, it is a natural abnormality, and taken to the extreme, our species would die if this would happen more often than it does!

But again... why would it have to be a legal commitment between only two people, or only no related people?

Übergeek 바둑이: The government could completely remove itself from the issue. Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so. That would make lot of people unhappy too.



Why would that make anyone unhappy?

Czuch:

>  again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment,
>  and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...
>  But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does
>  with having the right to pass property etc

I think there is a danger of falling prey to semantics.  Is a "civil union" that different from a "marriage"?  Those who want "marriage" strictly will tell you that calling it a "civil union" is discriminatory.  I think the issue would be resolved if all those 1138 statutes related to "marriage" were ammended to "marriage, civil union or whatever you want to call it".  Then regarless of what terminology we use, homosexual couples would have the same rights.  Asking to ammend 1138 statutes is a stretch when lawmakers can't even bring theselves to ammend 1 without being at each other's throats.

At some point we have to balance everyone's needs.  I think it is impossible to make everyone happy on the issue.  There will be people who vehemently oppose "homosexual marriage" and there are those who will never accept anything short of fully equal rights and semantics for homosexuals.  The government could completely remove itself from the issue.  Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so.  That would make  lot of people unhappy too.  I think it is one of those issues we might never be able to resolve.

Artful Dodger: Twister Their ability to reproduce has not gone.

" Maybe they decide not to have kids so then I guess it's ok with you."

I never said that.

Look, the basis of all western ignorance on sexuality is based on bad interpretation of the Bible and those who stand by them. Alot of the old laws in the Bible were to do with sexual acts in the temple. If we go by Genesis then isn't God both male and female??

(V):  Maybe they decide not to have kids so then I guess it's ok with you.

Übergeek 바둑이: Getting to your next post.... I never said anything about incest, just a brother and sister living together and wanting certain rights and responsibilities.....

again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment, and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...

But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does with having the right to pass property etc

Übergeek 바둑이: What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say. We are very different from other living organisms in this planet. Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.

So at least you agree that a man on man sex is not natural....


To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.

I never said it had no relationship to religion.... just that it is more an issue that it is abnormal. I am not religious, but it is obvious to me that it is natural for a man and woman to have sex, and it is not natural for a man and a man to have sex.

Thats why I believe this argument should be about two people being together and their rights, no matter who they are, and not about sexual anything!

Czuch:

>  But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

Two other western taboos are polygamy and incest.

Incest was acceptable in ancient Egypt and the pharaohs were often married to their brothers/sisters in order to preserve the purity of their divine blood.  It led to serious genetic defects being passed on to their children.  For example, Tuttankhammon suffered from spina bifida.  The Bible rejects incest very early on.  After escaping from Soddom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters were cursed because they had an incestuous relationship.  Our modern objection to incest comes from the possibility of passing genetic mutations or diseases to children.  As such incest remains undesirable and to me it is unacceptable in any form.

Poligamy is different because it is a form of marriage that survives into our modern era both in western culture and outside of western culture.  I know of two cases in southeast Asia.  I know of a "monk" in Singapore who had two wives.  I met one of his daughters who kept referring to her "auntie" and how cute her little brother was when he was playing with his mom who was also her "auntie".  Obviously that "autie" was her father's second wife.  I know of another case in Laos.  This wealthy man had 13 children with 3 women.  The common denominator here was wealth.  Polygamy is a priviledge of the wealthy.

Among Tibetans it was not uncommon for a woman to have several husbands.  Marriages involved the transfer of property among families and for many families it was economically unfeasible to "purchase" a wife for every male in the family.  For this reason several brothers would often marry the same woman.  It was acceptable socially because Tibetans believe that a man inherits his father's bones, therefore all brothers had the same bones from their father and if any of them had children with the woman, the children inherited the same bones.  Polyandry still survives in some places in Tibet and Nepal.  Poligyny (having several wives) was also common in Tibet where wealthy men could acquire several wives.

In India the Mahabharata describes a case one one woman marrying five brothers, so both polygyny and polyandry were acceptable.  Of course, the ancient Israelites had polygamy as attested in the stories of Abraham, Solomon, David, etc.  Judaism abandoned polygamy in the 11th century and today polygamy is illegal in Israel.

Polygamy became unacceptable during Roman times.  The Greeks had monogamous relationships, and the Roman's inherited monogamy from the Greeks.  In the 4th century St. Augustine formally accepted monogamy as the acceptable form of marriage among Christians.  Ever since western culture became monogamous.  Those values have gone around the world and many countries today have monogamous laws.

The question is: Is polygamy acceptable?  Here in Canada the government has had a lot of problems with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  Some of its sects engage in polygamy.  It has become a serious issue because in some cases girls as young as 13 have been married, with and without their consent.  On the one hand there are issues of the rights of women and young girls, on the other there are issues of religious freedom.  Polygamy remains illegal here and it will remain so in spite of the constitution guaranteeing religious freedom.  The government does not want to open that can of worms.

The Mormon church in Utah officially excommunicated those who practice polygamy, so the practice remains only among a few sects.  I would believe that the Mormon sects following polygamy had a legal case on constitutional grounds, but many marriages are with women under the legal age for marriage, and that women are denied full rights to education.

I don't know if polygamy is acceptable.  In a case where the people involved are of legal marriage age, fully aware of their actions, without coercion or subterfuge, and in full view of society and the law, would it be acceptable?  In some countires it is, in other it isn't.  It might sound desirable to some men, but isn't having one wife trouble enough?  What about division of property and divorce?  Cultures where polygyny is acceptable often have vague laws or laws that disfavour women.  It is one of reasons why polygamy remains unacceptable in most places.

Czuch:

>  it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument

What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say.  We are very different from other living organisms in this planet.  Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.  For example, it is not natural for a person to sit in front of a television for a few hours.  It is not natural for people to build skyscrapers, or rockets that go to the moon.  Human sexual behaviour is very different to that of other animals.  We are the only species that mates face to face.  I think that mating face to face has sometimes been observed among bonobos (a species of chimpazee).  The old trusty Missionary, the most common sexual position among humans, is uniquely human.

Is homosexuality unnatural? People would be surtprised to know how common homosexual behavious is in nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Bonobos (our closest genetic relative) exhibit homosexuality in several forms, although homosexuslaity among females is more common.

To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.  Western culture has been strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Homosexuality was taboo among the ancient Israelites as exemplified by some of the laws in the Torah.  That same taboo was passed on into the New Testament.

Other cultures outside the Judeo-Christian cultures had different views of homosexuality.  The ancient Greeks engaged in open homosexuality and among Greek aristocrats pederasty was the desirable form of education for young Greeks destined for political and economic power.  Homosexuality was common among the ancient Chinese up to the late Qin dinasty (end of the 19th century).  It was not uncoomon for male concubines to form part of the Chinese emperor's harem.  Homosexuality was acceptable among Sufi moslems in the 18th century, as attested in the poetry of the Persian Sufi poets.

Clearly our western dislike for homosexuality is culturally driven, and western culture is Judeo-Cristian in its origin.  The current definition of marriage is the Biblical definition of marriage, and that definition holds homosexuality as taboo.  If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable, then a lot of people fear that it would diminish the meaning of marriage, and therefore the values expounded by Judeo-Christian culture.

Übergeek 바둑이: Also, what AD said, that it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument... its simply not natural for a guy to put his penis in another guys anus, the same way it is for him to put it into a female vagina! There is something unnatural about it, and most people do not want to "legitimize" something that is so unnatural!

I think it would make a better tact, instead of calling it "gay marriage", that something like the "civil union" be adopted.... then you are not putting the emphasis on "homosexuals", you are putting the emphasis on couples, or familys in general, and their rights under the laws. "Family" is a lot easier definition to legally mess around with than "marriage"..... If all they really want is to have the same property and visitation etc rights, then why push so hard for it to be called a marriage anyways? I believe there has to be more to the agenda than meets the eye!

Czuch: No. That's rubbish. The only possible one of those you mention is polygamy.. which is not a worldwide crime, some places it is traditional and allowed, some it is not.

Brother/sister, etc is due to science of reproduction and the danger of high mutation or the reinforcement of bad genes.

Artful Dodger: Are you saying love is a purely biological matter? I thought love was something beyond biology.

"because their union is incapable of reproducing. "

No, they can reproduce. As in the parts of their anatomy just don't start not working. God does not make them suddenly sterile. Just their sexuality does not give to reproduction (unless bi)....

"I can't marry my sister or my daughter or a very close relative. Such unions are restricted by law as they don't fall under the standard set by society. "

those are set for good reason of high mutation rate through a closed gene pool, not a good example if you are going on about not reproducing being part of why they cannot marry.

"What's really being sought by homosexual advocates is a special standing before the law. "

No. If you missed it (seeing as Fox only covered it quickly) ...there was a gay rights march in Washington at the same time as the tea party and the protest against Obama telling kids to work harder... 75,000+ march... though the Obama telling kids to work harder got more time and a reporter.

... basically... they just want the same rights. Equality under the law.

Übergeek 바둑이: I think the argfument isnt so much against them having similar rights, IE to pass property and hospital rights etc., its just when you call it "marriage" where the issues arise?

But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

1.  An African man is fired from his job because he is black.  Is it discrimination?
2.  A Jew is fired from his job because he is a jew.  is it discrimination?
3.  A homosexual is fired from his job because he is a homosexual.  Is it discrimination?
4.  An African couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are black.  Is it discrimination?
5.  A Jewish couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are jews.  Is it discrimination?
6.  A homosexual couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are homosexual.  Is it discrimination?

Nobody will argue that cases 1 to 5 are discrimination.  What about case 6?  If it is not discrimination, why?

Science has made both men and women reproductive systems obsolete... "what hath man wrought?"
"oh brave new world' Everyone belongs to everyone else"

Artful Dodger: And not infertile couples.

Artful Dodger: Well I can also state a fact that in general, couples can create children. Only when certain conditions (medical, different sexuality, …) exist, this is not true.

Artful Dodger: If you argue that homosexual couples should not be allowed to get married because they can't create children, I think you should apply the same logic to infertile couples, who cannot create children either.