^Oh...LOL...well, I'll share my prepared response now...I'll respond properly when I'm able (maybe when I'm sober or maybe a billion years from now when I'm super smart and whatnot).

Quote :

"4. It's not natural. Oh, but it is. 5. It doesn't make biological "sense." Thank goodness science and technology have improved. We can overcome all sorts of obstacles these days, a few folks not making babies being a fairly minor one."

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 1:18 AM. Reason : sss]

7/13/2006 1:16:13 AM

Quote :

"So by your reasoning, anything unique to humans is unnatural, for instance written communication. We don't know any other species who use the Internet. What are you doing on the Internet, mister nature?"

Just to chime in...I believe the reasoning is not that anything unique to humans is unnatural, but anything unique to humans that doesn't benefit the continued existence of the species. You see, written communication, the internet, etc... are examples of things invented by humans to further their ability to survive and thrive. Homosexuality, however, is counter-productive to human welfare (in a biological sense, exclusively).

Unless you want to make some argument that a species, when faced with overpopulation, turns to homosexuality and cannibalism (as has been seen in mice and other species). But we're hardly overpopulated. People might think that, but they've never been to Nebraska.

7/13/2006 7:44:31 AM

how is it biologically counter-productive to allow two people of the same sex to bound by a legal obligation to one another?

7/13/2006 9:00:08 AM

Quote :

"Homosexuality, however, is counter-productive to human welfare (in a biological sense, exclusively)."

Yes, homosexuality does not really *help* an individual to reproduce. But as I said earlier, neither does miniature golf. The only thing counter-productive about homosexuality is that, biologically speaking, it may be a waste of time.

But I want to take this in a new direction and offer the idea that homosexuality can actually be productive to human welfare (not just biologically speaking).

1. Homosexuality does not encourage homosexuals from reproducing, but it also does not discourage. Just ask a bisexual, or anyone who has visited a sperm bank.
2. Love of any kind promotes solidarity and teamwork between individuals, strengthening all participants.
3. Homosexual couples can raise children as well as heterosexual couples, and since they probably will not produce their own offspring they may take up the slack by adopting, thus strengthening society.
4. In general, homosexuality increases interdependence among people, also strengthening society.
5. A greater selection of available mates enables an individual to find a more ideal partner and live the best life they can. I'm saying that anti-gay-marriage-laws discourage partnership with half of the population, limiting your choices.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 9:41 AM. Reason : added #5]

7/13/2006 9:35:30 AM

Kinda interesting:

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/124/115571.htm

7/13/2006 9:52:36 AM

This thread seems to have filled up with some pretty random arguments. If you want to talk about the law only, fine. We're talking a legal union between two people so please tell me why the fuck we are talking about:

RELIGION
NATURE
REPRODUCTION

It seems like a fucking contradiction to me when you want to focus on the law, but then talk about religious precedent.


Wolfpack2K:

Quote :

"What do interracial marriages have to do with same sex "marriages"? Specifically, what about the definition of marriage is being taken away with respect to interracial marriages? (Unless you are attacking my major premise, in which case you'll need to make that more clear?)"

The argument you keep throwing out is that not allowing gay marriage isn't a discrimination. So my question to you is do you think banning interracial "marriages" (let me try your frivolous use of quotation marks) would discriminate against anyone?

SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY BIG PERVERSION TO ME.

7/13/2006 10:59:57 AM

Interracial marriages = pedophilia prove me wrong

7/13/2006 11:00:53 AM

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

7/13/2006 11:08:23 AM

I mean, we're really playing God when we mix races. If God wanted mixed races he would have created us mixed!

7/13/2006 11:10:27 AM

Quote :

"You can't take the bible literally Oh...Except when you're trying to make a point and the only thing you have to back it up is the bible itself. "

7/13/2006 12:07:08 PM

Quote :

"I support civil unions myself. Marriage has a religious rooting and should continue to be between one man and one woman. I don't know how I feel about polygamous civil unions though...I'm still sorting that one out."

I agree that marriage is a religious institution and should be kept as such. However, as long as the government interferes by giving tax benefits to married couples, among other things, we run into a conflict of where to draw the line between church and state.

Personally, I think marriage should not entail any benefits, and raising kids should entail more than previously to make up for it. The real goal should be motivating people to have/raise kids, not necessarily to high-five everyone who buddies up.

I also don't have a problem with polygamy/polyandry/homosexuality, or anything that involves consenting adults. Under my system, you see, nobody can play it to make a buck. Marriage would be relegated to a religious institution, and for everyone else it would simply be some form of cohabitation.

7/13/2006 1:23:56 PM

Quote :

"4. In general, homosexuality increases interdependence among people, also strengthening society. 5. A greater selection of available mates enables an individual to find a more ideal partner and live the best life they can. I'm saying that anti-gay-marriage-laws discourage partnership with half of the population, limiting your choices."

Ok, the other ideas actually sounded decent, but I call BS on these two

How does homosexuality increase interdependence?
Best of all, number 5 makes no sense unless you're bi-sexual. Allowing gays to get married doesn't affect me, as a heterosexual, by allowing me to marry men. You haven't increased the pool of eligible mates for me, unless you consider that the gays will no longer marry my women only to leave them later, after I don't want them anymore. Stick with the first three though, those sounded nice. Especially the adoption one.

7/13/2006 3:04:05 PM

Quote :

"Ok, the other ideas actually sounded decent, but I call BS on these two How does homosexuality increase interdependence?"

Homosexuality increases interdependence because, when gay marriage prevents two people from breeding, it opens the door to adopting kids that straight couples (and non-couples) have produced. Person A breeds and person B raises. There's a need to breed on one side and a child that needs raising on the other. That's teamwork.

Quote :

"Best of all, number 5 makes no sense unless you're bi-sexual. Allowing gays to get married doesn't affect me, as a heterosexual, by allowing me to marry men. You haven't increased the pool of eligible mates for me, unless you consider that the gays will no longer marry my women only to leave them later, after I don't want them anymore. Stick with the first three though, those sounded nice. Especially the adoption one."

The movie Brokeback Mountain is a good example here. The main characters are gay lovers in 50's or 60's Texas. Gay marriage is not an option in that society, and so they each get wives. Because they eventually understand that their relationship is more meaningful to them than their straight marriages, their marriages are each ruined, and the one character's children become fatherless. This happens to gays ALL THE TIME, and it ruins more lives than just their own, and all because they don't have the choice of marrying their ideal partner (or anything even close).

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : durr grammar]

7/13/2006 3:34:38 PM

Don't blame the lack of gay marriage on some douche bags getting straight married and fathering offspring when it isn't something that they really want. This is no different than a straight person settling for a fugly/fat chick, impregnating them, then deciding it was a dumb move and getting out of the situation.



[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:41 PM. Reason : asdasd]

7/13/2006 3:37:33 PM

Quote :

"Don't blame the inability to get married on some douche bags getting married and fathering offspring. This is no different than a straight person settling for a fugly/fat chick, impregnating them, then deciding it was a dumb move and getting out of the situation."

Except that in this society you have the option of going for the hot chick, where you do not have the option of going for a dude. Many gays don't even understand their sexuality because they're afraid to explore it, precisely because it's not accepted. See the angry military dad in American Beauty for more details...

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 3:39:18 PM

jesus please use references other than movies. i agree with you, but it's a little embarassing.

7/13/2006 3:40:02 PM

I don't have any nonfiction examples. Real gays are shunned in the public eye, remember? We don't get to hear about it. Also, I haven't let society ruin my life yet so I can't speak from personal experience. In any case, you've all seen American Beauty and they didn't give it four stars for being completely fake.

I agree with you too, but this fucking country is embarassing.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 3:42:34 PM

(people don't like to be referred to as their sexual orientations. try saying "gay people" instead of gays. this is parallel to referring to someone as "a gay". it doesn't really offend me much, but it will get you far in not being seen as bigotted or ignorant)



[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:45 PM. Reason : i'm really not trying to call you out or anything]

7/13/2006 3:44:50 PM

I still don't get how the movie Brokeback Mountain explains that we have more choice when gay marriage is an option.

It explains that gays might get married, but it certainly doesn't show me how I'll have twice as many potential mates (and now the term mates has lost all actual meaning) as you suggested.

7/13/2006 3:46:19 PM

Yeah you're probably right. I dunno, in the media they say "gays" all the time in otherwise neutral stories. It's peer pressure lol

7/13/2006 3:47:07 PM

That's ridiculous, people still can use the terms whites and blacks without getting called out.

Turn off the fucking PC police, please...


Also, gay people tends to define a person as much by their sexual orientation as "the gays"

Perhaps what you're looking for is "heterosexually-challenged individuals" but I know you don't want that, so lets go with "individuals who are unique, awesome, really nice people, who also happen to be homosexual"

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:49 PM. Reason : h]

7/13/2006 3:47:34 PM

but really this is all beside the point.

tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have?

^all it does is de-humanize a group, by suggesting that all someone is defined by is their sexual orientation or race for instance. it doesn't bother me, specifically, but it's also not hard to be just slightly more sensitive.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:50 PM. Reason : asf]

7/13/2006 3:48:33 PM

Quote :

"I don't have any nonfiction examples. Real gays are shunned in the public eye, remember? We don't get to hear about it. Also, I haven't let society ruin my life yet so I can't speak from personal experience. In any case, you've all seen American Beauty and they didn't give it four stars for being completely fake. I agree with you too, but this fucking country is embarassing."

so essentially youre full of shit.

you have no experience with any of this that youre talking about, youre just citing movies that hollywood has decided acuratley portray the current 'gay' strugle.

youre the fucking embarassment.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:49 PM. Reason : *]

7/13/2006 3:48:45 PM

Quote :

"but really this is all beside the point. tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have?"

That just restarts us at the beginning. One side asks for a good reason, and so does the other side.

None of us are going to agree, so now we're just arguing semantics. I, however, enjoy semantics, so that's all I look for on these boards anyhow.

7/13/2006 3:50:35 PM

^except i can give a good reason, the "other side" has yet to.

7/13/2006 3:51:23 PM

Well, how exactly is "gay people/white people/etc" any different than "gays/whites"

How does that make ANY difference whatsoever?


From now on, I don't want to be referred to as conservative or libertarian, but instead as a "conservative person" or a "libertarian person"

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 3:51:34 PM

Quote :

"Many gays don't even understand their sexuality because they're afraid to explore it, precisely because it's not accepted. "

They have to get married to explore their sexuality?

7/13/2006 3:52:01 PM

Quote :

"I still don't get how the movie Brokeback Mountain explains that we have more choice when gay marriage is an option. It explains that gays might get married, but it certainly doesn't show me how I'll have twice as many potential mates (and now the term mates has lost all actual meaning) as you suggested."

How about the term "partner?" Like, the person with whom you spend your life and perhaps raise a family. One definition of "mate" is that very thing, but partner is less misleading.

You have more choice when gay marriage is an option, because you can choose to marry someone of your same sex. If you're gay, this means you have good choices (without gay marriage you have zero good choices). If you're straight, you have more bad choices (but they are still choices). If you are bisexual, it's a no-brainer.

And American Beauty's angry military dad demonstrates that many straight people never consider that they might be gay, because society tells them not to be. If we allow gay marriage, then *gasp* YOU might discover that you like boys after all! Whereupon you would be very happy that it's allowed.

And yes, you can change your mind about whether you like boys. Not everyone is the same sexuality forever.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 3:53:22 PM

i really don't want to go off on this, but just because people have a certain characteristic does not mean that they should simply be called that. calling someone an adjective in general is not very sensitive. it's really not a big deal. forget i ever even said, it's just a personal pet peeve.

7/13/2006 3:53:54 PM

Quote :

"^except i can give a good reason, the "other side" has yet to."

Funny, I bet the other side thinks the same thing...
Its not like anyone in any argument ever has thought to themselves "Damn, good point, he's totally right and my position is absolutely wrong...I think I'll continue to hold my side though"

7/13/2006 3:54:04 PM

Quote :

"tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have? "

7/13/2006 3:54:23 PM

Quote :

"They have to get married to explore their sexuality?"

No, they have to explore it in order to consider gay marriage. If gay marriage doesn't exist, they may never understand themselves.

7/13/2006 3:54:53 PM

Well its a stupid fucking peeve. Adding people to the end still defines them in exactly the same way as leaving it off. And people use adjectives to define people constantly

Morons, ingrates, North Carolinian, Skydivers, Homeless

What the fuck does it matter when its gays?

7/13/2006 3:55:35 PM

Quote :

"all it does is de-humanize a group, by suggesting that all someone is defined by is their sexual orientation or race for instance. it doesn't bother me, specifically, but it's also not hard to be just slightly more sensitive."

Really? Only if it lets you, and only if you buy into the liberal media and let this line of thinking become the rule. When someone says "gays", why don't you just let yourself limit it to a description about their sexuality, and not some sort of all encompassing term used to described their entire life. Christ, how dumb is that. We don't have the sensitivity problem, you do.


^ , do I hear me echoing?

Quote :

"No, they have to explore it in order to consider gay marriage. If gay marriage doesn't exist, they may never understand themselves."

Are you kidding me? Are you this stupid?

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ere]

7/13/2006 3:55:59 PM

for one thing, it's an adjective, not a noun. there's it's a grammatical pet peeve. but still:

Quote :

"tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have? "

7/13/2006 3:57:33 PM

Because "hate fags" is one of the easier things to follow in the Bible.

The hard stuff Christians just ignore.

7/13/2006 3:58:11 PM

Quote :

""tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have? ""

There isn't any reason they shouldn't be allowed to enter the same legal union as adult men and women...however there is a very good reason they shouldn't be in the same religious union as men and women. That's the source of the controversy...marriage...not the union itself

We can go around in circles about how Britney Spears fucked marriage and marriage is a governemental construct. But this is where people disagree on the point.

And also, does anyone know of the benefits we're talking about. I know from a tax-standpoint they'll be fucking themselves by getting married. I'm guessing its the beneficiary situation that is harder -- but these can be overcome fairly easily by using living wills, POAs, etc.

7/13/2006 3:58:39 PM

that's NOT the argument. i don't give two shits about religious marriage. we are talking about a legal union here that is called "marriage." there isn't anything remotely religious about it.

7/13/2006 3:59:34 PM

Quote :

"so essentially youre full of shit. you have no experience with any of this that youre talking about, youre just citing movies that hollywood has decided acuratley portray the current 'gay' strugle. youre the fucking embarassment."

I'm the bisexual, is what. I understood the meaning behind those stories and if you had a clue you might consider that the movies were well-received because they were realistic, and because real people identified with them. I have decided that they accurately portray the current gay struggle, because I have watched it happen in real life too.

Can you bring your significant other home for Thanksgiving, asshole? Yeah, my odds are 50/50, and that makes me lucky compared to a lot of people. Before you post, scroll the fuck up.

7/13/2006 4:01:11 PM

Quote :

"Homosexuality was more common among men who shared their birth mother with older brothers, even if they hadn't been raised with those brothers, the study shows."

Bridget, I know you can't help it because that's all the article had, but we really need actual statistical information from these studies. The sample size alone doesn't help, unless I'm to assume they meant "was more common in a statistical, rather than purely numerical, sense"

It probably is statistically significant, but I always hate studies without more information (which means most studies)

7/13/2006 4:01:53 PM

Quote :

"tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have?"

7/13/2006 4:03:12 PM

I would like to see someone answer sarijoul's question.

(with respect to legality and not religion, as that has indeed been addressed)

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 4:04:48 PM

Quote :

"I'm the bisexual, is what. I understood the meaning behind those stories and if you had a clue you might consider that the movies were well-received because they were realistic, and because real people identified with them. I have decided that they accurately portray the current gay struggle, because I have watched it happen in real life too. "

The same reason star-wars was so well received

Quote :

"there isn't anything remotely religious about it."

Only its origin, history, most usual practice, etc.
You see, what you take as given is the very premise most anti-gay marriage people take issue with.

Its tantamout to me saying "why don't we bomb iran" and not listening to anything you have to say because I take it as given that "iran is evil"

7/13/2006 4:12:58 PM

The origin of marriage is prehistoric and cannot be traced to a particular starting point, religious or otherwise.

7/13/2006 4:15:53 PM

Excuse me, I misread you and would like to retract my statement.

Although, do you (I don't) have anything on the origins of marriage?

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 4:16:13 PM

Quote :

"Only its origin, history, most usual practice, etc. You see, what you take as given is the very premise most anti-gay marriage people take issue with. "

and?

the government role in marriage is not a religious one, and it should not be, so:

Quote :

"tell me why two men or two women should be barred from sharing the same legal union that any adult man and woman can have?"

7/13/2006 4:17:08 PM

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=567

Assuming that is correct, I concede the point of marriage's historic origins

7/13/2006 4:19:09 PM

Ah so we have evidence now. Cool.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2006 4:19:45 PM

Fine, we mentioned a few pages earlier this same suggestion, so I'll bring it back up.

Marriage is no longer a legal entity
Only civil unions...all people can enter in to these unions. Marriage is a strictly religious entity.

Thus, no gay marriage + no discrimination

Problem solved...now lets get back to polygamy

7/13/2006 4:22:48 PM

I would be happy with that but for the fact that civil unions don't get the same legal benefits as marriages. If the law didn't mention the word "marriage" and lumped everything under "civil union" it would be real cool with me.

7/13/2006 4:24:40 PM