Solution to Marriage Issues

[sky dancer]

Maybe hatred is too strong a word, maybe "anger?" You do seem to have a problem discussing this and try to take everything I say as an attack on gays and lesbians. remember when I left the War on Christmas thread? It was because I kept getting mad at you. Maybe this time, you need to leave and cool off.

I don't think you can discuss gays without the word "normal" coming up.

Not being normal is not a curse.

As for "people like you", I'll apologize for that one. I'm not sure what I should have said instead, but I can see how that can be taken as an insult. Sorry.

I explained the context for my objection of your use of the terms normal and abnormal.

I don't feel the slightest bit angry. I am persistent in my views. Perhaps, I ought to just let you use whatever terms you wish to without challenging you at all.

If I was mad at you, which I'm not, I would also stop posting on the thread. I can be 'fierce' sometimes. Frankly, you are one of the posters I most enjoy debating because you are strong in your views and we go toe to toe pretty intensely.

I have explained as best I can my objection to your continued use of the terms normal and abnormal. I don't think you understand my point of view on it but I'm willing to just drop it.

 

[sky dancer]

I'm not "normal" and I'm insulted that you would think I was.

You consider heterosexuality 'normal' don't you? You are heterosexual, right?

I am sorry to have insulted you.

 

[sky dancer]

I never called myself normal, in fact I said was wasn't "normal".

Yes, being left handed is abnormal.

Being left handed is natural to a left handed person. It is not abnormal. Show me a medical manual that says left handedness is abnormal.

Is the white race normal? More Asians appear in the world than caucasians. Does that make whites abnormal?

 

[Againsheila]

You consider heterosexuality 'normal' don't you?

I am sorry to have insulted you.

Yes, but that's not why I'm not normal.

 

[Againsheila]

Being left handed is natural to a left handed person. It is not abnormal. Show me a medical manual that says left handedness is abnormal.

Is the white race normal? More Asians appear in the world than caucasians. Does that make whites abnormal?

Ohh, that's a good one.

I can say that being Albino is not "normal"

I imagine if you are a caucasion in China than you are not "normal" for China.

 

[Againsheila]

Being left handed is natural to a left handed person. It is not abnormal. Show me a medical manual that says left handedness is abnormal.

Is the white race normal? More Asians appear in the world than caucasians. Does that make whites abnormal?

natural and "normal" are not the same thing.

 

[sky dancer]

Ohh, that's a good one.

I can say that being Albino is not "normal"

I imagine if you are a caucasion in China than you are not "normal" for China.

Finally, I get you to admit that 'normal' is relative. That's my point.

 

[sky dancer]

natural and "normal" are not the same thing.

Being gay or straight is natural and normal.


Homosexual behavior certainly does not feel normal or natural for heterosexuals; they often have strong feelings of revulsion towards the idea. Similarly, heterosexual behavior does not feel natural for homosexuals. Both homosexual and heterosexual behavior feels natural to persons with bisexual orientation.

Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.

Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects. An Amazon.com reviewer commented: "Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show 'the love that dare not bark its name' in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity." 2 The reviews of this book are well worth reading for their own value.

Whiptail lizards, (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) found in the American southwest, are all females. They reproduce by parthenogenesis. Unfertilized eggs develop, producing an exact clone of its mother. Even though no males exist, the females still exhibit sexual mating behavior. Those that attract a partner have been found to produce more and healthier eggs. 3,4

Another source states that "Homosexuality exists in proven ratios in all mammal species....It is as natural as blue eyes, left-handedness, or the genetic predisposition to walk on two legs." 4
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe1.htm#norm

 

[Sunni Man]

Being gay or straight is natural and normal.


Homosexual behavior certainly does not feel normal or natural for heterosexuals; they often have strong feelings of revulsion towards the idea. Similarly, heterosexual behavior does not feel natural for homosexuals. Both homosexual and heterosexual behavior feels natural to persons with bisexual orientation.

Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.

Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects. An Amazon.com reviewer commented: "Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show 'the love that dare not bark its name' in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity." 2 The reviews of this book are well worth reading for their own value.

Whiptail lizards, (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) found in the American southwest, are all females. They reproduce by parthenogenesis. Unfertilized eggs develop, producing an exact clone of its mother. Even though no males exist, the females still exhibit sexual mating behavior. Those that attract a partner have been found to produce more and healthier eggs. 3,4

Another source states that "Homosexuality exists in proven ratios in all mammal species....It is as natural as blue eyes, left-handedness, or the genetic predisposition to walk on two legs." 4
HOMOSEXUALITY: Changeable? Normal? Moral?

I am sure Pedophilia "feels "normal to a child molester.

But just because something "feels" normal. Doesn't make it normal!!

 

[sky dancer]

Pedophilia is abnormal, it's a disorder. Homosexuality is not.

 

[Againsheila]

Finally, I get you to admit that 'normal' is relative. That's my point.

And here all this time I thought it was MY point....

 

[Sunni Man]

Pedophilia is abnormal, it's a disorder. Homosexuality is not.

Homosexuality is a delusion

 

[Againsheila]

Pedophilia is abnormal, it's a disorder. Homosexuality is not.

Homosexuality is abnormal....I believe it's a disorder, a neurobiolgical disorder and would like to see some tests done to prove it one way or another. heck, left handedness is neurobiological. What's to say pedophila isn't? The question remains, if it's a physical difference in the brain, what do we do about it, or should we do anything at all? Where is the line drawn?

 

[sky dancer]

And here all this time I thought it was MY point....

OMG. You mean we actually agree, LOL.

 

[sky dancer]

Homosexuality is abnormal....I believe it's a disorder, a neurobiolgical disorder and would like to see some tests done to prove it one way or another. heck, left handedness is neurobiological. What's to say pedophila isn't? The question remains, if it's a physical difference in the brain, what do we do about it, or should we do anything at all? Where is the line drawn?

Sorry sheila. You just went over the line. Time for me to take a break.

You can believe whatever you wish whether medical or psychological science supports you or not.

Have fun connecting homosexuals with pedophilia. You and Sunni Man have a 'gay old time' with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's how you solve the whole gay marriage debate.

1. Make all of the legal/tax benefits we now associate with 'marriage' occur with a civil union which can be between any two people of legal age.

2. Make the government only be able to recognize civil unions.

3. Make 'marriages' and entirely religious affair. If someone wants to get married, they can do so through the religion/church of their choice but it will have no legal or tax implications whatsoever.

4. Done.

Just an FYI, I think it is fairly clear that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination against gays in the context of marriage.

Interesting take. "Here's how you solve the debate: one side just totally capitulates and gives the other side everything it wants, and keeps the utterly meaningless victory of one word." Yeah, that isn't at ALL biased.

I'm really glad you started an entire thread to tell us that you think the only reasonable solution is to agree totally with you. That certainly couldn't have been simply added to any of the numerous threads on the topic.

 

[Southpaw]

Southpaw Wrote:

You seem to be contradicting yourself here a bit. Either civil unions have nothing to do with sex and love - and therefore are just a contractual agreement between two consenting adults...or, it is an arrangement based, in part at least, on sex and love...hence your apparent revulsion at the idea of granting the same rights and privileges to people who are related.

I agree that there is some basis in romance. I'm basically arguing that the debate would be solved if we called non-religious marriages 'civil unions,' quit discriminating against gays in that arena, and separated religious marriages from civil unions.

Polygamy and incest are illegal and thus excluded from my proposed solution.

Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.

Rape is also found extensively in nature; in fact, it is much more prevalent than homosexuality. Does that mean that rape should be acceptable in our society? (of course not...)

Pedophilia is abnormal, it's a disorder. Homosexuality is not.

Why? Please support your claim with logic/evidence.

Interesting take. "Here's how you solve the debate: one side just totally capitulates and gives the other side everything it wants, and keeps the utterly meaningless victory of one word." Yeah, that isn't at ALL biased.

Which side capitulates? The 'pro-traditional marriage' side? You still get it. The only change is that your tax breaks are not based on it but rather a civil union.

I'm really glad you started an entire thread to tell us that you think the only reasonable solution is to agree totally with you. That certainly couldn't have been simply added to any of the numerous threads on the topic.

Did I ever say mine was the only reasonable solution or that you had to agree with me? Nope, I did not. Read the posts again, please.

 

[Gem]

SouthPaw Wrote:

I'm basically arguing that the debate would be solved if we called non-religious marriages 'civil unions,' quit discriminating against gays in that arena, and separated religious marriages from civil unions.

Polygamy and incest are illegal and thus excluded from my proposed solution.

But you continued to argue that any tie to religion should be separated from the state recognition of a legal contract.

If there is no religion behind it...then there is no reason for it to be two people...no reason for it to be two unrelated people...no reason for it to be two people who are planning to have sex or have children...it is simply a legal contract that states that people have agreed to bind their finances and legal issues together for the convenience of one or both.

Sodomy was once illegal...so was inter-racial marriage...so the argument that polygamy is illegal isn't really relevant.

You have stated that it has to be between two people. That they can't be related. But you have also stated that the two people do not have to be getting "joined" civilly because they are in love or have the intention of being romantic...in fact, you stated no objection to straight friends joining to help eachother out.

With this in mind...can you legitimately think of any reason why two unrelated people can be civilly joined for any reason (which is what you are arguing for), but two related people can't? (After all, incest is still illegal). Or why three people can't? (Why is it that two unrelated people can choose to join...but somehow three is unacceptable to you?)

I think that maybe, your idea sounds easy, simple, and uncomplicated...but I do not think that you have considered all of the ramifications, complications, and questions that such a policy invites...it doesn't mean your idea does not have merit...just that it might lead to places you hadn't anticipated.

 

[Southpaw]

If there is no religion behind it...then there is no reason for it to be two people...no reason for it to be two unrelated people...no reason for it to be two people who are planning to have sex or have children...it is simply a legal contract that states that people have agreed to bind their finances and legal issues together for the convenience of one or both.

Sodomy was once illegal...so was inter-racial marriage...so the argument that polygamy is illegal isn't really relevant.

Sure that argument is still relevant. Marriage today is not defined on your ability to have children or have sex. Why should a civil union be limited to such? You are putting questions to my idea that are not answered now. That implies that they aren't really a problem.

Incest is a bad idea because of the deformities of the children involved.

Polygamy is a bad idea because of the drain on the state.

You have stated that it has to be between two people. That they can't be related. But you have also stated that the two people do not have to be getting "joined" civilly because they are in love or have the intention of being romantic...in fact, you stated no objection to straight friends joining to help eachother out.

What stops two friends from getting married right now to help each other out?

I think that maybe, your idea sounds easy, simple, and uncomplicated...but I do not think that you have considered all of the ramifications, complications, and questions that such a policy invites...it doesn't mean your idea does not have merit...just that it might lead to places you hadn't anticipated.

I agree that there will be problems and difficulties, including some that are not present in the current system.

However, your points are either already proven insignificant by the current approach or already dealt with in current law.

 

[Gem]

SouthPaw Wrote:

Marriage today is not defined on your ability to have children or have sex. Why should a civil union?

Perfect. Then two friends can civilly join and never have sex or children. And two relatives can civilly join and never have sex or children. Since incest would remain illegal for other reasons - the genetic problems of offspring, then there would be no issue with allowing civil unions...knowing full well that if children ever resulted, it would be a crime.

Polygamy is a bad idea because of the drain on the state.

One could argue that all civil unions would likewise be a drain...certainly my civilly joining my best friend for no other reason than to get her health benefits would be a drain on the state.

You can't provide civil unions to homosexual couples because it is their "right" to join whomever they please...and then deny it to others simply for having the bad luck of wanting to join more than one person. At least...you can with any reasonable legal reasoning I've heard so far.