Gay marriage and civil unions

Giant_Joe:

Does it really matter if someone likes or hates homosexuality?

Only when someone uses that hatred as a justification to deny the hated their rights, or tries to use that hatred as a substitute for logical thought.

 

Byzantine:

I'm not even touching the morality of the practice; just pure evolutionary biology.  Homosexual unions will never take root other than among a sliver of the populace.

So what. Do try to have a point other than "I hate gays and I want to attempt to bullshit my way around the fact that I hate them, since I'm secretly ashamed of that hate."

And I wear glasses. That's an unnatural act. Are you repulsed by it? You must be, if you are at all to be consistent.

Byzantine:

     Individualist:
    Isn't replacing all marriage-licensing with the granting of gender-neutral civil unions a step in the direction of getting government out of marriage altogether?

In that event, just draw up a contract outlining the parties' mutual rights and responsibilities, like homosexuals are already free to do.

The contracts won't replace anywhere near all the benefits the state gives to hetero couples.  A lot of the contracts and civil unions also aren't recognized from one state to another.  I think the state should stay out of 'licensing' marriage, but since they are in the marriage business then the LGBT community should have access to the same privileges.

Byzantine:

Tukaram:

Share a meal, a fireside, and a bed.  Simply proclaim it to your friends and family.  Married.  So simple.  Why do the churches and state feel the need to meddle?

Monogamous heterosexual copulation stacks up favorably against homosexual unions or polyandrous unions for a variety of biological, psychological and social reasons.  So regardless of your views on the State, there is a logical basis for favoring such unions over other types of unions.

Your comment on the Church is just ludicrous.  You can copulate with whomever and whatever you want and the Church will not 'meddle.'  But the Church is entitled to set its criteria for communion.

Not ludicrous at all really.  I don't give a rats ass if any church says I'm married or not.  And a lot of churches do recognize gay marriage already.  But the church is just another level of unneeded control.  The state rules with fear using laws, fines,  &  jails; the church rules with fear using sin, heaven, and hell.  Same sh@t different flies.

I think the main point originally was if we support gay marriage or should all marriages be replaced with gender neutral civil unions.   And again I say that the government should stay out of the marriage business but if they want to give so many financial benifits to married couples they should be available to all couples.  It is not the governments business who loves who.  So I think gender neutral civil unions would be fine for the marriage benifits.  Then you can go to what ever church you want, if you want, and have whatever religious ceremony you want.

I've honestly never seen the problem.  If you like men or women it won't affect me at all.  If I like men or women how does it affect you?  I'm straight but not narrow.

(Personally, my church is very strongly against gay marriage but I don't agree with them and they don't care that I don't. Actually I've been a happily divorced single dad for the last 14 years.)

Byzantine:

How do you  know whether I hate gays?

Good question.

Byzantine:

I bet most of the people on this thread believe that human evolution has stopped.

How much will you bet?

Byzantine:

It amazes me how all the gimlet-eyed realists who talk about the iron law of scarcity, the supply-demand curve, etc., have to break out the smelling salts when the talk turns to genetics and reproductive biology.

That's not the case.  It's when you conflate some necessity to procreate as some sort of species obligation that people get turned off.  "Hey everybody, look at me, I am extending the species, I am fulfilling nature's design, I am using my penis correctly!"

You've had gay family members in the past, and you will have some in the future.  And that is just how it is.  I like you, and I agree with you on many topics, but when you want to laud how you distribute your sperm, as thought it somehow makes you more correct or righteous, that's kinda lame.  Big deal, you're a breeder.

In the long run, you and I (a non-breeding hetero) are both gunna be dead.  Maybe in some afterlife you will be able to look down on your descendants from heaven (or up from hell) and feel some sort of pride that they have carried on the human race, but me, I'm not too worried about it.  There are plenty of breeders whose contributions to the pool amounted to nothing, and plenty of substantial contributors to the human race who never bred.

Byzantine:

I bet most of the people on this thread believe that human evolution has stopped.

Well that is a difficult question. I think there is a case to be made that we have stepped outside of nature and into an artificial environment in which we have constructed. This could be the end of evolution for the homo sapient.

Homosexual unions will never take root other than among a sliver of the populace.

Only a sliver of the population is homosexual to begin with. So that is true.

Byzantine:

How do you  know whether I hate gays?

Your words.

And I'd appreciate if you didn't run from my question about my wearing glasses. It IS an unnatural act. So is it ok? Would you hang around with people who wear glasses?

 

Byzantine:

The conversation turned toward how heterosexual unions can be favored over homosexual ones.  There is a really, really obvious answer to this:  homosexual unions are way down the list of Nature's priorities.  For me personally, homosexual copulation is on a par with heroin use:  I don't do it, and I don't care if you do, but don't tell me it's equivalent to heterosexual unions because it isn't on a number of levels.

Do tell. Explain. Remember: any use of "they can't procreate" is nullified by sterile heterosexual married people. Go on and justify your hate--if you can.

 

Byzantine:

I wear glasses.

But..but...it's UNNATURAL! And you don't like anything unnatural.

 

Byzantine:

The conversation turned toward how heterosexual unions can be favored over homosexual ones.  There is a really, really obvious answer to this:  homosexual unions are way down the list of Nature's priorities.

Homosexuals can reproduce just as much as heterosexuals.  I don't see how this puts them down at the bottom of the list.

Byzantine:

For me personally, homosexual copulation is on a par with heroin use:  I don't do it, and I don't care if you do, but don't tell me it's equivalent to heterosexual unions because it isn't on a number of levels.

How is it not equivalent?

Byzantine:

Do you think drug use is just a choice equivalent to the choice of which way you'll part your hair? 

For most people, yes.

Byzantine:

Would you be willing to join the same risk-spreading pool with either group?

What risk is being spread in either group?

Byzantine:

Wearing glasses, like restricting the sexual drive to a single opposite sex partner, doesn't spread disease

How is having an opposite sex partner relevant to not spreading disease?

Byzantine:

nor does it inhibit the incidence of grandchildren. 

So, you don't think homosexuals can reproduce?

 

Byzantine:

You can't, because any wholesale adoption of homosexual unions would mean an eventually extinct pool of aging queens.  Kind of like the Shakers.

Again, with this nonsense that homosexuals cannot reproduce.  You do realize that homosexuals have all the same organs as heterosexuals right? Oh wait, you are saying that homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other!  So what?  You don't think if all humans were homosexual, that humans would not reproduce?  You think just because someone is a homosexual, that he or she does not want children?  You don't think the drive to reproduce is greater than their drive to not have sex with someone of the opposite gender?  Lastly, have you heard of artificial insemination?

Spideynw:

Again, with this nonsense that homosexuals cannot reproduce.  You do realize that homosexuals have all the same organs as heterosexuals right? Oh wait, you are saying that homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other!  So what?  You don't think if all humans were homosexual, that humans would not reproduce?  You think just because someone is a homosexual, that he or she does not want children?  You don't think the drive to reproduce is greater than their drive to not have sex with someone of the opposite gender?  Lastly, have you heard of artificial insemination?

If all humans were homosexual then they wouldn't exist. The reason reproduction occurs between animals (at least mammals) is because of the fun of sex. Take that away (everyone is homosexual) and there isn't any instinctive reason to do it.

There seem to be enough of us screwing around and making babies (I'm doing my part!).  I don't think giving homosexuals the same tax, inheritence, and all the other 1,000 benifits will end the world, or make us extinct.  It would just piss of the close minded people of the world.

It's hard enough to find someone you want to live you life with.  Why can't all of us have the same legal benifits if we are lucky enough to find someone?

Tukaram:

There seem to be enough of us screwing around and making babies (I'm doing my part!).  I don't think giving homosexuals the same tax, inheritence, and all the other 1,000 benifits will end the world, or make us extinct.  It would just piss of the close minded people of the world.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just correcting an error.

Tukaram:

It's hard enough to find someone you want to live you life with.  Why can't all of us have the same legal benifits if we are lucky enough to find someone?

I should be able to "marry" myself as well then. Why should married couples get all the benefits?

 

Hey if you want to leave your house and retirement to yourself when you die then go for it!  (*^-^*)

Tukaram:

Hey if you want to leave your house and retirement to yourself when you die then go for it!  (*^-^*)

I was thinking tax credits.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

It's rolling back the bureaucracy so that it no longer interferes with something that is a right--no matter how much you hate gays.

Marko:

In what ways does the bureaucracy interfere? Examples would be good - no matter how much you hate non-gays.

Drug laws. Minimum wage laws. Antitrust laws. Insider trading laws. Tariffs. Prohibitions on who can marry whom with consent.

What I asked was how does the government interfere with the ability of gays to "marry"?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Just wondering something: do you believe that anyone who stands up for gay marriage must be gay? Because that's like saying someone who supports blacks not being lynched must be black.

 

What do you think?

liberty student:

"Granting" is still licensing.  Most people don't understand what a license is.  A license is permission to do something illegal.  The state makes marriage illegal, without a license.  The state makes opening a business illegal, without a license.  You must petition for, and obtain explicit permission from the state to do these things.

It is not the same thing. You will be fined and locked up for running an unlicensed business. You will not be fined or get locked up for being in an unlicensed marriage.

There are plenty of people around the world in informal marriages, or who are only married in church but are not married in civil law. The state does not come in and break up those marriages like it breaks up unlicensed businesses.

Tukaram:

There seem to be enough of us screwing around and making babies (I'm doing my part!).  I don't think giving homosexuals the same tax, inheritence, and all the other 1,000 benifits will end the world, or make us extinct.  It would just piss of the close minded people of the world.

Well which one is it? What would be the purpose of having state sanctioned gay marriage? Inheritance and insurance technicalities, or pissing off close minded people? 

We all know what is really at the heart of this issue. Talking about inheritance, tax issues or other such triffles is a cop out.

Marko:

What I asked was how does the government interfere with the ability of gays to "marry"?

States have passed laws and amendments against it.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Just wondering something: do you believe that anyone who stands up for gay marriage must be gay? Because that's like saying someone who supports blacks not being lynched must be black.

Marko:

What do you think?

I think you should answer the question.

 

Angurse:

If all humans were homosexual then they wouldn't exist. The reason reproduction occurs between animals (at least mammals) is because of the fun of sex. Take that away (everyone is homosexual) and there isn't any instinctive reason to do it.

Then why do homosexuals have children?  Oh, I guess instinct goes beyond sexual desires.  Please join us in the 21st century and leave the dark ages behind.

Marko:

Tukaram:

There seem to be enough of us screwing around and making babies (I'm doing my part!).  I don't think giving homosexuals the same tax, inheritence, and all the other 1,000 benifits will end the world, or make us extinct.  It would just piss of the close minded people of the world.

Well which one is it? What would be the purpose of having state sanctioned gay marriage? Inheritance and insurance technicalities, or pissing off close minded people? 

We all know what is really at the heart of this issue. Talking about inheritance, tax issues or other such triffles is a cop out.

That's the beauty of it.  It easily accomplishes both!  You know, 2 birds, 1 stone?

What exactly is the heart of the issue then?  Allowing all couples to have the same legal benefits?  Getting the government out the marriage business and let everyone live how they want with less intrusion?  Not allowing gays the same legal benefits because some people don't like them?

Inter racial marrriage was illegal until the federal government stepped in said it was a discriminatory law.  Before that they could live together and call themselves married but had none of the beneifts.  Now they do, and it hasn't been all that bad really.

 

Here is a few of the 'trifling' things 'married' people get from the government that gay couples do not. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

 

Marko:

It is not the same thing. You will be fined and locked up for running an unlicensed business. You will not be fined or get locked up for being in an unlicensed marriage.

It is about the principle.  Do you understand what principles are?

Byzantine:

I bet most of the people on this thread believe that human evolution has stopped.

It certainly hasn't and in the end all social conservative trash will be erased.

It's pretty funny how you misuse materialism/naturalism to try to prove...what ? That the god of evolution will exterminate gays because of their biological sins ?

LM:

I think there is a case to be made that we have stepped outside of nature and into an artificial environment in which we have constructed. This could be the end of evolution for the homo sapient.

Actually, the human race re-engineering itself using 'technology' is just a natural phenomenon and part of 'evolution', whatever 'evolution' means. (I seem to recall you believed something along those lines ?)

Spideynw:

Then why do homosexuals have children?  Oh, I guess instinct goes beyond sexual desires.  Please join us in the 21st century and leave the dark ages behind.

Are you admitting there was a time when they couldn't? Because that is all that is needed.

Angurse:

Spideynw:

Then why do homosexuals have children?  Oh, I guess instinct goes beyond sexual desires.  Please join us in the 21st century and leave the dark ages behind.

Are you admitting there was a time when they couldn't? Because that is all that is needed.

No, I am suggesting that only people in the dark ages would have such ideas.

Spideynw:

No, I am suggesting that only people in the dark ages would have such ideas.

Do you not realise that there was a time when such proposals ( that you are making) were simply impossible? As just saying "today they can" doesn't change the fact that there was a time when it was impossible. And doesn't remove the very obvious link between the fun of sex and reproduction. Even currently, most children aren't planned, Now go back before they knew how children were created, make them homosexuals, and you'll find humans quickly disappear.

Any basic biology course could point this relationship out. Perhaps they have use textbooks from the Dark Ages.

when in history could homosexual men not impregnate women? or lesbian women not conceive from men?

what do you make of stuff like this....

Giraffes

Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two males giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactions between males have been found to be more frequent than heterosexual coupling.^[55] In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting incidents took place between two males. The proportion of same sex activities varied between 30 and 75%, and at any given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behavior with another male. Only 1% of same-sex mounting incidents occurred between females.^[56]

nirgrahamUK:

when in history could homosexual men not impregnate women? or lesbian women not conceive from men?

I never said they couldn't, they just wouldn't. As there isn't any pleasure in it.

nirgrahamUK:

Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two males giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactions between males have been found to be more frequent than heterosexual coupling.^[55] In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting incidents took place between two males. The proportion of same sex activities varied between 30 and 75%, and at any given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behavior with another male. Only 1% of same-sex mounting incidents occurred between females.^[56]

As long as the males still find sex with females enjoyable, there isn't a problem. If you can show me how many homosexual, same-sex-only, giraffes impregnate females, then you've proved me wrong.