Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]This is a hasty generalization and a slippery slope, if you want to talk argument fallacies. So the parts don't fit together, they must be doing it for pleasure. What about the heterosexual couples who, as several of us have said over and over, are biologically incapable of having children, yet have sex and get married anyway? Or what about the heterosexual couples who do it for fun, using condoms or birth control to prevent a pregnancy from resulting?

Heterosexuals will also have children before marrying, sometimes on purpose. There are couples who are not married, but live together with their own children. I guess they didn't get the memo.

There is no real basis to say that allowing homosexuals to marry will cause anything negative. I have to use my history example again. What came out of granting all those "special rights" to people who were not white men? The corruption of society? Sure.

I'm seriously not expecting to change your mind, as you seem to be hellbent on preserving "family values," but I can't help but to challenge your idea.[/FONT][/quote]

A slippery slope is only a fallacy if your argument is that one step will occur after another in a downward spiral only due to similarity. I do not believe I have made this claim.. Though I have made comparisons in logic, and that is an analogy.

Anyway, I have already answered that question regarding capability to procreate a page back:

[quote]Depends. If the given condition of the marriage is "Hey, lets get married, so I can have sex with you as much as I want without using protection because you can't get pregnant", then I do not encourage this marriage. The inability to procreate between a different sex couple, unless it was a given factor like I mentioned above, does not change the nature of the relationship they had. It is, and still remains, ordered toward procreation.[/quote]

Ordered towards is not "only a means to". Also, heterosexual marriage and sexual relations are also in a deplorable state, and this needs to be addressed. When there is a problem, you fix the problem. You don't make it worse. Legalizing same-sex marriages only because different-sex marriages aren't treated with respect is akin to pushing a knife deeper into your chest only because it is already lodged in you.

Now, in regards to sex instead of marriage, I really do wish that you wouldn't interchange terms here. Marriage is not sex. A relationship doesn't require the ordaining by the government in order to be ordered toward procreation. In states of anarchy and in areas with an absence of government, healthy relationships can exist. Marriage is a legal institution, through and through.

The movement towards civil rights (in particular, your example of segregation) is not like the movement towards giving homosexuals special rights. One is actually a question of definition and unfair treatment. The other, a battle over happiness. I can say that we shouldn't legalize same-sex marriages due to all of the troubles that were caused by the legalization of no-incident divorces under that same logic.

Though I have already made a few statements regarding same-sex marriage problems through the observed data in the Nortic Countries, you must not forget your place. The standard of marriage is being between a man and a woman. You are pleading a special case, so the burden of proof is on you.


[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Tolerance [i]is[/i] good in this case. Tolerating differences in others makes for a much more peaceful society, instead of a hateful one fueled by dogmatic or illogical reasoning. It's not better than acceptance, but it's a step towards that goal.

There are things that do actual damage to families and society that people tolerate just the same: drugs, ignorance, abuse, dishonesty, discrimination. This is the tolerance of intolerance.

I fail to see how I'm talking in circles, here.[/font][/quote]

Not talking in circles. Circular reasoning. However I digress: You are only to tolerate "differences" if they are actually worthy of being tolerable. You need to justify tolerance, otherwise it is completely blind and baseless. Though if you justify tolerance, then you create a standard for what you aren't tolerating, and then you are being intolerable again. Hence, why I don't hold this position: it is either hypocritical, or it is self-defeating.

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]How do you feel about civil unions, then? Grant them in every state and give them the exact same benefits as marriage. Let the faiths and people concerned with family values call it what they want. Sure, it's just a matter of semantics now. But in this case we would not be redefining an ancient institution, but creating a new, identical one that is not as discriminatory.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I have mixed feelings about civil unions (though homosexual advocates argue that those aren't "satisfactory", so those neither the issue nor a satisfactory outlet). Mainly because civil unions were only proposed in the State of Nevada in order to advocate same-sex marriages. Originally they had the same rights as marriage, but then they were struck down, because everyone can see them as a pseudo-bill to legalize same-sex marriages (and just re-defining "same-sex marriages"). Currently, I believe the civil unions had several rights removed in order to try to convince people that it isn't same-sex marriage (which annoyed the advocates).

This ideal still applies, though. People will substitute terms and then argue with just as much zest for the exact same reasons. It is playing a word game, and the reasons why I am against same-sex marriages are still just as applicable. Instead of re-defining an institution, it is an attempt to abolish it. Though I have to tailor my argument against civil unions in order to force people to admit that they are arguing for romanticism, and I just do this by playing the unnecessary card.

Simply put, if we completely remove any sexuality from the issue, civil unions are completely unnecessary and unneeded.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Instead of re-defining an institution, it is an attempt to abolish it.[/QUOTE]

This is a common misconception and one that need to be vigorously fought against. Allowing gays to marry will in no way abolish marriage for anyone else. How is letting two people of the same gender marry each other going to mean the end of marriage between two people of the opposite gender? It won't!

I want to quote from an article I found today by John Corvino, PhD., who is a philosophy professor, author, columnist, and speaker (just to prove his credentials so people don't think I'm referencing a mere hack). He covers this point quite eloquently:

"I’ve been doing a lot of same-sex marriage debates lately, and thus interacting with opponents—not just my debate partner, but also audience members, some of whom will soon be voting on marriage amendments.

Recently one of them asked, “Where does your standard of marriage come from?”

From her tone, I could tell she meant it more as a challenge—a purely rhetorical question—than as a genuine query. Still, I wanted to give her a good answer.

But what is the answer? My own “standard” of marriage, if you can call it that, comes from my parents and grandparents, whose loving, lifelong commitments I strive to emulate. That doesn’t mean mine would resemble theirs in every detail—certainly not the male/female part—but I can’t help but learn from their example.

That wasn’t the answer she was looking for, so she asked again. This time I tried challenging the question: talking about “THE” standard of marriage suggests that marriage is a static entity, rather than an institution that has evolved over time. Historically, marriage has been more commonly polygamous than monogamous; more commonly hierarchical than egalitarian. It changes.

I pointed these facts out, adding that our standard for marriage—or any other social institution—ought to be human well-being. Since same-sex marriage promotes security for gay and lesbian persons and, consequently, social stability, it meets that standard.

She wasn’t satisfied. “But if we don’t have a single fixed standard,” she continued, “then anything goes.”

There’s something rhetorically satisfying when an opponent’s fallacies can be identified with neat names: in this case, “false dilemma.” Either marriage remains solely heterosexual, she was saying, or else society embraces a sexual free-for-all—as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum put it, “man on man, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”

No, no, no. The fact that boundaries change and evolve does not entail that we should have no boundaries at all, or that where they’re drawn is entirely arbitrary. Again, the standard is societal well-being, and everyone agrees that “man on dog” marriage fails to meet that standard. Let’s not change the subject.

Her challenge reminded me of those who cite the dictionary and then object that same-sex marriage is “impossible by definition,” since marriage by definition requires a husband and wife. Dictionaries reflect usage, and as usage evolves, so do dictionaries. (Ever try to read Beowulf in the original Old English?)

More important, the dictionary objection founders on the simple fact that if something were truly “impossible by definition,” there would be no reason to worry about it, since it can’t ever happen. No one bothers amending constitutions to prohibit square circles or married bachelors.

But my rhetorical satisfaction in explaining “false dilemma” and the evolution of language was tempered by the reality I was confronting. My questioner wasn’t simply grandstanding. She was expressing a genuine—and widely shared—fear: if we embrace same-sex marriage, than life as we know it will change dramatically for the worse. Standards will deteriorate. Our children will inherit a confused and morally impoverished world.

Such fear is what’s driving many of the voters who support amendments in California, Florida, and Arizona to prohibit same-sex marriage, and we ignore or belittle it at our peril.

And so I explained again—gently but firmly—how same-sex marriage is good for gay people and good for society. When there’s someone whose job it is to take care of you a vice-versa, everyone benefits—not just you, but those around you as well. That’s true whether you’re gay or straight.

I also explained how giving marriage to gay people doesn’t mean taking it away from straight people, any more than giving the vote to women meant taking it away from men. No one is suggesting that we make same-sex marriage mandatory. Our opponents’ talk of “redefining” marriage—rather than, say, “expanding” it—tends to obscure this fact.

Not all fears bend to rational persuasion, but some do. In any case, I don’t generally answer questions in these forums for the sole benefit of the questioner. Typically, I answer them for benefit of everyone in the room, including the genuine fence-sitters who are unsure about what position to take on marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

To them, we need to make the case that same-sex marriage won’t cause the sky to fall."

Sorry if that was long, I just felt it would be better to paste it than link it.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

No, allowing homosexuals to have same-sex marriage won't abolish marriage. I was referring to civil unions. Changing marriage is a means to change the institution to suit a minority because they are unhappy that they cannot practice the romantic connotation in the matter that they want to. Much different from "abolishing".

Marriage that we know would be gone in a few generations, forever replaced by the new standards passed on from prior decisions. Who knows where it would go from there. Heck, for all we know, it could be re-illegalized in the future.


Anyway, to debate with Dr. Corvino, his anecdote has a few issues I would like to point out.


[quote]
I pointed these facts out, adding that our standard for marriage—or any other social institution—ought to be human well-being. Since same-sex marriage promotes security for gay and lesbian persons and, consequently, social stability, it meets that standard.[/quote]

This is a bit of a circle, admitting that a standard ought to be what you want it to be (hence, what spawned the entire debate over same-sex marriages over the first place). Though same-sex marriages promoting security and all that other good stuff, that is something that is up for debate.

[quote]She wasn’t satisfied. “But if we don’t have a single fixed standard,” she continued, “then anything goes.”

There’s something rhetorically satisfying when an opponent’s fallacies can be identified with neat names: in this case, “false dilemma.” Either marriage remains solely heterosexual, she was saying, or else society embraces a sexual free-for-all—as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum put it, “man on man, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”

No, no, no. The fact that boundaries change and evolve does not entail that we should have no boundaries at all, or that where they’re drawn is entirely arbitrary. Again, the standard is societal well-being, and everyone agrees that “man on dog” marriage fails to meet that standard. Let’s not change the subject.[/quote]

This is where the doctor has misunderstood the position. Something that commonly circulates around the Christian community in regards to this issue is a verse in the old testament. This is itself a very good point about the problems about having moral relativity, and usually needs to be expanded in order to make any statements. Here is the Verse (Judges 17:6)

"In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

The meaning in relation to this context? The marriage standard is, indeed, a standard that was passed down, though altering and changing, to become what it is today. The case that Corvino makes here is that he should effectively ignore what his parents did, and go off of what he thinks he should do.

The issue that lies within? What people view is right in their own eyes, when left to personal devices, changes very quickly. Indeed, in 30 years, marriages condoning pedophilia could be on the table for whatever reason, and despite Corvino's objections, he is an "old fogey".

"But that's horrendous and impossible!" you are thinking. "What would cause people to do this!". But, that really isn't a question, for societies change, and personal fulfillment through the law seems to be popular as of late. The big question is: what is there to stop it? What prevents society from arbitrarily deciding that no, it isn't horrible anymore eventually? You can say that it is bad for society, but that is also up to definition.

Therein lies the rub with moral relativity. There is nothing to stop it. It isn't that boundaries don't exist, but that they are subject to change very quickly. The case that many Christians make, in many facets in life (same-sex marriage is by far not the only one that this applies) that I agree with is that you need a very strict and unchanging foundation. Otherwise, your grandchildren will commit atrocities every day, and it will be just fine for them.


Though there are also arguments about contrast emotional appeal with various other unaccepted mediums, but that really wasn't the point here.

[quote]I also explained how giving marriage to gay people doesn’t mean taking it away from straight people, any more than giving the vote to women meant taking it away from men. No one is suggesting that we make same-sex marriage mandatory. Our opponents’ talk of “redefining” marriage—rather than, say, “expanding” it—tends to obscure this fact.
[/quote]

Ah, but it does, though. It removes the straight couples right to the claim of marriage :P

I hate "what makes people happy" arguments. Regardless, I think that the doctor is ignorant of what homosexuals want. To quote Lynn Wardle, the author of the book [u]Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: a Debate[/u]:

[indent]“Civil unions are a tremendous step forward, but they are not good enough. They do not provide equal benefits and they leave couples and those who deal with them exposed to legal uncertainty. What we want is not separate and unequal “gay marriage’’ but marriage itself, the full range of choices and protections available to our nongay sisters and brothers. We do ourselves no favor when we enter this civil rights discussion bargaining against ourselves.”
[/indent]

So yes, homosexuals really do want to re-define marriage. They want to remove the procreative aspect from marriage completely, and apt for the emotionally attached notion.

It is really more of an effect of the population that would go so far as to allow this connotation to go so far that redefinition is worth being considered. Also why it is the problem needs to be fixed on a cultural level, because mandating a law will only get it repealed in ten years.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']No, allowing homosexuals to have same-sex marriage won't abolish marriage. I was referring to civil unions. Changing marriage is a means to change the institution to suit a minority because they are unhappy that they cannot practice the romantic connotation in the matter that they want to. Much different from "abolishing".[/QUOTE]

First off, if you're going to argue about "changing an institution to suit a minority", then we might as well be fair and bring state laws on interracial marriage back up for a vote.

Using the minority argument won't fly, because everyone has the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution, whether some people feel comfortable with that or not. As was proved with womens' and black civil rights, the rights of people are a Constitutional given, and a human given, they are not up for a vote.

[QUOTE]Marriage that we know would be gone in a few generations, forever replaced by the new standards passed on from prior decisions. Who knows where it would go from there. Heck, for all we know, it could be re-illegalized in the future.[/QUOTE]

You just backtracked on your first statement! You disagreed with the whole "abolishing marriage" idea I challenged, and yet now you're saying it will happen. You are so entrenched in your narrow viewpoint that you refuse to accept that allowing people to have the rights that they should have as human beings won't mean that that same right, marriage in this case, goes down the tubes. Allowing people of the same gender to marry does not in any way affect the marriages of heterosexuals.

[QUOTE]This is a bit of a circle, admitting that a standard ought to be what you want it to be (hence, what spawned the entire debate over same-sex marriages over the first place). Though same-sex marriages promoting security and all that other good stuff, that is something that is up for debate.[/QUOTE]

You totally misunderstand what Corvino said, that he appreciates how his parents' and grandparent's marriages are loving, strong commitments. He is moved by that, and wants his marriage to be as close to that as possible, the only thing technically different about it would be the gender of his partner. What he's saying is that marriage itself promotes that security and human well-being, so it has the same emotional benefits whether married partners are straight or gay. Why should he and other gays give up that dream based on a biological technicality? And what about gay couples with kids? The stability of a recognized marriage would be beneficial to those kids, no matter who their parents are.

[QUOTE]This is where the doctor has misunderstood the position. Something that commonly circulates around the Christian community in regards to this issue is a verse in the old testament. This is itself a very good point about the problems about having moral relativity, and usually needs to be expanded in order to make any statements. Here is the Verse (Judges 17:6)

"In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

The meaning in relation to this context? The marriage standard is, indeed, a standard that was passed down, though altering and changing, to become what it is today. The case that Corvino makes here is that he should effectively ignore what his parents did, and go off of what he thinks he should do.[/QUOTE]

First off, this is not a religious issue, so quoting the Bible won't help. Religion is not the first/last/only word on morality, and it isn't even really a good one, because religion is hampered by absolutist dogma that does not recognize human rights. The Bible also tells us to keep slaves, and never once says that we can relax capital punishment for even the slightest crime. No, I don't accept the Bible as any kind of impartial moral authority, especially when that authority has been used to justify numerous atrocities throughout history.

Human beings are capable of having a moral/ethical framework to govern ourselves without having to appeal to ancient scriptures, that's why the law of this country was set up as secular; the Founding Fathers were of that Humanist school, and they knew we could govern ourselves much better without having a theocratically motivated government.

The issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with moral relativism; you are still talking about two people, a monogamous couple, having the right to marry each other. That does not mean allowing polygamy, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, or anything else that we already understand is wrong.

To quote Sam Harris from his book [I]Letter to a Christian Nation[/I]:
"You believe that unless the Bible is accepted as the word of God, there can be no universal standard of morality. But we can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a law-giving God. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality. While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of it's primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests love is more conducive to happiness than hate is; this is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world."

[QUOTE]Ah, but it does, though. It removes the straight couples right to the claim of marriage :P

I hate "what makes people happy" arguments. Regardless, I think that the doctor is ignorant of what homosexuals want. To quote Lynn Wardle, the author of the book [u]Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: a Debate[/u]:

[indent]“Civil unions are a tremendous step forward, but they are not good enough. They do not provide equal benefits and they leave couples and those who deal with them exposed to legal uncertainty. What we want is not separate and unequal “gay marriage’’ but marriage itself, the full range of choices and protections available to our nongay sisters and brothers. We do ourselves no favor when we enter this civil rights discussion bargaining against ourselves.”
[/indent]

So yes, homosexuals really do want to re-define marriage. They want to remove the procreative aspect from marriage completely, and apt for the emotionally attached notion.

It is really more of an effect of the population that would go so far as to allow this connotation to go so far that redefinition is worth being considered. Also why it is the problem needs to be fixed on a cultural level, because mandating a law will only get it repealed in ten years.[/QUOTE]

You are conveniently forgetting that "marriage" has been re-defined and modified throughout history, that it is not a static absolute, and you are also invoking Heterosexual Privilege, suggesting that straight people are superior to gay people in a similar way a racist suggests whites are superior to blacks and all other minorities. Attitudes that reduce people to second-class citizens have fail to accept that human rights transcend any flimsy argument to the contrary.

And there you go harping on the procreative aspect again. What about couples who are infertile and can't have kids? Should we take away their right to marry because they cannot fulfill that procreative aspect that seems the all-important final moderator of the issue to you? What about elderly couples who marry? They are too old to have or care for children anymore. What about people who identify themselves as asexual? They are capable of forming a mutual bond with another person, but they have no interest in sex.

As it has been pointed out numerous times already, humans have so much else going on emotionally, psychologically, and socially that sticking to a simplistic procreative argument is beyond silly.

The fact that you have yet to influence any really open-minded people here with your arguments should tell you something.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']First off, if you're going to argue about "changing an institution to suit a minority", then we might as well be fair and bring state laws on interracial marriage back up for a vote.

Using the minority argument won't fly, because everyone has the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution, whether some people feel comfortable with that or not. As was proved with womens' and black civil rights, the rights of people are a Constitutional given, and a human given, they are not up for a vote.[/quote]

I wouldn't mind a vote again, myself, because there are many other justifiable reasons to allow interracial marriage other than to just make people happy. It really is a question of policy on those issues, particularly about the existence of "race" in general. They would, no doubt, remain legal.

Anyway, I do agree that civil rights are given to everyone one equally. They are given to everyone equally, and I have used this as an argument before.



[quote]You just backtracked on your first statement! You disagreed with the whole "abolishing marriage" idea I challenged, and yet now you're saying it will happen. You are so entrenched in your narrow viewpoint that you refuse to accept that allowing people to have the rights that they should have as human beings won't mean that that same right, marriage in this case, goes down the tubes. Allowing people of the same gender to marry does not in any way affect the marriages of heterosexuals. [/quote]

I never backtracked. I said that people aren't seeking for marriage to be abolished. I am saying that the standards that we accept for marriage will be different through time if we allow it to change. The rest of this paragraph is an ad-hominem that begs the question. And yes, changing marriage does change the marriages of heterosexuals, because it is changing marriage fundamentally to suit another ideal completely.

[quote]You totally misunderstand what Corvino said, that he appreciates how his parents' and grandparent's marriages are loving, strong commitments. He is moved by that, and wants his marriage to be as close to that as possible, the only thing technically different about it would be the gender of his partner. What he's saying is that marriage itself promotes that security and human well-being, so it has the same emotional benefits whether married partners are straight or gay. Why should he and other gays give up that dream based on a biological technicality? And what about gay couples with kids? The stability of a recognized marriage would be beneficial to those kids, no matter who their parents are.[/quote]

You misunderstood my statement on the issue (not even a really big one. More or less a side comment). He already has an ideal definition for what marriage should be about, which is a standard for allowing same-sex marriages. "Why is it should marriage be changed? Because it is about the well being. Why should marriage be about the well being? Because I want it to be changed". Add another rung about how you want same-sex marriages to be legal, and you have a complete circle. Though this really isn't the point.

Anyway, regarding the question, I ask a question in response: "Why is it that their dream MUST require a violation of biology?" The loving, caring, and compassionate nature of marriage can exist without sex. Sex is not a requirement for these conditions, so arguing for a change in definitions in order to suit the sexual nature is why I don't support this change.


[quote]First off, this is not a religious issue, so quoting the Bible won't help. Religion is not the first/last/only word on morality, and it isn't even really a good one, because religion is hampered by absolutist dogma that does not recognize human rights. The Bible also tells us to keep slaves, and never once says that we can relax capital punishment for even the slightest crime. No, I don't accept the Bible as any kind of impartial moral authority, especially when that authority has been used to justify numerous atrocities throughout history.

Human beings are capable of having a moral/ethical framework to govern ourselves without having to appeal to ancient scriptures, that's why the law of this country was set up as secular; the Founding Fathers were of that Humanist school, and they knew we could govern ourselves much better without having a theocratically motivated government.

The issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with moral relativism; you are still talking about two people, a monogamous couple, having the right to marry each other. That does not mean allowing polygamy, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, or anything else that we already understand is wrong.

To quote Sam Harris from his book [I]Letter to a Christian Nation[/I]:
"You believe that unless the Bible is accepted as the word of God, there can be no universal standard of morality. But we can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a law-giving God. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality. While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of it's primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests love is more conducive to happiness than hate is; this is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world."[/quote]

Oh, the great misunderstanding that you have here. Did you even read the paragraph, or did you just pick out familiar words and complain about them? I'll ignore all of the inaccurate and uniformed claims that you have made about the practices in the Bible, the blindly converted facts about the founding fathers influenced by modern western idealism, and cut straight to the point:

I wasn't saying that you should go strictly from the Bible in regards to this. I was giving you insight into the very common anti-marriage argument about relative morality.

Moral relativity does have some importance to the topic, though. Primarily from the key factors that influence the decisions that are made regarding this topic. Things like equal acceptance, avoiding discrimination, equality in beliefs, peace on earth through understanding, personal endorsement from the law, ect, those all don't have a very substantial foundation in regards to what can qualify as fulfilling those conditions.

From the hypocritical discrimination against my own views on the issue, I find that these ideals are all-too-often a cop out to the personal desires that someone has. So I always require better reasons for changing tradition other than your own personal desire on the issue, because you otherwise create a new standard that ignores prior practices, precedents, and the reasons behind them. To be blunt, the burden of proof for change is on the pro same-sex side, and not the anti same-sex side, for they are the ones who are making the claim against what is already accepted.

I am more in fear that the current western culture has already embraced moral relativity, and that same-sex marriages are just a side issue on the matter. A product, not a cause. Indeed, our stances on issues have drastically changed in the past 60 years.


[quote]You are conveniently forgetting that "marriage" has been re-defined and modified throughout history, that it is not a static absolute, and you are also invoking Heterosexual Privilege, suggesting that straight people are superior to gay people in a similar way a racist suggests whites are superior to blacks and all other minorities. Attitudes that reduce people to second-class citizens have fail to accept that human rights transcend any flimsy argument to the contrary.

And there you go harping on the procreative aspect again. What about couples who are infertile and can't have kids? Should we take away their right to marry because they cannot fulfill that procreative aspect that seems the all-important final moderator of the issue to you? What about elderly couples who marry? They are too old to have or care for children anymore. What about people who identify themselves as asexual? They are capable of forming a mutual bond with another person, but they have no interest in sex.

As it has been pointed out numerous times already, humans have so much else going on emotionally, psychologically, and socially that sticking to a simplistic procreative argument is beyond silly.

The fact that you have yet to influence any really open-minded people here with your arguments should tell you something.[/QUOTE]

Find me an open minded person here. Also, find me an open minded person here who you have converted, and then prove to me why it is that this is the defining factor of whether or not my arguments are correct (which is, by the way, a bandwagon fallacy).

Marriage being re-defined in the past is no excuse to re-define it now. You must have better reasons than the fact that it has changed. You must state why you make this change.

I am *joking* about heterosexual privileges. See the smiley? Dead give away. Like I said, I don't like "personal happiness" arguments. The best case that can be made of this nature, though, is when you contrast the people who already have different sex marriages (note here, sexuality is irrelevant to that) to the people who want it changed, you have an example of where someone else is dictating a change in the nature of the institution for their own gain on those who are currently married. This works because it is a contrast to the ideal held that homosexuals are having their rights limited by the minority.


I have mentioned the nature of procreation and sex several times over now:

[quote]Depends. If the given condition of the marriage is "Hey, lets get married, so I can have sex with you as much as I want without using protection because you can't get pregnant", then I do not encourage this marriage. The inability to procreate between a different sex couple, unless it was a given factor like I mentioned above, does not change the nature of the relationship they had. It is, and still remains, ordered toward procreation.

Ordered towards is not "only a means to".

... snip...

Now, in regards to sex instead of marriage, I really do wish that you wouldn't interchange terms here. Marriage is not sex. A relationship doesn't require the ordaining by the government in order to be ordered toward procreation. In states of anarchy and in areas with an absence of government, healthy relationships can exist. Marriage is a legal institution, through and through.
[/quote]

I am also tired of shadows. You must state these "other things" that are going on in a sexual relation, then argue how it is these make the relationship O.K., or that same-sex marriages should be legalized because of this.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Why hello? I?m back to see a lovely thread up (a usual topic). In fact, back in the day, I used to take the position that Crimson here would take; in defense of ?traditional marriage?. However, plenty has changed. I?m no longer a Christian. I also endorse the scientific and medical communities in their representation of this issue, including the softer sciences like sociology and psychology.

I think there are several mistakes in Crimson Spider?s reasoning.
Let?s start:

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I wouldn't mind a vote again, myself, because there are many other justifiable reasons to allow interracial marriage other than to just make people happy. It really is a question of policy on those issues, particularly about the existence of "race" in general. They would, no doubt, remain legal.

Anyway, I do agree that civil rights are given to everyone one equally. They are given to everyone equally, and I have used this as an argument before.
I never backtracked. I said that people aren't seeking for marriage to be abolished. I am saying that the standards that we accept for marriage will be different through time if we allow it to change. The rest of this paragraph is an ad-hominem that begs the question. And yes, changing marriage does change the marriages of heterosexuals, because it is changing marriage fundamentally to suit another ideal completely. [/quote]

The reason TimeChaser?s analogy works here is because it reveals that the same inconsistencies that would support a ban of interracial marriage are used in opposition to homosexual marriage. When we define marriage as a State, it no longer becomes an issue of biblical or ?traditional? definitions.

Marriage (as it stands) is an institution created to recognize, legally and financially, the voluntary union of a man and a woman that is uniquely set apart from other familial and social relationships due primarily to the degree of union that the couple commit to. More specifically, the fact that the man and the woman effectively legally ?share? almost everything is what separates Marriage from ?friendship? or even ?relationship?.

This arrangement can exist without love, without the possibility of natural procreation (infertile couples can certainly get married), and without any justification other than the consent of the two individuals involved. Most importantly, because this is matter of State, the Bible should have nothing to do with the discussion.

Now how exactly is this institution significantly affected when ?man and a woman? turns into ?two consenting, unrelated (since we can still preserve the spirit of the institution even if we include homosexuals), adults??

I haven?t really explained why TimeChaser is right in his analogy. Here it is: one of the most convincing reasons to include all races as equals in legal and civil matters is because race is 1)biologically determined and 2)there is nothing qualitatively (or quantitatively, I know it?s trite that I have to add this) superior about one race vs. another that justifies an inequality.

You?ll find that the scientific community acknowledges that there is a strong genetic component to gender identity and homosexual attraction. The idea that there is anything in biology that precludes affectionate, loving, sexual same-sex relationships that are any less substantial than their heterosexual counterparts is? to call a spade a spade? [b]bigotry.[/b]

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Anyway, regarding the question, I ask a question in response: "Why is it that their dream MUST require a violation of biology?" The loving, caring, and compassionate nature of marriage can exist without sex. Sex is not a requirement for these conditions, so arguing for a change in definitions in order to suit the sexual nature is why I don't support this change. [/quote]

Let me get this logic straight (ha!):

1. TimeChange (and myself, I suppose) want to change the definition of marriage.
2. This new definition will change in order to acknowledge homosexual sexual activity.
3. This violates my understanding of biology.
4. Therefore, we should not change the definition of marriage.

Two quick rebuttals? if marriage is a loving, caring, compassionate relationship that can exist without sex, then why can?t you change the definition in order to acknowledge the loving, caring, compassionate relationship of homosexual couples? Why not get rid of premise 2 altogether?

I suggest we rephrase the argument (using your logic) like this:
1. Marriage is a loving, caring, compassionate relationship.
2. Homosexuals can have a loving, caring, compassionate relationship.
3. Homosexuals can get married.

My second rebuttal has to do with premise 3. Homosexuality is no way a ?violation? of biology. This represents a profound ignorance on the subject.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] From the hypocritical discrimination against my own views on the issue, I find that these ideals are all-too-often a cop out to the personal desires that someone has. So I always require better reasons for changing tradition other than your own personal desire on the issue, because you otherwise create a new standard that ignores prior practices, precedents, and the reasons behind them. To be blunt, the burden of proof for change is on the pro same-sex side, and not the anti same-sex side, for they are the ones who are making the claim against what is already accepted.

I am more in fear that the current western culture has already embraced moral relativity, and that same-sex marriages are just a side issue on the matter. A product, not a cause. Indeed, our stances on issues have drastically changed in the past 60 years.[/QUOTE]

Crimson, I agree with you with regards to many of your arguments. Moral relativity, I think, is a bad position. I am definitely not in favor of relativism for the simple reason that it fails the law of non-contradiction, e.g. the statement that ?Moral truth is relative? is invalidated by the question, ?Is [i]that[/i] relative??

And I agree that the burden of ?proof? is on the affirmative. I think we can both agree that, insofar as civil unions are concerned, there is no reason to deny heterosexual couples the same civil rights as homosexual couples in a legally recognized union.

Now, what about Marriage? How do you differentiate the term ?Marriage? from ?Civil Union?? Ideally, when we are talking about ?Marriage? we are recognizing, as a society, a relationship of love, support, and mutualism (which you mentioned earlier). Earlier you also mentioned that intercourse has nothing to do with marriage. Certainly by this standard, the ability to make kids doesn?t define marriage either. So if homosexual couples have equally fulfilling, loving, caring, supporting, mutualistic relationships, how don?t they meet the more stringent definition of ?Marriage??

Their dangly bits? I mean, isn?t this just [i]arbitrary[/i] if sexual intercourse has nothing to do with how we define marriage?
[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Marriage being re-defined in the past is no excuse to re-define it now. You must have better reasons than the fact that it has changed. You must state why you make this change. [/QUOTE]

I?m curious? what argument would convince you that the definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexuals?

Do any of these?
1. Even if marriage isn?t a right, but a privilege, we then are faced with the [i]opportunity[/i] to enjoy the privilege. If this is so, on what grounds do we have to restrict the [i]opportunity[/i] of one sexual identity to seek the privilege?
2. ?Marriages? in our society, include every benefit that encompasses a ?Civil Union? AND the small, but profound difference of the label ?Marriage?. This label, because it is being afforded to only some groups of people and not others, is discriminatory unless applied equally. Now, this sort of discriminatory behavior isn?t always bad. However, banning the institutions for reasons beyond the control of the discriminated-group (such as Interracial marriage) is unjust. Homosexuality no more a choice by the group than their race. Therefore, we should recognize homosexuals as falling within the constraints of our definition of marriage.
3. Labeling has obvious sociological and psychological consequences. The hierarchy of ?Marriage? with ?Civil Union? below it ostracizes the group that can only participate in one arrangement and not both. It also has negative psychological consequences on the ostracized group that can be roughly interpreted. Therefore, by permitting the ostracized group to participate in ?Marriage? (which would then eliminate the necessity of a distinction between Marriage and Civil Union) we respect the human dignity of that group.

Peace,
Drix

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The reason TimeChaser’s analogy works here is because it reveals that the same inconsistencies that would support a ban of interracial marriage are used in opposition to homosexual marriage. When we define marriage as a State, it no longer becomes an issue of biblical or “traditional” definitions.[/QUOTE]

Yes, my point was to show that the 'granting rights to a minority is a special exception' argument is weak, because then to be wholly fair the argument must then be applied to situations where most people are in no doubt of the guaranteed rights of minorities. Several states had laws (and some laws are still on the books, even though they are archaic and no longer enforced) that forbade two people of different ethnicity from marrying each other. (I say ethnicity because the way the word "race" has been so often used is a misnomer).

I do not understand why "will of the majority" is even an acceptable argument for gay rights, when womens' and minority rights were upheld by the Constitution and finally passed without putting it to a vote of the populace. If it wasn't done then, the exception should not be made now. I feel confident that if the American people of the time has been able to vote on womens' and minority rights, they either wouldn't have passed or we'd still be battling over them today.

I think the main reason why this is even being argued is the irrational fear people hold for what they see as different, and that difference frightens them. I am an average American citizen, and I don't feel threatened in any way by what two consenting adults of the same gender do privately, nor do I feel threatened by allowing them to get married.

As stated in the Election thread when I talked about Amendment 2 here in Florida, I detest when amendment supporters use phrases like, "This will protect children." Who's children? There are gay parents/couples out there with families and children of their own, and these amendments do not protect them. It's sending a message to these kids that their families aren't deserving of the same respect and rights as the families of their friends who have a mom and dad. It is doing a disservice to them and also to gay kids themselves.

We are a country based on rights and freedoms, and as we have seen in history, second-class citizenry and 'Separate But Equal' do not measure up to the ideals we profess to believe in.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Thanks for the clarification, TimeChaser.
I?ve also been thinking about another argument used in opposition of homosexual equal rights: the ?Definition argument?.
I addressed this to an extent in my earlier post. But the more I thought about it, the weaker it seems.
It goes sort of like this: ?Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If we permit the inclusion of a man and man union or woman and woman union we [i]change[/i] the definition of marriage. This will either diminish the value of Marriage, ruin it, we won?t be able to call it ?marriage?, etc.?
This argument is an Appeal to Tradition and very similar to the No True Scotsman Fallacy (Correct me if I?m wrong). It?s a No True Scotsman Fallacy in the sense that we assume that ?Marriage? is somehow defined independently of our society. That is ?It?s not marriage if it includes gay couples because ?marriage? only refers to a man and a woman?. Well, it is exactly society that sets the standard for marriage. And because we do, the word that we use to describe ?marriage? can include gay couples the same way the word ?gravity? doesn?t have to be discarded because our accepted understanding of what gravity is has changed from Newton to Einstein (this is just an analogy of the linguistics, I?m not implying that our subjective definition of marriage is objective natural law like gravity).

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Good to see you again, Drix.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']
The reason TimeChaser’s analogy works here is because it reveals that the same inconsistencies that would support a ban of interracial marriage are used in opposition to homosexual marriage. When we define marriage as a State, it no longer becomes an issue of biblical or “traditional” definitions.

Marriage (as it stands) is an institution created to recognize, legally and financially, the voluntary union of a man and a woman that is uniquely set apart from other familial and social relationships due primarily to the degree of union that the couple commit to. More specifically, the fact that the man and the woman effectively legally “share” almost everything is what separates Marriage from “friendship” or even “relationship”.

This arrangement can exist without love, without the possibility of natural procreation (infertile couples can certainly get married), and without any justification other than the consent of the two individuals involved. Most importantly, because this is matter of State, the Bible should have nothing to do with the discussion.[/quote]

TimeChasers analogy would be accurate, had there not been many more questions on the matter other than the personal preference of individuals on the debate over interracial marriages. I do think that no, personal preference is not a substantial reason to allow even interracial marriages, and this does annoy me that people will transition the faulty argument of a previous debate onto a current issue.

Oh, how it annoys me how my giving insight into a stance of moral relativity from the misunderstanding of one doctor has somehow made all of my statements "Biblical".

Now, I do agree that the marriages in the legal sense can exist without love, procreation, and any other outside justification. Two issues with this, though. Firstly, this isn't to say what marriage should be, or what marriage is. Something I find is that everyone has a different definition of "marriage", from being a survival instinct to being about benefiting children. I believe that the current rights marriage has are actually an extension made by the States in order to insure women and children when men were insured primarily by their jobs. This was back when families were traditional, in the sense that the husband worked, and the woman stayed home and raised kids. To protect women, the rights of the man were extended beyond just himself, and then came to include his spouse.

Yes, you can remove all of the current definitions and connotations, but this is a backstep to the entire ideal behind the legalization of same-sex marriages. Homosexuals [i]want[/i] their relationships to be condoned and seen as equals in regards to society and the state as a whole, with the full benefits of legal action, romantic connotation, and a raised social acceptance.

This is the reason why civil unions would be completely unsatisfactory, and ironically also why completely removing the advantages/benefits of marriage would be unsatisfactory. The homosexual is in a dire predicament, because in order to climb the tallest mountain, he/she has to make it shorter.

Most are satisfactory with just changing the institution, but not all of them. There are plenty of movements to try to remove biologically tied gender identity as a whole from any legal processes. Instead of changing marriage, they remove the terms "Man" and "Woman" from the record as a whole. This is the closest similarity to the "interracial marriage" comparison between the issues.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Now how exactly is this institution significantly affected when “man and a woman” turns into “two consenting, unrelated (since we can still preserve the spirit of the institution even if we include homosexuals), adults”?[/quote]

Again, the burden of proof system is violated when someone makes a claim, it should stand because I have not disproved it. However I digress

The institution of marriage having a man-woman definition places value on the relationship that exist between a man and a woman (though more than just sexual means). By altering this definition primarily to suit the desire of a sexual instance instead of the celebration of biology, you are stating that biology means nothing in lieu of the great sexual desire. A Norwegien Sociologist Moxness argues that the support for legalizing same-sex marriages doesn't necessarily come from a greater acceptance of homosexuality, but that marriage has become an institution of very little value.

Indeed, so many have made a very fundamental mistake of devaluing marriage in order to allow same-sex marriages to be legalized. This is counter-productive to the stance, because by saying that marriage is essentially worthless, you undermine the reason why it is marriage should be changed. It is worthless, so why care?

The shift towards sexual desires and relationships outside of the nature of procreation has various negative side effects, not only through the large absence of positive side effects that were present with these types of relationships, but other effects like out-of-wedlock births, the dehumanizing effect of objective sexual gratification, and the destruction of deeper family relationships. The greatest burden of same-sex marriage legalization is the endorsement of this greater problem on the cultural level.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I haven’t really explained why TimeChaser is right in his analogy. Here it is: one of the most convincing reasons to include all races as equals in legal and civil matters is because race is 1)biologically determined and 2)there is nothing qualitatively (or quantitatively, I know it’s trite that I have to add this) superior about one race vs. another that justifies an inequality.

You’ll find that the scientific community acknowledges that there is a strong genetic component to gender identity and homosexual attraction. The idea that there is anything in biology that precludes affectionate, loving, sexual same-sex relationships that are any less substantial than their heterosexual counterparts is… to call a spade a spade… [b]bigotry.[/b][/quote]

Odd, I thought that the unbiased section of the scientific community has admitted a 50/50 stance, where genes contribute, then personal upbringing takes hold from there. It is like the very old "what is responsible for alcoholism" issue, in that no "gene" makes you suddenly walk up to a bar and take out your frustrations on your wife. Are there genetic factors that increase the probability of homosexuality? To this, I can undoubtedly say that yes, there is. Mainly through genes that lack specificity toward one particular gender. But... are the other various factors that contribute to homosexuality that are environmental/controllable/treatable? To this, I can also undoubtedly say that yes, there is.

So, the comparison between homosexuality and race doesn't hold true in that aspect. There are several other problems, like comparing an observation to an admission, comparing a state to an act, and so on, but then this does raise an interesting question. Now, if we accept that homosexuality is a genetic abnormality like down syndrome or albino syndrome (one that specifically has the negative effect of removing the ability to procreate), then why not attempt to cure it?


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Let me get this logic straight (ha!):

1. TimeChange (and myself, I suppose) want to change the definition of marriage.
2. This new definition will change in order to acknowledge homosexual sexual activity.
3. This violates my understanding of biology.
4. Therefore, we should not change the definition of marriage.

Two quick rebuttals… if marriage is a loving, caring, compassionate relationship that can exist without sex, then why can’t you change the definition in order to acknowledge the loving, caring, compassionate relationship of homosexual couples? Why not get rid of premise 2 altogether?

I suggest we rephrase the argument (using your logic) like this:
1. Marriage is a loving, caring, compassionate relationship.
2. Homosexuals can have a loving, caring, compassionate relationship.
3. Homosexuals can get married.

My second rebuttal has to do with premise 3. Homosexuality is no way a “violation” of biology. This represents a profound ignorance on the subject.
[/quote]

+ 10 points for making me laugh.

Anyway, there is much more to the issue than just "violating biology", and particularly in regards to the grounds as to why the issue is being changed. You see, my point has largely been that the problem we face in regards to sexual activity in society is never tied strictly to homosexuality. It is a "greater problem", which is the treatment of sex in general. To make the point that I do, you would need the following steps.

1. Individuals want to change the definition of marriage.
2. This change will alter marriage into being about sexual fulfillment and romantic ideals of love (this includes same-sex marriage).
3. This violates many of the biological uses/factors of marriages, and changes the nature of the "family" to be one where sex is the priority.
4. Therefore, we should not change marriage.

In regards to the first rebuttles, there is a contradiction that is placed on the circumstances to allow same sex marriages. If you say that sex does not matter, then [i]sex does not matter[/i]. The sexual preferences and actions of the individual become irrelevant, and therefore a man can marry a woman regardless of how sexually attracted he is to her for all of the loving, compassionate, and caring that he wants from this relationship. You would need to argue a reason why it is that the homosexual relationship would need to be condoned, and this is ultimately contradictory to the premise: sex matters.

In regard to the second rebuttle, the "biological technicality" that homosexuals had to "give up their dream for" automatically assumes that biology is a factor. Anyway, I know very well about the ideology about homosexuality being "normal" and "natural" and "O.K.". I just do not operate under these circumstances, so my bias will show up on occasion.






[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Crimson, I agree with you with regards to many of your arguments. Moral relativity, I think, is a bad position. I am definitely not in favor of relativism for the simple reason that it fails the law of non-contradiction, e.g. the statement that “Moral truth is relative” is invalidated by the question, “Is [i]that[/i] relative?”

And I agree that the burden of “proof” is on the affirmative. I think we can both agree that, insofar as civil unions are concerned, there is no reason to deny heterosexual couples the same civil rights as homosexual couples in a legally recognized union.

Now, what about Marriage? How do you differentiate the term “Marriage” from “Civil Union”? Ideally, when we are talking about “Marriage” we are recognizing, as a society, a relationship of love, support, and mutualism (which you mentioned earlier). Earlier you also mentioned that intercourse has nothing to do with marriage. Certainly by this standard, the ability to make kids doesn’t define marriage either. So if homosexual couples have equally fulfilling, loving, caring, supporting, mutualistic relationships, how don’t they meet the more stringent definition of “Marriage?”

Their dangly bits? I mean, isn’t this just [i]arbitrary[/i] if sexual intercourse has nothing to do with how we define marriage? [/quote]

For my own personal definition, I define marriage as the biological and legal union of a man and a woman for solidarity. In particular, a civil union is a business plan, while marriage is ordered toward procreation (Note, [b]"ordered towards" does not mean "Only a means to"[/b]). This ordering is the key difference between civil unions, homosexual relationships, and healthy heterosexual relationships.

Now, you are probably calling the contradiction card here, which is why I should elaborate on the nature of sex "mattering". When I was talking about the existence of the loving, caring, compassionate nature of marriage outside of sex, this was not to say that marriage existed outside of sex. This was to say that those factors existed outside of marriage completely, so there is no need to recognize them. Indeed, a man can have a loving, compassionate, caring relationship with his neighbors wife without having sex or being married to her. A very common statement that I make is the following: Love is love. Sex is sex. Sex is not love.

Now, sex is intrinsic to marriage, but on a different cause. Sex serves two functions: It is an issue of vanity bred from peer associations and from culture, or sex is a factor of procreation. The preferred "marriage" has the procreative aspect of sex, and this procreative aspect is secondary to the relationship at hand. The dichotomous union biologically, psychologically, and reproductive fidelity in the union is the primary factor, and sex is a product of this relationship. The non-preferred marriage is where sex is not only not for procreation, but where it is the standard. The fidelity pledged is for greater sexual fulfillment, and is a secondary factor.

Incidentally, a pre-condition of homosexuality is that there is sexual desire for properties possessed by the members of the same sex. Unless you are going to say that homosexuals are ignorant of their inability to procreate, or cannot due to a genetic defect to their nature that dictates above free will, then procreation in regards to sex is not a factor of the sexual relationship that a homosexual has. Instead, the relationship is based upon, or maintained from the vanity aspect of sex. It just isn't the same as the preferred model for a sexual relationship.



[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I’m curious… what argument would convince you that the definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexuals?[/quote]

Honestly, I don't know what argument would convince me that same sex marriages should me legalized, because my experiences, ideas, thoughts, and the like on the issue have backed me into a relatively unmoving stance. An argument would essentially be one that would convince me that all my experiences and purely honest perceptions on life are incorrect, and essentially would be capable of convincing me that gravity doesn't exist.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Do any of these?
1. Even if marriage isn’t a right, but a privilege, we then are faced with the [i]opportunity[/i] to enjoy the privilege. If this is so, on what grounds do we have to restrict the [i]opportunity[/i] of one sexual identity to seek the privilege?

2. “Marriages” in our society, include every benefit that encompasses a “Civil Union” AND the small, but profound difference of the label “Marriage”. This label, because it is being afforded to only some groups of people and not others, is discriminatory unless applied equally. Now, this sort of discriminatory behavior isn’t always bad. However, banning the institutions for reasons beyond the control of the discriminated-group (such as Interracial marriage) is unjust. Homosexuality [is] no more a choice by the group than their race. Therefore, we should recognize homosexuals as falling within the constraints of our definition of marriage.

3. Labeling has obvious sociological and psychological consequences. The hierarchy of “Marriage” with “Civil Union” below it ostracizes the group that can only participate in one arrangement and not both. It also has negative psychological consequences on the ostracized group that can be roughly interpreted. Therefore, by permitting the ostracized group to participate in “Marriage” (which would then eliminate the necessity of a distinction between Marriage and Civil Union) we respect the human dignity of that group.

Peace,
Drix[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately they don't. Separated because of Wall of Text Syndrome.

1. Marriage existing as a legal institution and a right is never denied. Privileges (though procreation would immediately be defined as the founding cause, to the dismay of elderly married people) really don't make a good case for either preservation or for alteration. However, you have also made a common mistake: Homosexuals are [i]never[/i] denied the right to marriage. Sexuality in this issue is of absolutely no consequences to granting rights. Homosexuals have the exact same rights regarding marriage as I do. The difference between me and homosexuals is made up of whether or not our personal preferences or lifestyles would neatly fit into exercising this right.

2. The similar misconception about the denial of rights above also applies to this statement. You can achieve any right other than the romantic connotation (which the law should not re responsible for. Never in the constitution will you find that a law exists "because they like to") applied, even without invoking civil unions. Any question on the distribution of these rights is a question of other bureaucracies and legal distributions, and not of marriage.

3. Essentially this is a statement that the personal mental condition of a person is the responsibility of the state (again, the misconception of discrimination applies here as well), and this brings with it not only the irrationality that someone's own ideas and happiness is out of their control, but also that a governing body must alter the nature of an institution from discriminating against one group, to discriminating against another group. In this case, the "heterosexual having his right to marriage violated" mirrors and contrasts the ideology of altering an institution due to the other group not being happy. The hierarchy, the labeling, and the discrimination are all strictly arbitrary in relationship to the culture and the individual, and therefore are not substantial grounds to change a law.


[quote name='TimeChaser']Yes, my point was to show that the 'granting rights to a minority is a special exception' argument is weak, because then to be wholly fair the argument must then be applied to situations where most people are in no doubt of the guaranteed rights of minorities. Several states had laws (and some laws are still on the books, even though they are archaic and no longer enforced) that forbade two people of different ethnicity from marrying each other. (I say ethnicity because the way the word "race" has been so often used is a misnomer).[/quote]

Ah, but it isn't just changing to suit a minority. The real big reason is why. It is "the minority is unhappy with the current definition". Bit of a bigger difference there.


[quote name='TimeChaser']I do not understand why "will of the majority" is even an acceptable argument for gay rights, when womens' and minority rights were upheld by the Constitution and finally passed without putting it to a vote of the populace. If it wasn't done then, the exception should not be made now. I feel confident that if the American people of the time has been able to vote on womens' and minority rights, they either wouldn't have passed or we'd still be battling over them today.

I think the main reason why this is even being argued is the irrational fear people hold for what they see as different, and that difference frightens them. I am an average American citizen, and I don't feel threatened in any way by what two consenting adults of the same gender do privately, nor do I feel threatened by allowing them to get married. [/quote]

To this, you are wholly correct. Neither side seems to be very honest in their representations. Often times, same-sex marriages really are argued against because people are just uncomfortable with the thought of gay sex.

This is something that I constantly fight against. Whenever I go to tell my peers about my ideas, even if they agree that same-sex marriages shouldn't be legalized, they think it shouldn't be legalized due to their belief that homosexuals will burn in hell, or that it is a grand conspiracy of the democrats to make the nation seem as horrible as possible during republican rule. I, too, also face a big problem with going against people with conspiracy theories about either side.

Though the reason why someone legalizes the issue is of importance, the main thing to try to avoid is conspiracy. The "reasons why" really have to be very similar, or founded on the actual ideology about why it is something will be allowed. Talking with nut jobs will get you no where, and lying about the issue ultimately fails. If you are to actually get anywhere, you have to debate the ideology, and the fundamental reasons instead of straw-men.


[quote]As stated in the Election thread when I talked about Amendment 2 here in Florida, I detest when amendment supporters use phrases like, "This will protect children." Who's children? There are gay parents/couples out there with families and children of their own, and these amendments do not protect them. It's sending a message to these kids that their families aren't deserving of the same respect and rights as the families of their friends who have a mom and dad. It is doing a disservice to them and also to gay kids themselves.

We are a country based on rights and freedoms, and as we have seen in history, second-class citizenry and 'Separate But Equal' do not measure up to the ideals we profess to believe in.[/QUOTE]

Now, I look back and realize that I never actually answered your question on children. I will look back on that now.

Homosexual do not have themselves a unique factor. You see, they are not actually between the homosexuals in this couple. A homosexual will have a relationship with a member of the opposite gender, and after the child has been conceived, the homosexual partner will then leave their spouse for a more sexually appealing person (another homosexual). The child is carried over from this relationship, and thus has all of the identical effects that divorced and out-of-wedlock children have.

I really do not know what "amendment 2" has to deal with in Florida, but provisions to lower divorce rates would benefit children greatly. This would be done in a manner that keeps the heterosexual marriage intact. Homosexuals do not have children with homosexuals. They have children with heterosexuals, and then carry that child with them.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Now, I look back and realize that I never actually answered your question on children. I will look back on that now.

Homosexual do not have themselves a unique factor. You see, they are not actually between the homosexuals in this couple. A homosexual will have a relationship with a member of the opposite gender, and after the child has been conceived, the homosexual partner will then leave their spouse for a more sexually appealing person (another homosexual). The child is carried over from this relationship, and thus has all of the identical effects that divorced and out-of-wedlock children have.

I really do not know what "amendment 2" has to deal with in Florida, but provisions to lower divorce rates would benefit children greatly. This would be done in a manner that keeps the heterosexual marriage intact. Homosexuals do not have children with homosexuals. They have children with heterosexuals, and then carry that child with them.[/QUOTE]

The matter of where the children came from in the first place has no bearing on it. The point is, there are gay parents with children, whether they are they are biological to one parent who had been in a heterosexual relationship before admitting their their true sexuality, but there are also some gay couples who adopt. Do you disregard those children simply because neither parent is biological kin to the child? If so, you'd have to count all adopted children that way, whether they are adopted by gay or straight parents.

The fact is that these families do exist, and claiming these amendments protect children is to disregard these families.

Your entire argument is also based on the claim that homosexuality is a choice, which can be quite well disputed. For one thing, since it is so demonized by many people, why would anyone choose to be homosexual? Ask some gays people, and they'll tell you because of the prejudice they have faced, if they could they would choose to be straight.

Science has yet to discover the exact genetic switches that flip in our development to cause homosexuality, but I feel confident that one day the discovery will be made. Until then we have ample evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, which supports the biological argument.

[CENTER][SIZE="1"]Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision.[/SIZE][/CENTER]

Yes, the quote is from Wiki, but until I find an actual paper on the subject, this works to illustrate my point.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Good to see you again, Drix.[/quote]
You too, Crimson. This should be an interesting discourse. Perhaps in the future, you and I could arrange for a more formal debate on another subject that you and I might disagree on... religion? evolution? PM me if you're interested.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']
TimeChasers analogy would be accurate, had there not been many more questions on the matter other than the personal preference of individuals on the debate over interracial marriages. I do think that no, personal preference is not a substantial reason to allow even interracial marriages, and this does annoy me that people will transition the faulty argument of a previous debate onto a current issue.

Oh, how it annoys me how my giving insight into a stance of moral relativity from the misunderstanding of one doctor has somehow made all of my statements "Biblical”. [/quote]

I should take the point for understanding as you mistakenly inferred an accusation from my statement when I was simply framing the debate. My saying “the Bible has nothing to do with it” doesn’t necessarily mean that I thought your arguments were Biblical, at all.

Regardless, you are also ignoring the fact that it is the very “personal preference” that you don’t find adequate to [i]change marriage[/i] that is all that is required to [i]get married[/i].

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Homosexuals [i]want[/i] their relationships to be condoned and seen as equals in regards to society and the state as a whole, with the full benefits of legal action, romantic connotation, and a raised social acceptance.
This is the reason why civil unions would be completely unsatisfactory, and ironically also why completely removing the advantages/benefits of marriage would be unsatisfactory. [b]The homosexual is in a dire predicament, because in order to climb the tallest mountain, he/she has to make it shorter. [/b][/quote] (bold added)


Now this is remarkable. Essentially you are saying that by changing marriage to include homosexual couples it would somehow reduce or diminish marriage? Could you defend this statement a bit more?

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Most are satisfactory with just changing the institution, but not all of them. There are plenty of movements to try to remove biologically tied gender identity as a whole from any legal processes. Instead of changing marriage, they remove the terms "Man" and "Woman" from the record as a whole. This is the closest similarity to the "interracial marriage" comparison between the issues. [/quote]

I think this is because there were laws that specifically defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman of the same “race”. In 1661, a white woman marrying a black man (who at that time would have certainly been a slave) would forgo her freedom and be considered a slave as well.

Now, in 1967 the case [i]Loving v. Virginia[/i] went up before the supreme court. The court issued the following statement, “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” They were referring to the 14th Ammendment that ensures Equal Protection and Due Process. From that point on it was no longer permissible for states to create systems that could render interracial marriage illegal.

Here’s the icing on the cake: the court case that changed the civil definition of marriage to [i]include[/i] interracial couples fits the exact same profile that you describe as “making (the mountain) shorter”.

My question to you is this: What reasons would you give to permit interracial marriage in pre-1967 Virginia where the definition has read from before the [i]establishment of our nation[/i] “same race”?

After answering that, I submit the same reasons races are protected by the 14th amendment, so too should homosexuals.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Again, the burden of proof system is violated when someone makes a claim, it should stand because I have not disproved it. However I digress.[/quote]

You do digress. Without warrant, I'll add. As I [i]have[/i] met the burden of proof and supported the affirmative case with evidence.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] The institution of marriage having a man-woman definition places value on the relationship that exist between a man and a woman (though more than just sexual means). By altering this definition primarily to suit the desire of a sexual instance instead of the celebration of biology, you are stating that biology means nothing in lieu of the great sexual desire. [/quote]

First, I would expect something better than the Naturalistic Fallacy. Except you don’t even [b]meet[/b] the criterion for the naturalistic fallacy because [b]nature[/b] doesn’t support this statement. Human beings naturally practice [i]polygyny[/i] (see references: 1,2,3). Also, while there is a lot to be discovered about the complex behavioral phenotype of gender identity and sexuality, the evidence currently suggests that the incidence of homosexuality (and we don’t need to specifically talk about sexual intercourse here, we can just say the loving, caring, attraction to the same gender) is a naturally-occurring phenomenon—perhaps some of which is genetically heritable (I can cite the articles if you want).

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] A Norwegien (sic) Sociologist Moxness argues that the support for legalizing same-sex marriages doesn't necessarily come from a greater acceptance of homosexuality, but that marriage has become an institution of very little value. [/quote]

Halvor Moxness? The Norwegian theologian? I’d like to read what he has to say, but my searches aren’t coming up with anything other than a debate he had in a church with regards to whether or not the church should recognize gay marriage… could you PM me the citation?

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Indeed, so many have made a very fundamental mistake of devaluing marriage in order to allow same-sex marriages to be legalized. This is counter-productive to the stance, because by saying that marriage is essentially worthless, you undermine the reason why it is marriage should be changed. It is worthless, so why care?

The shift towards sexual desires and relationships outside of the nature of procreation has various negative side effects, not only through the large absence of positive side effects that were present with these types of relationships, but other effects like out-of-wedlock births, the dehumanizing effect of objective sexual gratification, and the destruction of deeper family relationships. The greatest burden of same-sex marriage legalization is the endorsement of this greater problem on the cultural level. [/quote]

Really? Is this your argument. After we’ve clearly established that two homosexuals can have the same meaningful, caring, loving relationship without having sex?
I can’t believe I’m saying this, it feels patronizing that I have to. But [b]changing[/b] marriage to include same-sex couples doesn’t [b]devalue[/b] it. That’s an affirmative statement. Since you’re a fan of the burden of proof: prove that it does.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Odd, I thought that the unbiased section of the scientific community has admitted a 50/50 stance, where genes contribute, and then personal upbringing takes hold from there. It is like the very old "what is responsible for alcoholism" issue, in that no "gene" makes you suddenly walk up to a bar and take out your frustrations on your wife. Are there genetic factors that increase the probability of homosexuality? To this, I can undoubtedly say that yes, there is. [b]Mainly through genes that lack specificity toward one particular gender.[/b] But... are the other various factors that contribute to homosexuality that are environmental/controllable/treatable? To this, I can also undoubtedly say that yes, there is.
So, the comparison between homosexuality and race doesn't hold true in that aspect. There are several other problems, like comparing an observation to an admission, comparing a state to an act, and so on, but then this does raise an interesting question. Now, if we accept that homosexuality is a genetic abnormality like down syndrome or albino syndrome (one that specifically has the negative effect of removing the ability to procreate), then why not attempt to cure it? [/quote]

The bolded statement is simply wrong. Either you honestly believe that there are genes specific to gender (there are thousands of such genes). Or, if I read into it and give you the benefit of the doubt, you’re saying there aren’t genes that say “attraction to men” or “attraction to women” and these can’t get mixed up. Let’s not be trite. Of course there are. There are genetic motifs that result in [i]gender[/i] confusion for goodness sake. That is, a child is born biologically male, but grows up phenotypically female.

Now, I’m not suggesting biological determinacy. Alcoholics certainly have a choice to go to the bar even if they have a genetic predisposition. But, while [b]heterosexuals[/b] have a genetic predisposition to form a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, they still must make the “choice” in who they form relationships with and “choices” in how they interact with other potential partners.
50/50? I’m not certain. Meta-analysis of twin studies suggests 60% biological. This is ignoring the most recent work into genetic marker differences between sexual identities. However, it is difficult to tell simply because we are still learning about the subject. Unlike the biology of “race” which manifests clearly and relatively simply. Behavioral genetics often involves very complex genetic backgrounds and a wide variability of behavioral phenotypes, many of which (because they are behaviors) can be consciously suppressed. For example, men are genetically predisposed to be attracted to many female partners, however a significant portion of men in westernized nations have suppressed this biological desire in order to establish monogamous relationships (there are also good evolutionary reasons for this, but we don’t need to get into them).

Even if genetics does compose some 60% of sexual orientation, it is likely that the “environmental” factors have little to do with choice. Instead, the other 40% is likely post-zygotic but biological—such as maternal hormones affecting the fetus or sociological stressors, such as number and type of siblings, on the developing (and quite plastic) neonatal brain.

I’ll remind you, that none of these factors permit a homosexual any “choice” in the matter of who he or she is attracted to.

As to why we don’t treat homosexuality as a genetic “abnormality” that is to be “cured”. Well from the cold bench of hard science, there is no significant deleterious health effect of the homosexual individual compared to the heterosexual. There are also some good evolutionary reasons for homosexual individuals to thrive. Why is this question being asked? You are smarter than that, and I think you know the answer to your own question.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] + 10 points for making me laugh.[/quote]

I always like making children laugh.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] {snip}
1. Individuals want to change the definition of marriage.
2. This change will alter marriage into being about sexual fulfillment and romantic ideals of love (this includes same-sex marriage).
3. This violates many of the biological uses/factors of marriages, and changes the nature of the "family" to be one where sex is the priority.
4. Therefore, we should not change marriage. [/quote]

Premise 1- Agreed.
Premise 2- No and no. This doesn’t need to be true in order to support the changing of “Marriage” to include same-sex couples.
Premise 3- It will change the social definition of “family” to include same-sex adoptive parents. However, this has nothing to do with sexual intercourse. If by “sex” you mean “gender” I think that it is hyperbole to assume that “gender” is a priority. In fact, [i]restriction[/i] of same-gender relationships is what requires gender to be a priority. Permitting same-sex couples the same definition removes gender considerations from the prerequisites.
Conclusion 4- fails on the grounds of false premises 2 and 3.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] In regards to the first rebuttles, there is a contradiction that is placed on the circumstances to allow same sex marriages. If you say that sex does not matter, then [i]sex does not matter[/i]. The sexual preferences and actions of the individual become irrelevant, and therefore a man can marry a woman regardless of how sexually attracted he is to her for all of the loving, compassionate, and caring that he wants from this relationship. You would need to argue a reason why it is that the homosexual relationship would need to be condoned, and this is ultimately contradictory to the premise: sex matters. [/quote]

I suspect this is just a confusion of terms. Sex—as in sexual intercourse—doesn’t matter. I think there’s some confusion between “sex” and “gender”. So if we use the word sex to describe the act, we should probably (and I’ll do this too) say “sexual intercourse”.
Sexual intercourse doesn’t matter. Let’s agree on this.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] In regard to the second rebuttle, the "biological technicality" that homosexuals had to "give up their dream for" automatically assumes that biology is a factor. Anyway, I know very well about the ideology about homosexuality being "normal" and "natural" and "O.K.". I just do not operate under these circumstances, so my bias will show up on occasion. [/quote]

It’s not so much an ideology for me, as it is the force of evidence—genetics, psychology, sociology, evolutionary biology, even obstetrics lends to my argument, not yours. Homosexuality [i]is[/i] natural.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] For my own personal definition, I define marriage as the biological and legal union of a man and a woman for solidarity.

[b] Cut, due to length[/b]

Incidentally, a pre-condition of homosexuality is that there is sexual desire for properties possessed by the members of the same sex. Unless you are going to say that homosexuals are ignorant of their inability to procreate, or cannot due to a genetic defect to their nature that dictates above free will, then procreation in regards to sex is not a factor of the sexual relationship that a homosexual has. Instead, the relationship is based upon, or maintained from the vanity aspect of sex. It just isn't the same as the preferred model for a sexual relationship. [/quote]
There are 2.1 million infertile married couples (source: [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/fertile.htm"]Infertility Stats (click)[/URL]). That’s 2.1 million heterosexual couples that don’t meet your definition of “healthy heterosexual relationship.” That’s 2.1 million couples whose marriage apparently [i]lacks[/i] the intrinsic quality of other “healthy” heterosexual marriages.

What about the large number of infertile men and women that aren’t married?
Should we consider their marriage to be intrinsically “less” than a fertile couple?

Your reduction of sexual intercourse to two functions is also mistaken. Sexual intercourse has MANY functions other than procreation and “vanity aspect of sex”. I managed to find a little excerpt of the book I was going to quote from: [URL="http://books.google.com/books?id=wR-_vgtCQP4C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=functions+of+sex&source=web&ots=-4oOBIJ4NY&sig=3x9xd7DlLXwI7QodnCtCMz10p4c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA46,M1"]CLICK[/URL]

Regardless, we don’t live in the dark ages. Fertility is now a medically-tenable position. Infertile couples now have many options for which to create a family, including IVF, adoption, and surrogate mothers. Many of these options are also available to same-sex couples who are (obviously) unable to procreate, and who otherwise have the same sexually-fulfilling lives that heterosexual couples have.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Honestly, I don't know what argument would convince me that same sex marriages should me legalized, because my experiences, ideas, thoughts, and the like on the issue have backed me into a relatively unmoving stance. An argument would essentially be one that would convince me that all my experiences and purely honest perceptions on life are incorrect, and essentially would be capable of convincing me that gravity doesn't exist. [/quote]

This represents a poverty of imagination. Even I know what would convince me that gravity doesn’t exist. The idea that your position is unassailable even by self-reflection reveals that you care less about evidence and more about dogma (note, I don’t say “religious” dogma).

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Unfortunately they don't. Separated because of Wall of Text Syndrome.

1. Marriage existing as a legal institution and a right is never denied. Privileges (though procreation would immediately be defined as the founding cause, to the dismay of elderly married people) really don't make a good case for either preservation or for alteration. However, you have also made a common mistake: Homosexuals are [i]never[/i] denied the right to marriage. Sexuality in this issue is of absolutely no consequences to granting rights. Homosexuals have the exact same rights regarding marriage as I do. The difference between me and homosexuals is made up of whether or not our personal preferences or lifestyles would neatly fit into exercising this right. [/quote]

This argument is absurd and ignores the issue of the relationship between two homosexuals. Saying “homosexuals” can get married, it just can’t be a marriage between the same genders, is sort of like saying in (pre 1967 Virginia) that black people can get married just like white people… just not [i]to[/i] white people.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] 2. The similar misconception about the denial of rights above also applies to this statement. You can achieve any right other than the romantic connotation (which the law should not re responsible for. Never in the constitution will you find that a law exists "because they like to") applied, even without invoking civil unions. Any question on the distribution of these rights is a question of other bureaucracies and legal distributions, and not of marriage. [/quote]

Actually, same-gender marriage should be protected under the 14th Amendment. The only reason it isn’t is because of many of the arguments that people like you make to suggest that there is an inherent difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships, all of which have been refuted.
In fact, many of our constitutionally-protected freedoms have [i]everything[/i] to do with volition.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] 3. Essentially this is a statement that the personal mental condition of a person is the responsibility of the state (again, the misconception of discrimination applies here as well), and this brings with it not only the irrationality that someone's own ideas and happiness is out of their control, but also that a governing body must alter the nature of an institution from discriminating against one group, to discriminating against another group. In this case, the "heterosexual having his right to marriage violated" mirrors and contrasts the ideology of altering an institution due to the other group not being happy. The hierarchy, the labeling, and the discrimination are all strictly arbitrary in relationship to the culture and the individual, and therefore are not substantial grounds to change a law. [/quote]

[b]Really?[/b] No doubt there were plenty of African Americans who found happiness in the era of “separate but equal”, but wouldn’t you agree that abolishing these laws in favor of equality recognized their human dignity? Would you use your argument to say, “It’s not the responsibility of the state to make you feel equal when you don’t” in favor of segregation? We altered many of our institutions to include racial minorities, including marriage. I submit that the homosexual community is protected under the same laws that protect the equality of ethnicities simply because homosexuality is no more a choice than the color of one’s skin, and (to borrow from MLK Jr.) has no more effect on the “content of their character.”



1. Smith, Robert. 1984 Pp. 610-59. [i]Human Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Mating Systems[/i]. New York: Academic Press
2. Gaulin, Steve, [i]et al.[/i] 1997. “Matrilateral Baises in the Investment of Aunts and Uncles: A Consequence and Measure of Paternity Uncertainty.” [i]Human Nature.[/i] 8:139-51.
3. White, Douglas. 1988. “Rethinking Polygyny: Co-Wives, Codes and Cultural Systems.” [i]Current Anthropology.[/i] 29:529-58.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']The matter of where the children came from in the first place has no bearing on it. The point is, there are gay parents with children, whether they are they are biological to one parent who had been in a heterosexual relationship before admitting their their true sexuality, but there are also some gay couples who adopt. Do you disregard those children simply because neither parent is biological kin to the child? If so, you'd have to count all adopted children that way, whether they are adopted by gay or straight parents.

The fact is that these families do exist, and claiming these amendments protect children is to disregard these families.[/quote]

I really do wish I knew what "these amendments" were. I was also operating under the assumption that homosexual couples in that state couldn't adopt. Anyway, I would much rather prefer that the adoption system be reformed to include more government-sponsored bonuses to adopters rather than to fix marriage. It is a case of deterring the point by saying that some tertiary system would be better if you reformed the whole system. There will, obviously, always be someone who benefits from any change, but is this benefit really the issue of marriage, though? Wouldn't children benefits be just children benefits? It makes more sense to pass legislation to help all children directly then to change the institution of marriage.



[quote]Your entire argument is also based on the claim that homosexuality is a choice, which can be quite well disputed. For one thing, since it is so demonized by many people, why would anyone choose to be homosexual? Ask some gays people, and they'll tell you because of the prejudice they have faced, if they could they would choose to be straight.

Science has yet to discover the exact genetic switches that flip in our development to cause homosexuality, but I feel confident that one day the discovery will be made. Until then we have ample evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, which supports the biological argument.

[CENTER][SIZE="1"]Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision.[/SIZE][/CENTER]

Yes, the quote is from Wiki, but until I find an actual paper on the subject, this works to illustrate my point.[/quote]

Wikipedia also says:

[center][size="1"]The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."[55] The amount that each influence plays is highly debated. One study on Swedish twins suggested that there was a moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[56]

The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It also stated that for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[57]

The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse."[34][/center][/size]

Also, my entire argument against same-sex marriage is not based on whether or not homosexuality is a choice. That is really irrelevant to the issue. My argument against homosexuality as a whole has some base on whether or not it is a choice, but also on other observed factors (such as the VERY high occurrence of promiscuous behavior).

Now, if you are going off of the reasons why anyone would choose to be homosexual (an argument from ignorance), there are plenty, actually. One of the most prominent factors seems to be the inter-personal desire of same-gender association and identity manifested through sexual desires, where sex fulfills this need indirectly. Another, a personal explanation based on the self-righteous desire to explain and enforce individuality from past experiences. Another, a belief in nobility or superiority of one particular gender over another, in multiple aspects. Another, a fear of the opposite gender (whether from society, timid nature, or from sexual abuse), which causes not only the emotional comfort to prioritize, but this emotional comfort to justify itself by sexual fulfillment. Another, to be a part of the new-age blameless media political victim group.

Is it ever directly "chosen" as a strictly arbitrary nature of their life? Nope. But, it is chosen in a sort. When presented with a "penchant" regarding sexual desires, there are two ways to go about it: to embrace it as part of your identity, and as the identity of sex as itself, or to not act on it (or remain ever unaware) and remain polarized toward society with the penchant being just some tertiary admiration.







[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']
I should take the point for understanding as you mistakenly inferred an accusation from my statement when I was simply framing the debate. My saying “the Bible has nothing to do with it” doesn’t necessarily mean that I thought your arguments were Biblical, at all.

Regardless, you are also ignoring the fact that it is the very “personal preference” that you don’t find adequate to [i]change marriage[/i] that is all that is required to [i]get married[/i].[/quote]

O.K. then. Yes, it is true that it is my personal preference that ultimately decided whether or not to change marriage for [i]me[/i], but I prefer to have arguments that are not based merely on this preference. Otherwise I'm just blind-faith pushing.



[quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] (bold added)

Now this is remarkable. Essentially you are saying that by changing marriage to include homosexual couples it would somehow reduce or diminish marriage? Could you defend this statement a bit more?[/quote]

Very well.

We have all talked about marriage in our own terms. My ordering toward procreation, TimeChaser's expression of love, Corvines "human well being", and all of that, these are not the objective definition of marriage. If you are to look at just the objective definition of marriage, without any connotation whatsoever, it is just a word. Marriage means marriage, just like how cheese means cheese, and jump means jump.

But with connotation, then you have what inspires the change. This connotation isn't some absolute condition; the romantic/personal definitions of marriage exist only within the individual. All of our personal definitions, they [i]all[/i] make up what the connotation of marriage is. From endorsing sexuality, to being ordained by God, the homosexual feels as if they are truly robbed of these things.

Here is the interesting part: most of the connotations of marriage are derived from the objective definition, and its practice. If you change marriage, you change the connotations that are attached to it. Especially if you are going to change marriage for one of those very connotations. If Lynn Wardle is correct, and same-sex marriages as a derivative are not going to be acceptable, then they really are stuck. They will have to change the contest in order to win the contest, so essentially they will never win that contest.

Whether or not this actually "diminishes" marriage is very open to debate for individuals, though. Obviously, a homosexual is going to see a definition of marriage that allows/endorses their sexual relationship as "better", and believe that the connotations did not endorse this were irrelevant to a "greater good" of equal treatment and stuff, and that the prior associations were nothing without sex. I'll get to this below, on another section (after Moxness).


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I think this is because there were laws that specifically defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman of the same “race”. In 1661, a white woman marrying a black man (who at that time would have certainly been a slave) would forgo her freedom and be considered a slave as well.

Now, in 1967 the case [i]Loving v. Virginia[/i] went up before the supreme court. The court issued the following statement, “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” They were referring to the 14th Ammendment that ensures Equal Protection and Due Process. From that point on it was no longer permissible for states to create systems that could render interracial marriage illegal.

Here’s the icing on the cake: the court case that changed the civil definition of marriage to [i]include[/i] interracial couples fits the exact same profile that you describe as “making (the mountain) shorter”.

My question to you is this: What reasons would you give to permit interracial marriage in pre-1967 Virginia where the definition has read from before the [i]establishment of our nation[/i] “same race”?

After answering that, I submit the same reasons races are protected by the 14th amendment, so too should homosexuals.[/quote]


Lets not kid ourselves. In 1661, the human race was a racist bunch.. A mixing of race was seen as an abomination. It remained being seen as an abomination for what seems like forever. Heck, I still know people who don't like interracial marriage.

Interesting court case. Though when I look at the 14th amendment, I really find absolutely no basis in legalizing interracial marriages within its context. The logic was very indirect, saying that Virginia's laws were present only for racial discrimination, and that racial discrimination was outlawed by the 14th amendment. Pretty much saying that any law against interracial marriages was enacted against the laws prohibiting racial discrimination.

There was a connotation that was lost when marriages were allowed between different races; the connotation of purity. The idea that you should keep the race "pure" by only staying within the immediate family. This loss was a benefit more than a curse, especially in the purpose regarding fair treatment towards different races. The court case ruling against exclusive same-race marriages was 99 years late.

So yes, the mountain was made shorter. Though I think you have misunderstood my statements about "making the mountain shorter". That wasn't an arguing point at all against the legalization of same-sex marriages. Just a point of irony that I noticed.

Anyway, I really do not want to make my post so long that no one can read it (essentially re-starting the interracial marriage debate), but this I can say: there is a much bigger difference between same-sex marriages and interracial marriages. Comparisons between the two are comprised almost completely of liquid definition applied purposely for the legalization.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']First, I would expect something better than the Naturalistic Fallacy. Except you don’t even [b]meet[/b] the criterion for the naturalistic fallacy because [b]nature[/b] doesn’t support this statement. Human beings naturally practice [i]polygyny[/i] (see references: 1,2,3). Also, while there is a lot to be discovered about the complex behavioral phenotype of gender identity and sexuality, the evidence currently suggests that the incidence of homosexuality (and we don’t need to specifically talk about sexual intercourse here, we can just say the loving, caring, attraction to the same gender) is a naturally-occurring phenomenon—perhaps some of which is genetically heritable (I can cite the articles if you want).[/quote]

The Naturalistic Fallacy? The claim wasn't that marriage should remain where it was because it is "natural". Heck, this wasn't even an argument as to why it is that same-sex marriages shouldn't be legalized. You wanted to know how marriage would change for the heterosexual couple. And that is how it changes.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Halvor Moxness? The Norwegian theologian? I’d like to read what he has to say, but my searches aren’t coming up with anything other than a debate he had in a church with regards to whether or not the church should recognize gay marriage… could you PM me the citation?[/quote]

[url=http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf][u]Boo bam[/u] [/url]. It is really a small part of the article in the opening (a good read on its own, but not really important on hand. Read it at your convenience).


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Really? Is this your argument. After we’ve clearly established that two homosexuals can have the same meaningful, caring, loving relationship without having sex?
I can’t believe I’m saying this, it feels patronizing that I have to. But [b]changing[/b] marriage to include same-sex couples doesn’t [b]devalue[/b] it. That’s an affirmative statement. Since you’re a fan of the burden of proof: prove that it does.[/quote]

You have misunderstood my statement here. I was talking about devaluing marriage as an allowance for same-sex marriages, which is what Moxness mentioned in the link I posted above. I wasn't saying that same-sex marriages themselves actually devalued marriage directly... in this paragraph.


But I do say this, and so I will argue it:

This ties in primarily with the issue of the relevance of sex (the act), and sexual desires. If sexual preferences or the act of sex is irrelevant, then a homosexual can enjoy marriage to a member of the opposite gender (another irrelevant point) just as much as a heterosexuals could enjoy this marriage. So, there is no reason to alter the definition of marriage to suit sexual desires, preferences, or orientation because those are irrelevant to the issue and to practice. But, people do argue for change, and they must have a reason why. Change or the will of change doesn't occur just because there is nothing to stop it.

If you are saying that sex is such a relevant factor that constitutes change to marriage (the defining factor for homosexuals), then you are tearing down the loving, caring, and compassionate side of marriage to being about sex and sexual acts that are not about procreation. You say things by doing this, like the relationship that a man and a woman have can't be what it is without the sexual desire/act in regards to non-procreative purposes. This, of course, is a slap in the face of these relationships.



[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The bolded statement is simply wrong. Either you honestly believe that there are genes specific to gender (there are thousands of such genes). Or, if I read into it and give you the benefit of the doubt, you’re saying there aren’t genes that say “attraction to men” or “attraction to women” and these can’t get mixed up. Let’s not be trite. Of course there are. There are genetic motifs that result in [i]gender[/i] confusion for goodness sake. That is, a child is born biologically male, but grows up phenotypically female.[/quote]

I believe in risk factors and steady pressure. Similarly to how a low alcohol tolerance can make someone more predisposed to being an alcoholic. The genes, it doesn't dictate the action, for according to the American Psychiatric Association, there is no definitive factor which decides with absolute certainty what your sexual preferences will be.

Anyway, there is a difference between genetic faults leading toward gender ambiguity and homosexuality. If you really are talking about cases where the Testis-Determination Gene is mutated or misplaced (something to that effect), then you are not dealing with "homosexuality", but a biological developmental defect akin to Klinefelter Syndrom.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Now, I’m not suggesting biological determinacy. Alcoholics certainly have a choice to go to the bar even if they have a genetic predisposition. But, while [b]heterosexuals[/b] have a genetic predisposition to form a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, they still must make the “choice” in who they form relationships with and “choices” in how they interact with other potential partners.

50/50? I’m not certain. Meta-analysis of twin studies suggests 60% biological. This is ignoring the most recent work into genetic marker differences between sexual identities. However, it is difficult to tell simply because we are still learning about the subject. Unlike the biology of “race” which manifests clearly and relatively simply. Behavioral genetics often involves very complex genetic backgrounds and a wide variability of behavioral phenotypes, many of which (because they are behaviors) can be consciously suppressed. For example, men are genetically predisposed to be attracted to many female partners, however a significant portion of men in westernized nations have suppressed this biological desire in order to establish monogamous relationships (there are also good evolutionary reasons for this, but we don’t need to get into them).

Even if genetics does compose some 60% of sexual orientation, it is likely that the “environmental” factors have little to do with choice. Instead, the other 40% is likely post-zygotic but biological—such as maternal hormones affecting the fetus or sociological stressors, such as number and type of siblings, on the developing (and quite plastic) neonatal brain.

I’ll remind you, that none of these factors permit a homosexual any “choice” in the matter of who he or she is attracted to.

As to why we don’t treat homosexuality as a genetic “abnormality” that is to be “cured”. Well from the cold bench of hard science, there is no significant deleterious health effect of the homosexual individual compared to the heterosexual. There are also some good evolutionary reasons for homosexual individuals to thrive. Why is this question being asked? You are smarter than that, and I think you know the answer to your own question.[/quote]

Oh, how I wish it were true that there was a specific "hetero-gene", either, but the largest issue about sexual preferences seems to be the arbitrary nature of it all. Other than various biological factors that would "urge" someone into having a particular relationship, I do continually doubt that these dictate what someone finds sexually attractive, particularly because I have my own affinity for what are essentially two-dimensional drawings with no biological presence whatsoever.

Also, there is a difference between "genetic" and "biological". The association between twins is also very closely biological as well. There are plenty of associated factors regarding the orientation of sexuality being from the environment, such as Birth Order (which has had the Maternal Immunity Hypothesis thrown out as the cause) that have very little to do with the biology of the individual.

Anyway, I doubt the claim that men are genetically predisposed towards polygyny. Though the evidence isn't fully conclusive, several neuroscience studies involving prairie voles and monogamy state the presence of Vasopressin emitted by males during intercourse (and this is emitted by humans in large quantities, too) and a monogamous relationship are tied very closely together. Though polygyny is practiced, this can be and usually is tied to various cultural reasons. But this really is off-topic.

Regarding the Health of Homosexuality: There are negative health deterrents for them. From the psychological factors of a lack of gender association, to the act of practice, to the observed trends regarding homosexual relationships, to be a homosexual is to be at a great risk. I know why it is no one wants to fix homosexuality, but I ask this question in order to force reasoning out of others on this issue.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I always like making children laugh.[/quote] Dude, you are only one year older than me.



[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Premise 1- Agreed.
Premise 2- No and no. This doesn’t need to be true in order to support the changing of “Marriage” to include same-sex couples.
Premise 3- It will change the social definition of “family” to include same-sex adoptive parents. However, this has nothing to do with sexual intercourse. If by “sex” you mean “gender” I think that it is hyperbole to assume that “gender” is a priority. In fact, [i]restriction[/i] of same-gender relationships is what requires gender to be a priority. Permitting same-sex couples the same definition removes gender considerations from the prerequisites.
Conclusion 4- fails on the grounds of false premises 2 and 3.[/quote]

This is a specific case regarding the sexual emphasis in marriage. Not an absolute case of all arguments. I am well aware that there are many people who use arguments about the various other benefits like social blending of cultures in order to argue for same-sex marriages. As sparse and rare as it is, there are individuals who do not care about the romantic connotation of marriage. For the particular case regarding the altering of marriage to condone sexual activity, step 2 holds true.

As I have explained a few paragraphs above, sexual intercourse in regards to changing marriage is integral to the particular cause I am listing here. The condoning of marriages on the grounds of the sexual fulfillment of the individuals within changes the priority of marriage. This didn't have to do with "gender", which is absent from this argument entirely. The only relationship to gender is that same-sex marriages, an example of this initiative, is a case where the condoning of sexual acts is endorsed beyond gender association. So, step 3 holds true.





[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I suspect this is just a confusion of terms. Sex—as in sexual intercourse—doesn’t matter. I think there’s some confusion between “sex” and “gender”. So if we use the word sex to describe the act, we should probably (and I’ll do this too) say “sexual intercourse”.
Sexual intercourse doesn’t matter. Let’s agree on this.[/quote]

Agreed. I always specify gender and sex as being different from each other.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']It’s not so much an ideology for me, as it is the force of evidence—genetics, psychology, sociology, evolutionary biology, even obstetrics lends to my argument, not yours. Homosexuality [i]is[/i] natural.[/quote]

Well, I use the evidence of genetics, psychology, sociology, and philosophy to conclude the "unnaturality" of homosexuality, but I think we are mixing meanings here. When I say "natural", I didn't mean that something to be unnatural requires that there be something like divine intervention for it's occurrence. I am talking about the ideology about embracing the acceptance of homosexuality, both as a defining factor for that individual, and as a factor necessary for supporting the greater good of equality and freedom.



[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']There are 2.1 million infertile married couples (source: [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/fertile.htm"]Infertility Stats (click)[/URL]). That’s 2.1 million heterosexual couples that don’t meet your definition of “healthy heterosexual relationship.” That’s 2.1 million couples whose marriage apparently [i]lacks[/i] the intrinsic quality of other “healthy” heterosexual marriages.

What about the large number of infertile men and women that aren’t married?
Should we consider their marriage to be intrinsically “less” than a fertile couple?[/quote]

I have to repeat this point nearly every post it seems: "Ordered Toward" does not mean "Only a Means to". The key difference is that success or failure at an attempt does not change the nature of that attempt at all. Therefore, the infertility of a couple is classified as a "failed attempt" at procreation, instead of being different in nature altogether.

If you have a relationship that is [i]founded[/i] on the infertility of one or both of the partners, then this is an abomination that does not deserve the respect of marriage.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Your reduction of sexual intercourse to two functions is also mistaken. Sexual intercourse has MANY functions other than procreation and “vanity aspect of sex”. I managed to find a little excerpt of the book I was going to quote from: [URL="http://books.google.com/books?id=wR-_vgtCQP4C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=functions+of+sex&source=web&ots=-4oOBIJ4NY&sig=3x9xd7DlLXwI7QodnCtCMz10p4c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA46,M1"]CLICK[/URL]

Regardless, we don’t live in the dark ages. Fertility is now a medically-tenable position. Infertile couples now have many options for which to create a family, including IVF, adoption, and surrogate mothers. Many of these options are also available to same-sex couples who are (obviously) unable to procreate, and who otherwise have the same sexually-fulfilling lives that heterosexual couples have.[/quote]

"You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing, or reached your viewing limit for this book". It's 242 pages, and I don't expect you to read in full a PDF that is 18 pages. Would you care to quote it directly?

Anyway, sex has many effects in society that are associated with it, but it has two primary [i]causes[/i] toward sexual attraction. These causes can be broken down into more detailed causes, too.

Though you may have just slipped, saying that "Sexually fulfilling lives" is part of the requirements, where as you attempted to agree that sexual intercourse is irrelevant above.



[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']This represents a poverty of imagination. Even I know what would convince me that gravity doesn’t exist. The idea that your position is unassailable even by self-reflection reveals that you care less about evidence and more about dogma (note, I don’t say “religious” dogma).[/quote]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. It is an admission of honesty: I really do not know.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']This argument is absurd and ignores the issue of the relationship between two homosexuals. Saying “homosexuals” can get married, it just can’t be a marriage between the same genders, is sort of like saying in (pre 1967 Virginia) that black people can get married just like white people… just not [i]to[/i] white people.[/quote]

"Why is it you want interracial marriage?"
"Because Black Chicks are hot, and I want to bang them. I can't be happy unless I do. Don't tell me it isn't love! It is just as real as any white-lover's love!"

Yes, it does ignore the relationship between homosexuals: Sexual.


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Actually, same-gender marriage should be protected under the 14th Amendment. The only reason it isn’t is because of many of the arguments that people like you make to suggest that there is an inherent difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships, all of which have been refuted.
In fact, many of our constitutionally-protected freedoms have [i]everything[/i] to do with volition. [/quote]

Claiming that all arguments have been refuted is begging the question. Anyway, the 14th Amendment doesn't protect even interracial marriages, let alone complete gender violation for considerably shaky grounds to make a completely unnecessary alteration for tertiary benefits.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth'][b]Really?[/b] No doubt there were plenty of African Americans who found happiness in the era of “separate but equal”, but wouldn’t you agree that abolishing these laws in favor of equality recognized their human dignity? Would you use your argument to say, “It’s not the responsibility of the state to make you feel equal when you don’t” in favor of segregation? We altered many of our institutions to include racial minorities, including marriage. I submit that the homosexual community is protected under the same laws that protect the equality of ethnicities simply because homosexuality is no more a choice than the color of one’s skin, and (to borrow from MLK Jr.) has no more effect on the “content of their character.”[/quote]

Interracial marriage isn't same-sex marriage. Seriously, you have to learn this. Taking bad logic from one instance and applying it to another gets you nowhere, for you can apply this very same logic to cases like pedophilia and beastiality.

The cause for civil rights was a case not about making people happy. It was about whether or not the state genuinely was discriminating against a particular racial group. You will find that current legislation has absolutely no discrimination against homosexuality in regards to marriage, or the rights granted in marriage. Any alteration would not be about equal rights, but about special rights, which are a violation of the 14th amendment. Homosexuality being a choice is irrelevant to the issue, and saying that it should be is akin to saying that laws should be made to make all alcoholic beverages illegal because someone's tolerance isn't their choice.


EDIT: Since this bridge is probably going to be crossed in a second, anyway, I will provide an example of the faulty transitive logic between interracial marriages and same-sex marriages:


Human-Animal marriages should be legalized (will now be referred to as H-A marriages). Keeping H-A marriages illegal discriminates against the loving relationship that a human can have with a chimpanzee or a dog. Sexually based H-A relationship are the same as any other relationship, because scientists have proven that chimpanzees and dogs feel true, mutual love. Beastiality is natural, because there are many scientifically documented cases in which an animal has tried to reproduce with an animal of a completely different species. There are thousands of cases in which dogs have naturally had sex with humans. The differences between humans and animals are an abstract concept that will be re-defined to have a greater definition that doesn't discriminate against anyone. Beastiality would be protected under the 14th amendment, because to not allow Beastiality is to discriminate against a person's sexual orientation; something which they have no choice in. This violates their right of the pursuit of happiness. Interracial marriages were allowed, which means that you are allowed to change marriages to protect the H-A marriages.

The only reason why H-A marriages are not protected under the 14th amendment is because people keep making arguments saying that the relationship between a human and an animal is somehow less or different from the relationship between people, all of which have been refuted. If marriages can exist between people where there is no possibility of procreation, then it shouldn't matter whether or not humans and animals can procreate. Marriages shoudl be about love, and love is blind. Not endorsing H-A marriages is a violation of civil rights. You cannot deny that animals express love for each other through sex. Changing the legislation to allow H-A marriages won't affect human-human marriages at all.


Now, maybe it will be easier to see why that logic doesn't fly with me. I'm sure you’re saying that there are some independent factors behind beastiality and H-A marriages which will make it not alright. But regardless, the exact same blanket arguments can be used for nearly any relationship that you want.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I really do wish I knew what "these amendments" were. I was also operating under the assumption that homosexual couples in that state couldn't adopt. Anyway, I would much rather prefer that the adoption system be reformed to include more government-sponsored bonuses to adopters rather than to fix marriage. It is a case of deterring the point by saying that some tertiary system would be better if you reformed the whole system. There will, obviously, always be someone who benefits from any change, but is this benefit really the issue of marriage, though? Wouldn't children benefits be just children benefits? It makes more sense to pass legislation to help all children directly then to change the institution of marriage.[/QUOTE]

You are ignoring the point that these families - gay parents with children - do exist, that they are a fact.

Yes, the adoption system is horribly messed up and needs fixing. If there are loving people who want to adopt a child, their sexual orientation should not be the deciding factor as to whether or not they would make good parents. There are so many more caring homes that could take children in that aren't able to because of this attitude.

If it's proven that kids are better served in an environment where their parents are married, the same should hold true for gay parents as it does for straight parents.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

The point? Personally I say it is false cause. Though I have read of studies that have shown that there is no difference between a parent who divorces and then lives/marries a heterosexual partner, and a parent who does this and lives with a homosexual partner.

A lack of fidelity is a lack of fidelity. The homosexual puts their child in a very bad situation when they divorce their spouse for sexual desires. It is the same as when a man divorces his wife because he is sexually attracted to a woman 15 years younger. Sexuality and gender in this issue really do not matter, so it would be better for the legislation to just reduce divorce rate than to grant homosexuals marriage rights (which are characterized with an increased divorce rate).

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The point? Personally I say it is false cause. Though I have read of studies that have shown that there is no difference between a parent who divorces and then lives/marries a heterosexual partner, and a parent who does this and lives with a homosexual partner.

A lack of fidelity is a lack of fidelity. The homosexual puts their child in a very bad situation when they divorce their spouse for sexual desires. It is the same as when a man divorces his wife because he is sexually attracted to a woman 15 years younger. Sexuality and gender in this issue really do not matter, so it would be better for the legislation to just reduce divorce rate than to grant homosexuals marriage rights (which are characterized with an increased divorce rate).[/QUOTE]

Would you stop with the psychoanalyzing for once, please?

My point is that those families do exist, which you seem to just disregard. They're here, they've been around for a long time, and they aren't going away, despite whatever else you dig up in your argument.

It is doing a disservice to the children of these families by making laws that say "Sorry kids, but because you don't have a mommy and a daddy, we can't respect your family. Tough break."

And I am sick of and will never accept the flimsy "it's just lust" defense.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I am not disregarding that the families exist. In fact, I do think there should be specific adoption and children benefits in place that exist outside of marriage. Marriage has way too many rights.

My point is, this is a false cause. I would like to bring up that it is false cause on both sides, too. I agree that "for the children" arguments tend to fall short. I learned this not only through experience, but also through Dialetic reasoning. It is better to just say society as a whole, because otherwise you get infertility thrown in your face. (on an interesting note, I have seen people so adamant against homosexuals that they are out to remove the rights of infertile and old couples, just so they can keep marriage to be what it was "In God's Eyes". Though doing this isn't beneficial to society. Fine example of a slippery slope backfiring)

But... if there are issues with rights and benefits being granted to children, is that a marriage issue at all? Sure, they are related, much like how creating joint bank accounts are related to marriage. But I wouldn't go and alter one institution of on controversial grounds to fix another institution that can be resolved in a non-controversial nature that benefits the whole population instead of a minority.

[Drix D'Zanth]

I haven?t been able to reply to this as much as I?d like as my job right now is, foremost, to be a good medical student before I?m a good forum debater. But in my absence, I?ve been able to do some thinking about the debate, particularly on how the argument has been going. I think that Crimson will agree that we?re getting somewhat cluttered in our post format. So, with his permission, I?m going to do less quote-and-reply and more quote the only necessary bits as well as arrange my arguments as clearly and (this is tough) concisely as possible.

Simplicity is beauty, after all (or is it the other way around?)? moving on.

I?m going to make my case for Gay Marriage following a very particular train of thought that I?ll outline and then elaborate. Many of these topics have been discussed thoroughly, so I?ll avoid being redundant as much as possible.

[SIZE="3"] [b][u]My Case [b]For[/b] Changing the Civil and Legal Definition of Marriage to Include Same Gender Couples[/u][/SIZE][/b]

First, we?ll begin with definitions:

1. What do we mean by marriage in this context?

2. What are Same Gender Relationships? (this is important in our analogy within the Civil Rights Argument)
a. What is homosexuality?

And the conclusion? this is painless. :-D

3. The Case for Civil rights
a. The importance of Civil Rights.
b. Gay Marriage is a matter of civil rights that is different, but analogous to the change in marriage law to include interracial marriages. I will ultimately argue that the Supreme Court case that recognized Interracial Marriages as a civil right under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution has.

[b][SIZE="3"][u]1. What do we mean when we say Marriage?[/u][/Size] [/b]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']We have all talked about marriage in our own terms. My ordering toward procreation, TimeChaser's expression of love, Corvines "human well being", and all of that, these are not the objective definition of marriage. If you are to look at just the objective definition of marriage, without any connotation whatsoever, it is just a word. Marriage means marriage, just like how cheese means cheese, and jump means jump. [/quote]

The debate that we?re having concerns the civil, legal union of (at the moment) of a man and a woman. For the purposes of this debate, we are only talking about the civil institution of marriage as it is recognized by the government. That is, informal or non-legal union (such as any religious ceremony) is [b]not[/b] what we?re talking about.

Because we are talking about the civil institution, it is subject to law, and law is subject to lawmakers. These lawmakers can change the law to reflect the desires of their voting constituencies (the people) while at the same time ensuring as much personal liberty as possible (ideally). So, marriage in this sense, is a [i]social creation[/i]. Also, it doesn?t appear that the people of the U.S. want to get rid of marriage and still wish the institution to persist? so I?m not going to concern my arguments with whether or not we should get rid of it.

This also raises another important point: Marriage exists only as how we define it as a civilization. Marriage has not looked the same over time, and responds to the rapid evolution of our social mores and taboos.

-Until the mid 19th Century, women had no legal rights in marriage. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.
-As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).
-As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.
-In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

[quote name='Crimson Spider'] Here is the interesting part: most of the connotations of marriage are derived from the objective definition, and its practice. If you change marriage, you change the connotations that are attached to it. [/quote]

This illuminates a fundamental flaw in many arguments concerning same sex marriage: opponents believe that there is some objective definition of marriage.
Examining the historical record shows that this is simply mistaken.

[u]Here are some attributes of a civil and legal marriage and the attached connotations:[/u]
1. The people getting married must be of legal age and consenting adults. In most instances this is 18 years old (the time the country recognizes, for the most part, that you are an adult). This completely invalidates any argument for pedophilic marriages (they aren?t adults or legally consenting) or human-animal marriages (they aren?t legally consenting citizens).
2. Marriage typically requires proof of citizenship; however it doesn?t preclude one partner from having citizenship in a different couple from getting a legally-recognized marriage. I just tacked this on there because it further invalidates the human-animal marriage ?rebuttal?.
3. You also must be mentally lucid in order to get married. This is important because it (ideally) prevents people from obtaining marriages while intoxicated for obvious reasons (namely that it distorts our judgment and ability to give sound consent). This is just the final nail in the coffin of the human animal marriage argument.
4. You cannot be too-closely related to your intended spouse. So incest is out.
5. Either partner can have any possible ethnicity without prohibition or penalty. We?ll get to why this later.

[u]Here are some things about marriage that [b]aren?t[/b] required.[/u]
1. You are not required to be in love. This is because there is no way in a court of law for us to prove one way or another that two people are or aren?t in love. This usually is not an issue because marriage is a contract made by consenting adults, and people that aren?t in love don?t tend to get married. I make this point because any debate about whether or not homosexuals are in love is just as irrelevant.

2. You are not required to have sex, to prove you?ve had sex, or to pledge to have sex. I?m sure this sounds strange when talking about marriage, but bear with me. Shakers can get legally married. Celibate monks can get married. Marriage is not a recognition of a sexual relationship, it is a recognition of a legal relationship. This is also why it is a false distinction to suggest that ?sex matters? when homosexuals wish to get married. Recognizing a Same Sex [b]Relationship[/b] does not, therefore, require that there be any commentary on the sex life of that relationship?it is a legal non-issue. This also means that, contrary to what Crimson Spider has stated, marriage is not changed so that it connotes their ?sexual behavior?. Here?s where CS gets it wrong:

[quote name='Crimson Spider']If sexual preferences or the act of sex is irrelevant, then a homosexual can enjoy marriage to a member of the opposite gender (another irrelevant point) just as much as a heterosexuals could enjoy this marriage. So, there is no reason to alter the definition of marriage to suit sexual desires, preferences, or orientation because those are irrelevant to the issue and to practice.
If you are saying that sex is such a relevant factor that constitutes change to marriage (the defining factor for homosexuals), then you are tearing down the loving, caring, and compassionate side of marriage to being about sex and sexual acts that are not about procreation. You say things by doing this, like the relationship that a man and a woman have can't be what it is without the sexual desire/act in regards to non-procreative purposes. This, of course, is a slap in the face of these relationships. [/quote]

You should understand from paragraph 2 why this is an erroneous position.
Even though I say sex is irrelevant, I [b]do not[/b] say that the consensual relationship is irrelevant. Quite the opposite, in fact. You bring up procreation? which leads to the next point?

3. You are not required to [i]ever[/i], if the consenting adults choose, make children. As many marriages do tend to result in childbirth, the institution has accommodated this through multiple benefits as well as equally (legally) shared partnership by the couple over the raising of the child. Now, I think that these benefits should be given to all parents, regardless of the marital status and for the most part they are?if only for the sake of the child. The reason I bring this up is because Crimson Spider says this:
[quote name='Crimson Spider'] I have to repeat this point nearly every post it seems: "Ordered Toward" does not mean "Only a Means to". The key difference is that success or failure at an attempt does not change the nature of that attempt at all. Therefore, the infertility of a couple is classified as a "failed attempt" at procreation, instead of being different in nature altogether.
If you have a relationship that is [i]founded[/i] on the infertility of one or both of the partners, then this is an abomination that does not deserve the respect of marriage.[/quote]
You probably know why this statement is also wrong. Marriage is not ?founded on fertility? (my quotes, not CS, I know what his statement reads). This is not how we define marriage. Marriage makes legal provisions for a couple that decide to have babies, but it is not about babies.

Tangentially, it should also be noted that an infertile couple?s ?attempt? at procreation will be as successful as a homosexual couple?s attempt?every time. Neither are ?failed attempts?, they are both ?futile attempts? (depending on the severity of the infertility, of course). However this makes me wonder? if the last line is to be supported, what about the young married couple that decide they don?t want to procreate? What if the woman gets a hysterectomy? Should we then remove their rights as a married couple because they are willfully abstaining from procreation?

I suspect not ;)

[B][SIZE="3"][u]2. What are Same Gender Relationships?[/u] [/size][/b]
This one should be easy. Same gender relationships or, if you prefer the Greek, homosexual (meaning of the same sex, or gender) relationships are by all definitions completely similar to their heterosexual counterparts except in two regards:

-The members of the relationship are the same gender!
-Because they are the same gender, any sexual activity that they choose to participate in will not produce offspring!

Other than this, there is no reason to believe that same gender couples cannot carry on the same relationships that heterosexual couples (you know, the folks we let marry each other) do!

[b]But that?s strange! Why would anyone be attracted to the same gender?[/b]

Good question. There?s no smoking gun that people are born with their sexual orientation completely sorted out. However, there is good evidence to suggest that there is a genetic component and environmental component to the people they desire to have relationships with.

But there is an important lesson to be learned: asking for the specific reasons that people are homosexual is a valid scientific inquiry, it is actually secondary to an even more important fact. Human beings have no [i]choice[/i] in what gender they choose to form meaningful (sometimes intimate) relationships with. It?s also worth mentioning that we don?t consider homosexuality the same as Albinism or Klinefelter Syndrome because (and this should be patently obvious) there is no [i]pathology[/i] associated with homosexuality (there?s also intrinsic to Klinefelter or Albinism that would preclude them from getting married).

Now why is this important??

Let?s examine a bit of history:
[B][SIZE="3"][u]The Case for Civil Rights[/u][/SIZE][/B]
Rewind the clock to April of 1967. The Apollo program has started up recently, the Vietnam War is in full swing, and one year from now (nearly to the day) Martin Luther King Jr. will be assassinated. However, he would live to see some of his dream fulfilled. For 3 years ago, in 1964, congress passed the U.S. Civil Rights act which stated, ?All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin or sex.? This also validated the 14th Amendment, which ensures [b]all people[/b] due process and equal protection under our laws.

Anyway, the Supreme Court is hearing a case. A white man, Richard Loving, married a non-white (she was of mixed Native American and African American descent) woman outside of their home state of Virginia. They did this because Virginia had a law known as the ?Racial Integrity Marriage? which banned the marriage of any white and non-white couple (this was known as an anti-miscegenation law). Police discovered them in their home (after they had returned to marriage) and attempted to prosecute them for breaking this law?.a case which worked its way up to the Supreme Court and this eventful day. The trial lasted from April until June 12th; when the Supreme Court made its, unanimous, decision that the anti-miscegenation laws were indeed unconstitutional and violated the right of the couple to due process and equal protection of the law (including marriage) protected by our 14th Amendment.

So why do I bring up interracial marriage as an analogy?

Because this statement: [quote name='Crimson Spider'] If sexual preferences or the act of sex is irrelevant, then a homosexual can enjoy marriage to a member of the opposite gender (another irrelevant point) just as much as a heterosexuals could enjoy this marriage. [/quote]
?is no less bigoted than a Virginian suggesting that because interracial marriage is an aberration of ?his definition? of marriage, Loving can [i]enjoy a marriage as long as it?s with a white woman[/i].

Some people grow up and find they are attracted to blondes. Others like brunettes. Still others prefer a sense of humor, curly hair, compassion, honesty, small feet, a big nose, green eyes, a laugh, a brilliant smile, dark skin, light skin. Some men like men. And some women like women. None of us have a choice in what general characteristics we like. Hopefully all of us will find someone who finds us as fascinating, unique, beautiful, funny, and profound and choose to spend their lives with us. Usually our country doesn?t care about our preferences. And they shouldn?t.
Because if two consenting adults decide to live the rest of their lives together and have this union recognized by the country, I believe they have a Constitutional Right to do so. And I have yet to hear a good reason that this shouldn?t be so.
I?m proud of my country. It was founded on this idea of freedom. But when it comes to the story of Same Sex Marriage? we still live in a tragic era where we deny the civil liberties based upon a moral objection against a particular relationship preference.

My moral objection shouldn?t impinge upon your freedoms so long as your freedoms don?t limit mine. I?ve got hope that the ideologues will set aside their freedoms and embrace the idea that, ?while I might not agree with your choices, I?ll protect to the death your liberty.?

[IMG]http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images/declaration5.jpg[/IMG]
Think about it.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Nice going, Drix. You have managed to pull out nearly ever connotation, ideology, and religion from the topic at hand. So, I will then operate under these principles.


Now, first, I would like to talk about the domino effect in relation to definition and towards connotation.

[quote]Because we are talking about the civil institution, it is subject to law, and law is subject to lawmakers. These lawmakers can change the law to reflect the desires of their voting constituencies (the people) while at the same time ensuring as much personal liberty as possible (ideally). So, marriage in this sense, is a social creation. Also, it doesn’t appear that the people of the U.S. want to get rid of marriage and still wish the institution to persist… so I’m not going to concern my arguments with whether or not we should get rid of it.

This also raises another important point: Marriage exists only as how we define it as a civilization. Marriage has not looked the same over time, and responds to the rapid evolution of our social mores and taboos.
[/quote]

Lets remember that the second point here is invalid, for the fact that someone has changed something for a different reason is independent of the current definition and the current reason.

Anyway, people are not walking beings of strictly arbitrary existence. They have physical, absolute existence. There are three different "definitions" of marriage, each one eventually layering them selves upon another: The Social, the Political, and the biological.

The "Political" definition of marriage is the established laws used to classify a type of relationship. This is also known as the "objective" definition, because it is strictly of objective nature that is used in these definitions. The law is to be a solid line, not a gray blur. But, what constitutes what makes up the political definition? It is the social definition.

The Social Definition is really the inspiring factor for the entire debate. It includes all of the connotations, the romanticism, the life experiences, and the marketability of marriage. This is where people make the case for any of the changes to the institution. From interracial marriages to human-animal marriages, what will decide what is allowed and what isn't in a democratic society is ultimately what the people want it to be. But, what constitutes what makes up the social definition? Ultimately, it is the biological/scientific definition.

The biological definition is where things really come from. Different things behave in different ways, and humans have the amazing ability to define these things in respect to their attributes and behaviors. There was a practice in which one man would dedicate himself to a woman for various procreation and society related reasons. This dedication soon became "marriage", and all of the benefits from this were either a direct result of this action, or a result of the other institutions practiced at that time (respecting lineage, trading work force, ect).

[quote]This illuminates a fundamental flaw in many arguments concerning same sex marriage: opponents believe that there is some objective definition of marriage.
Examining the historical record shows that this is simply mistaken.[/quote]

Marriage itself is not an objective definition, but a definition of an objective act. This act cannot be changed. But, it can be respected (or not), and it can be denied, both in substance and in action. This is a very great influence on this action, both in regards to practice, and to a society's view of the foundations of this action. This is where the matter of correct and incorrect connotations comes into play. If you respect this action, you respect the fundamental ideals behind it. If you deny this action, you deny the fundamental ideals behind it.

The consequences of either follow. This facet of the institution is *required* in order to argue for any changes, legal benefits, or definitions at all. Without these ideologies, you are left argument-less, which is what I will demonstrate in a few sections from now.


[quote]Other than this, there is no reason to believe that same gender couples cannot carry on the same relationships that heterosexual couples (you know, the folks we let marry each other) do![/quote]

To say this is to claim that a homosexual is so ignorant of the roles that gender play in reproduction, sex, and relationships that he/she would be blissfully ignorant about these factors in their own relationship, both in active awareness and in practice. I will disprove this statement swiftly:

* If a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he knows she can become pregnant (avoiding strenuous circumstances. those aren't my point)
* If a man has unprotected sex with a man, he knows he cannot become pregnant.

BTW, the Ordering Toward Procreation is not a facet of marriage, but a facet of the relationship. These relationships can exist without a government to condone them.


And now, the culminating point.

[quote]So why do I bring up interracial marriage as an analogy?

Because this statement:


...snip...

…is no less bigoted than a Virginian suggesting that because interracial marriage is an aberration of “his definition” of marriage, Loving can enjoy a marriage as long as it’s with a white woman.[/quote]

You are wholly correct on this. The statement isn't bigoted at all. In fact, it is one of the best stances for arguing against legalizing interracial marriages, because it is completely true, honest, and exposes the nature of the lesser arguments toward legalizing Interracial Marriages as being full unsubstantiated and bad reason for legalization. I do not think that [strike]human-animal[/strike] *[i]cough[/i]* interracial marriages should be allowed on the basis of sexual preferences toward different colored or different featured creatures, and the amount of emotional or financial comfort that they receive from their [strike]dog[/strike] *[i]wheeze[/i]* preferred spouse. It is the name for an act, an institution, a legal right, and it is not a requirement toward the happiness of the individuals who partake in this or similar acts. It is not required that someone wishes to partake in this right.

BTW, I am making a comparison between logic showing no discrimination between an accepted norm (interracial marriages), and an unaccepted practice (Beastiality). Just to clear that up if any misunderstandings were to occur.

What reasons do I think that interracial marriages should be legalized? As I mentioned before, there is really only one reason to change the definition of an objective act: The Ideology. Particularly, the issue of civil rights was largely an issue over the discrimination against individuals in regards to their race. The projected goal of the movement was the equal treatment of individuals of different races. The clauses against interracial marriages exist primarily as a factor to discriminate against race, and for a complete blending; they would need to be abolished. The other clauses, the decent reasons against interracial marriages, did not halt or change the nature of the purpose for legalization, and do not stand.

Were there negative side-effects to this? Oh yes, there were. Not only in practice, but in endorsement. By endorsing "equality" in races by attempting to abolish the notion of purity and racial superiority, you also endorsed the idea of objectifying sexual identity based upon race. Though, this was not only a tertiary factor, but it was also a factor that was to be resolved by the culture. Effectively, an interracial marriage and a pure marriage serve the exact same functions.

Likewise, you can argue for same-sex marriages (an institution that is characterized by a statistically much higher incidence of divorce. Several older statistics indicate other dangerous tendencies) ONLY under the grounds of the ideology. Without this ideology, you have [i]absolutely no reason or grounds to change marriages.[/i] It is the responsibility of the proponents of same-sex marriages to provide these grounds, not for others to provide grounds against it, for retaining the law in absence of evidence is the standard.

Without ideology, as it stands, no rights are denied, no capability of access is being denied, no one is characterized unfairly, no one is discriminated against, no benefit is being denied, no amendment to attend to this, and no “issue” that cannot be resolved outside of marriage for the benefit of everyone. A whole lot of nothing.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You are wholly correct on this. The statement isn't bigoted at all. In fact, it is one of the best stances for arguing against legalizing interracial marriages, because it is completely true, honest, and exposes the nature of the lesser arguments toward legalizing Interracial Marriages as being full unsubstantiated and bad reason for legalization. I do not think that [strike]human-animal[/strike] *[i]cough[/i]* interracial marriages should be allowed on the basis of sexual preferences toward different colored or different featured creatures, and the amount of emotional or financial comfort that they receive from their [strike]dog[/strike] *[i]wheeze[/i]* preferred spouse. It is the name for an act, an institution, a legal right, and it is not a requirement toward the happiness of the individuals who partake in this or similar acts. It is not required that someone wishes to partake in this right.

What reasons do I think that interracial marriages should be legalized? As I mentioned before, there is really only one reason to change the definition of an objective act: The Ideology. Particularly, the issue of civil rights was largely an issue over the discrimination against individuals in regards to their race. The projected goal of the movement was the equal treatment of individuals of different races. The clauses against interracial marriages exist primarily as a factor to discriminate against race, and for a complete blending; they would need to be abolished. The other clauses, the decent reasons against interracial marriages, did not halt or change the nature of the purpose for legalization, and do not stand.

Were there negative side-effects to this? Oh yes, there were. Not only in practice, but in endorsement. By endorsing "equality" in races by attempting to abolish the notion of purity and racial superiority, you also endorsed the idea of objectifying sexual identity based upon race. Though, this was not only a tertiary factor, but it was also a factor that was to be resolved by the culture. Effectively, an interracial marriage and a pure marriage serve the exact same functions.[/QUOTE]

No matter how technical that argument is, everyone understands it isn't really a moral argument; it is wrong and those people are just crazy, because their ideology is based on the false premise of "race".

Since we are all of the [I]human race[/I], we all deserve the same rights. Oh, and I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with that oddly-placed humor, but I have to say you failed.

[QUOTE]Likewise, you can argue for same-sex marriages (an institution that is characterized by a statistically much higher incidence of divorce. Several older statistics indicate other dangerous tendencies) ONLY under the grounds of the ideology. Without this ideology, you have [i]absolutely no reason or grounds to change marriages.[/i] It is the responsibility of the proponents of same-sex marriages to provide these grounds, not for others to provide grounds against it, for retaining the law in absence of evidence is the standard.

[B]Without ideology, as it stands, no rights are denied, no capability of access is being denied, no one is characterized unfairly, no one is discriminated against, no benefit is being denied, no amendment to attend to this, and no “issue” that cannot be resolved outside of marriage for the benefit of everyone. A whole lot of nothing.[/B][/QUOTE]

What about the ideologies of those who oppose it, namely the religious ideology? Each side has an [I]ideology[/I] in the debate, the point is that human rights are a given that go beyond ideology. All the anti-gay side has is ideology with no real substance to their argument.

And I question the source of of your information. People constantly argue that homosexuals are plagued by more incidents of depression, suicide, etc. What they refuse to acknowledge is that it is that way [I]because[/I] of the prejudice and hatred gay people receive.

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][quote]Likewise, you can argue for same-sex marriages (an institution that is characterized by a statistically much higher incidence of divorce. Several older statistics indicate other dangerous tendencies)[/quote]An institution that currently[I] can't[/I] get married, also [I]can't[/I] have a higher rate of divorce. With only a handful of states even allowing it, there isn't enough long term data to accurately declare that one has a higher rate of divorce than another. Until it's allowed on the same level as the currently accepted form of marriage, any statements like that are inaccurate. Just saying.

Plus trying to make same sex marriage look like it's a choice that is based on or even similar to bestiality only makes you look stupid. We're talking about people who regardless of skin color or gender, are still a member of the[I] human[/I] race. There is no logic in comparing a practice that really [I]is[/I] between two different races and one that isn't. [/FONT]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Drix, I think your post is probably one of the best I've ever seen on OB. I'm thoroughly impressed. I could never have hoped to do such a great job.

I say this not so much because I agree with you, but because you've effectively drawn out every misconception or misrepresentation and put forward a clear case based on entirely on legal merit (and just plain logical merit, I'd say).

I should make one important point for CS here though.

There's only been one long-term study of gay divorces. It covered a 15 year period and looked at Scandinavian countries. Here is a quick summary:

[quote]Internationally, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.[/quote]

Here's a link to the report: [url]http://www.svgla.org/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=5&2f8d38d14523aa8f4042065cde1a5216=964e204e9824d505541efa48eb2208b5[/url]

There is a newer study out of Sweden, which is short-term and shows higher divorce rates among homosexual couples versus heterosexual couples, but this seems to be tied more to overall changing trends in Swedish lifestyle and a general de-emphasis on marriage in that country.

Anyway I really don't have anything too substantive to add to this. Drix really covered all my basis [i]and[/i] included a picture! 110% effort there, lol. :catgirl:[/font]

[Drix D'Zanth]

I know there is a thread up with regards to proposition 8, and I wish somehow these threads could be merged, because I see a lot of parallel discussion.

I wanted to wait for the election to end before I posted again on this thread primarily because I was aware of the Proposition 8 Ballot in California and awaited their decision. I was sad to see the liberties of homosexuals impinged by a ?yes? decision. However, the debate has renewed vigor and hopefully we can anticipate some big changes in our political landscape.

On the ?silver lining? note, it appears that Connecticut has recently permitted equal marriage rights for homosexuals.

I want to address CrimsonSpider?s rebuttal. I feel disappointed with the effort, honestly. And I think the rhetorical regurgitation is revealing how strained your arguments are. In fact, you don?t really address my key arguments.

Some say marriage is an objective act. The reason it is an objective act is because of the ?biological definition of marriage? which serves as the foundation of marriage. So if there is no biological definition of marriage, the idea that marriage as a legal institution being objective falls apart.

I graduated with a degree in Biology. I?ll tell you that ?marriage? is not a biological behavior. Even if it were, we are capable as reasoning human beings from removing ourselves from our biological past in order to live by the rule of LAW instead of the rule of NATURE. There is evidence to suggest we are naturally polygamous, naturally xenophobic, naturally violent, human males may have a natural inclination to violence and rape, naturally inclined to murder out groups (other bands of humans). But our ability to empathize, reason, and construct social institutions permits us to define a set of rules that runs in direct opposition to some of these ?natural? phenomena.

I simply submit that our law will oppose the natural homophobia that many opponents to gay marriage experience.

Marriage isn?t then an objective activity? it resumes to be law subjective to the desires of the people. If marriage were objective, then it wouldn?t make sense to permit slaves to marry, women to have equal claim to the property of marriage, and interracial marriage. All of these are [i]changes[/i] in our definition of marriage throughout history. Despite the fact that laws are effectively subjective, we do have a Constitution that creates a boundary that each law must fit within.
For instance, it doesn?t matter how the subjective interests of the people change, we will all have the freedom to speech.

Marriage is an institution created by our government and defined by our government. I argue that by inhibiting an otherwise legal equal from participating in an institution we violate the 14th Amendment. You haven?t actually refuted this claim.
[IMG]http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/flash/assets/asset_upload_file450_12097.jpg[/IMG]

Your argument will invariably be, ?Gay people [i]can[/i] get married, so long as a gay man marries a woman or a gay woman marries a man.?

But this statement is NO different than telling a black man, pre-circa 1967, that he, ?can get married, so long as it isn?t to a white woman.?

Your follow up is insulting. You suggest that bestiality is substantiated by the arguments for Gay Marriage. My response is simple: Do we permit animals (other than Humans) to vote? Do we permit them to take part in other legal institutions like education? Do we acknowledge them in our constitution?

If you can answer these questions, then you can understand why bestiality is outside the sphere of my argument. I?m only disappointed that I have to make this clear. I thought you were a wiser person.

The best part of this dialogue is that you made my argument for me:

[quote name='Crimson Spider']What reasons do I think that interracial marriages should be legalized? As I mentioned before, there is really only one reason to change the definition of an objective act: The Ideology. Particularly, the issue of civil rights was largely an issue over the discrimination against individuals in regards to their race. The projected goal of the movement was the equal treatment of individuals of different races. The clauses against interracial marriages exist primarily as a factor to discriminate against race, and for a complete blending; they would need to be abolished.[/quote]

What reasons do I think gay marriages should be legalized? As I mentioned before, there is one huge reason in a multitude to change the definition of an ?objective act?: The ideology. Particularly, the issue of civil rights today is largely an issue over the discrimination against individuals in regards to their sexual orientation. The projected goal of the movement is the equal treatment of individuals of different sexual orientations. The clauses against gay marriage exist primarily as a factor to discriminate against sexual orientation, and for a complete equality; they need to be abolished.

Thank you for listening.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Gay_Couple_from_back_hand_holding_on_CSD_2006_Berlin_-_Make_Love_Not_War.jpg[/IMG]