Gay marriage

[Mediocre]

because marriage either has no real secular meaning, or it has the tested definition from 4000 years of tradition

It has a secular meaning, as demonstrated by the millions of people in the United States who are married. Do you really think all of them are interested only in the legal benefits?

But moreover, marriages definition has changed greatly over the last 4000 years. The most comprehensive summary of these changes I found was here. Granted, these changes are not as expansive or recent as the changes made to the United States civil marriage laws, which are listed here.

this is once again, why secular marriage is pointless and why it has nothing to do with love. As far as I remember (I could easily be wrong about this), the institution of government-sanctioned marriage was to promote the creation of families or something, wasn't it?

Although I'm sure that was an aspect of it, I've never heard that this was the sole purpose of the institution of marriage in this country, or any other country.

If you can find evidence to support this belief, I'd be interested in seeing it. Not particularly happy, but interested.

and you did it only out of spite

I did?

Making accusations and assumptions about why I said what I said isn't spite. Frankly, I didn't expect you to be bothered by it at all. It was certainly innocuous enough.

it's not subconscious; it's very conscious isn't it?

No, it wasn't. Frankly, I'm annoyed at you for accusing me like this. Until now, I felt this had been a very civil debate, and I've been enjoying it. I don't know why you're annoyed or angry at me for that statement.

Also, if I'd consciously wanted to make that point, as you claim I was, I would have made it openly. I think it's a fairly strong point, so I would have no reason or desire to insinuate it. I would have just come right out and said it.

you can have all the gay sex you want, i don't care, and that's not the issue behind this argument

I've never had gay sex, and don't plan to in the near future.

However, all your arguments against gay marriage seem to stem from a fundamental belief that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality, and therefore gay marriage is inferior to straight marriage.

I noticed you have yet to say that you do not believe that homosexuality is inferior, and instead chose to take offense to what I said, which was not intended to be offensive in the least.

...because for me it's the principal behind the issue, not the issue itself.

If you are willing to accept a law that states any gay couple is allowed to marry after 3 yrs of engagements, aren't most of the posts in this thread invalidated?

I misunderstood your post. I took what you said to mean that Xsyven would be dissatisfied if gay people were allowed to marry three years from now, with the same conditions and benefits of straight couples.

And I agree. That would not be satisfactory to gay people, or to me. But your comparison doesn't really make a lot of sense. Just because minors don't have a certain right does not mean that gays should not have that right. A gay fifteen year old would have to wait three years to marry, just as a straight fifteen year old would. The system would be totally equal.

I also don't understand why you insist drawing nonsensical parallels between gays and minors. As I and others have explained to you multiple times, the gays who would like to be able to marry are adults. The fifteen year old is a child. That is a difference that has nothing to do with

To use interracial marriage again, by your logic, either blacks should not have been allowed to marry because children can't, or they should have had to be engaged three years before they could marry.

You're really stretching for points here. This entire tangent into pedophilia and child marriage has had no relevance to gay marriage.

So given the hoops that lawyers have to jump through to validate pleas of insanity, you think it's reasonable to apply the same to gay marriage, which would happen hundreds/thousands of times a day?

Again, all you would need to do would be to prove, legally, that gay people existed. That's if anyone even brought up such a ridiculous argument, which I doubt that they would. There would be no need to prove that every homosexual couple who wanted to be married was actually gay, just as there is currently no need to prove that every straight couple that is married is actually straight.

Sexual orientation has never been a requirement for marriage. A gay man and a gay woman could marry each other right now, even though under your logic that should be illegal.

Frankly, I don't understand why you insist on proving that each and every homosexual couple is actually gay. Nowhere did I say that should be a requirement, and nowhere in the current marriage laws does it make any requirements regarding sexual orientation. Why would that change after gay people were allowed to marry?

Just to summarize the point that I'm arguing (not even really the point I believe in, but a thread where everyone sits around high-fiving each other does no one any good)

Really? You seem very determined to prove your point for someone who doesn't care one way or another if gays are allowed to marry.

Marriage traditionally signifies a man and a woman (note: this is not a 'religious' assertion)

And a hundred years ago, marriage traditionally signified a union between people of the same race. In biblical times, marriage traditionally signified a union between one man and multiple wives.

Why does this matter?

Secular marriage was created to promote the nuclear family

You have yet to prove this. Even if you do, that doesn't mean the concept of marriage should go forever unchanged.

Given that it no longer does so (marriage != love), it serves no purpose in society

Even assuming that marriage was created to "promote the nuclear family", and that it should remain that way forever, you have yet to present any evidence that marriage does not help to preserve the nuclear family. Sure divorce rates are higher than they were fifty years ago, but I suspect that couples with families would split up even more often if there was no state recognized marriage to hold them together.

[/quote]Instead of giving gays marriage benefits, the concept of marriage benefits should be eliminated
If marriage presents no benefits, then there is no need for the government to recognize it at all[/QUOTE]

You have yet to prove that civil marriage has no benefits to society.

At the very least, people should be allowed some sort of legal recognition, like civil unions. Otherwise, it becomes difficult for people to do such things as share insurance plans or accompany their companion while they are hospitalized.

 

[pockyD]

I did?

Making accusations and assumptions about why I said what I said isn't spite. Frankly, I didn't expect you to be bothered by it at all. It was certainly innocuous enough.

the fact that you actually included "blah blah blah" led me to believe that.

No, it wasn't. Frankly, I'm annoyed at you for accusing me like this. Until now, I felt this had been a very civil debate, and I've been enjoying it. I don't know why you're annoyed or angry at me for that statement.

This is what you had to say about that statement

It's not an argument at all. It's a statement of personal beliefs. It says something about why I have the stance I do on gay marriage.

I can't imagine anything more "conscious" than a direct statement of personal beliefs

Also, if I'd consciously wanted to make that point, as you claim I was, I would have made it openly. I think it's a fairly strong point, so I would have no reason or desire to insinuate it. I would have just come right out and said it.

I feel as if it was made openly




Anyway, I've pretty much lost interest in this argument. I'm aware that my 'claims' are not really factual, but to me, neither is this argument; it's a matter of perspective, and if I was brought up to value the "traditional" family whereas your upbringing led you to a more liberal understanding of the phrase, it won't really be reconciled by this back and forth. I feel like I'm wasting my time rehashing the same points that address specific issues but them having them misconstrued as blanket statements on the entire topic.

If anything comes up such that my answer wouldn't just be nearly a cut/paste of an earlier response of mine, I'll post more, but otherwise I think I'm done with this. The validity of the marital institution providing any benefits at all is a separate issue that should be addressed separately

 

[blazedaces]

I have two things to add:

Firstly, I agree that marriage should just be between two people, and therefore gay-marriage should be legal with all the benefits that are provided to same-sex marriage.

Secondly, to those few who have made the claims, what evidence do you have that being homosexual is linked to genetics in any way?

-blazed

 

[manhunter098]

I have two things to add:

Firstly, I agree that marriage should just be between two people, and therefore gay-marriage should be legal with all the benefits that are provided to same-sex marriage.

Secondly, to those few who have made the claims, what evidence do you have that being homosexual is linked to genetics in any way?

-blazed

I am relatively sure I read in my psychology textbook that in studies of identical twins, there is a higher occurrence of both twins being homosexual when one of them is homosexual, as opposed to fraternal twins of the same gender. Not to say that genetics is the only cause or even the entire cause of any specific case.

 

[SkylerOcon]

The article that ManHunter mentioned was in a Time magazine one time (my humanities teacher makes us read them sometimes). So there is some evidence towards being gay as genetic.

This article states otherwise though: http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/gaygeneticsp395.php

Either way, it wouldn't make sense for it to not be genetic. Unfortunately gays are still persecuted against and many will say 'I would be straight if I could'. So that shows that they have at least made an attempt to be straight, but it did not feel right to them for one reason or the other.

EDIT: http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Just found that, but I'm not sure how good of a comparison fruit flies are to humans.

 

[blazedaces]

The article that ManHunter mentioned was in a Time magazine one time (my humanities teacher makes us read them sometimes). So there is some evidence towards being gay as genetic.

This article states otherwise though: http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/gaygeneticsp395.php

Either way, it wouldn't make sense for it to not be genetic. Unfortunately gays are still persecuted against and many will say 'I would be straight if I could'. So that shows that they have at least made an attempt to be straight, but it did not feel right to them for one reason or the other.

EDIT: http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Just found that, but I'm not sure how good of a comparison fruit flies are to humans.

I love the sources. Nice finds. Especially the fruit fly one, very interesting. I really want to see further research on such a thing.

To respond to the twins article though, do you realize what you're trying to use a source for homosexual behavior being genetic? An article talking about tendencies in identical twins. If homosexuality was genetic, identical twins would both be homosexual 100% of the time!

But don't take my word for it, check this out:

The third major study trumpeted as "proof" of homosexuality's genetic link was also conducted in 1991 by psychologist Michael Bailey and psychiatrist Richard Pillard. Using pairs of brothers — identical twins, non-identical twins, biological brothers, and adopted brothers — Bailey and Pillard attempted to show that homosexuality occurs more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins.

Again, what the majority of people do not know, and what the media did not accurately report, is that this study actually provides support for environmental factors versus genetics! If homosexuality were in the genetic code, then both of the twins would have been homosexual 100 percent of the time, yet this was not the case.

-http://www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000186.cfm

As for the second part of the fruit fly article (I thought I had finished it till I took a closer look and saw the second part was relevant to the first):

The headlines were misleading though; "blatantly wrong," many have said. Actually, the most important reporting conveyed in many of those articles and stories was relegated to the concluding fine print, offered almost as an afterthought. Here, reporters made qualifying statements about a possible discovery of a genetic link.

In actuality, though, no such discovery had been made. In fact, Hamer himself (also a gay-identified man) later responded, " … environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. … I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."3

As an overview to his study, Hamer claimed that homosexuality could be linked to findings on the X chromosome. He found that out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, 33 (83 percent) received the same sequence on five genetic markers.4

Other scientists, though, such as N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., co-author of My Genes Made Me Do It!, found a number of problems with Hamer's study. Whitehead first pointed out that the study lacked a control group from the general population, noting that if the same sequence from the X chromosome that appeared in the homosexual men also appears in the general population of heterosexual men, then the gene is insignificant.

Another problem with the study is that Hamer did not test the heterosexual brothers of the homosexual men to see if they had the gene, and some of the data from those heterosexual brothers did indicate that they had the identical gene sequence. Another conspicuous flaw is that seven of the pairs of homosexuals did not have the needed gene sequence at all.

I suggest you read the rest of it. A good read and there are quite a number of references on the bottom to consider it reliable.

-blazed