Gayness

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 4 2005, 10:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 4 2005, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Outshined@Feb 4 2005, 04:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:58 PM

Then, there is no such thing as a heterosexual, only heterosexual behavior.

If that's how you'd like to see it, swell. His point is that homosexuality is an aberration, and I agree with him.

We all know how you see the subject; don't feel obligated to rehash it for me. I can always go back and re-read it if the urge ever hits me.

Isn't crazy what some people think? If homosexuality was normal, where are the offspring going to come from? Everything reproduces in the earth, except mountains and homosexuals.

Who cares? There seems to be no shortage of reproduction going on! By the way, mountains reproduce all the time---they are just really slow about it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 4 2005, 12:21 PM

Cal,

Would you be willing to acknowledge, notwithstanding the studies indicating a genetic basis for some homosexual tendencies, that not all homosexual behavior arises from a genetic disposition to be attracted only to the same sex?

Clearly, many people who have homosexual relationships also are capable of being attracted, or at least sexually aroused, by the opposite sex; otherwise, there would never be a case of a man marrying, having children, and then coming out as gay (as was the case of one of Word Perfect's founders.) Nor would you ever see heterosexual men doing homosexual acts in all-male environments like ships or prison. ("The traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy, and the lash!")

I think there is probably a core of genetically effeminate men who are exclusively homosexual, and a much larger class of men --maybe most -- who'd screw a snake if someone held it straight for them, or, less crudely, are capable of sexual arousal by a broad range of partners, male, female, interspecies, inanimate, or whatever.

Since you've been arguing against maintaining a moral disapproval of homosexual conduct based on its supposed genetic basis, does that argument still hold up when it's clear that the genetic basis is not present?

I think you make a good point---No, I recognize that there is a continuum as to the influence of environment and genetics in this issue. There are undoubtedly many people who engage in homosexual acts that feel no biological compulsion to do so.

However, nothing you have said refutes the fact that there is almost certainly a group that have no real choice in the matter. They were born homosexual, and couldn't be changed anymore than most hetero's could be changed. But, you have also pointed out that there are people in between the extremes of both. This is consistent with almost all biological characteristics. They fall on a bell curve with extremes at each end.

The answer to your last question is, no--- where there is no genetic basis, and clearly God didn't create them that way, then I would hold them to the same standard as a homosexual would be.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 4 2005, 07:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 4 2005, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 4 2005, 12:21 PM

Cal,

Would you be willing to acknowledge, notwithstanding the studies indicating a genetic basis for some homosexual tendencies, that not all homosexual behavior arises from a genetic disposition to be attracted only to the same sex? 

Clearly, many people who have homosexual relationships also are capable of being attracted, or at least sexually aroused, by the opposite sex; otherwise, there would never be a case of a man marrying, having children, and then coming out as gay (as was the case of one of Word Perfect's founders.)  Nor would you ever see heterosexual men doing homosexual acts in all-male environments like ships or prison.  ("The traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy, and the lash!")

I think there is probably a core of genetically effeminate men who are exclusively homosexual, and a much larger class of men --maybe most -- who'd screw a snake if someone held it straight for them, or, less crudely, are capable of sexual arousal by a broad range of partners, male, female, interspecies, inanimate, or whatever.

Since you've been arguing against maintaining a moral disapproval of homosexual conduct based on its supposed genetic basis, does that argument still hold up when it's clear that the genetic basis is not present?

I think you make a good point---No, I recognize that there is a continuum as to the influence of environment and genetics in this issue. There are undoubtedly many people who engage in homosexual acts that feel no biological compulsion to do so.

However, nothing you have said refutes the fact that there is almost certainly a group that have no real choice in the matter. They were born homosexual, and couldn't be changed anymore than most hetero's could be changed. But, you have also pointed out that there are people in between the extremes of both. This is consistent with almost all biological characteristics. They fall on a bell curve with extremes at each end.

The answer to your last question is, no--- where there is no genetic basis, and clearly God didn't create them that way, then I would hold them to the same standard as a homosexual would be.

Fair enough. Although on a practical basis, distinguishing between "real" homosexuals and others would probably be impossible for purposes of deciding what moral standard people should be held to.

I think the standard of sex only within a marriage between a man and woman is the best and most practically workable standard, if you're going to have any standard at all. True, it does look as if some West Hollywood residents got dealt a pretty bad hand by their Creator (if you hold Him responsible for the random genetic fluctuations that cause this kind of thing), and it does seem kinda unfair to deny them their first choice of partners. On the other hand, even you would favor denying certain people their first choice of partners, if they were so unlucky as to be genetically endowed with some kind of unambiguously destructive sexual preference. (I won't mention any, lest I be accused -- tiresomely -- of comparing gays with cetaceaphiles* or some other such nonsense.)

Equality is a pretty myth. It's a credit to the race that we pretend people are equal -- and in God's eyes we may be -- but in the world, no two beings are equal in either their advantages or their burdens. I, for my part, seem to have been assembled with a defective bosom burner. (I'm looking for spares in Home Depot's kitchen section.) Most "faith-promoting" stories which get half the congregation all weepy leave me absolutely cold. It's been that way as long as I can remember. If the Church is really what it claims to be, and I am to be judged based on my faith in it, that puts me at a huge disadvantage compared to people whose bosoms light up like 1871 Chicago at the drop of a mildly inspiring anecdote. I conclude that the fact that following the gospel is not equally easy for all people has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. God is just, no matter whether or not I understand how his justice works.

So, to Bill Clinton or anyone else possibly genetically impelled to promiscuity, the gospel says suck it up and be faithful, yea even unto Hillary. To an alcoholic, it says don't get drunk. And to someone with an innate predisposition towards homosexuality, it is especially hard, with the only consolation for a life of not-trivial loneliness being a promise that it's somehow worth it.

As an alternative, we could just stop making moral distinctions between various sexual relationships, and make consent the only criterion, turning God into a kind of cosmic John Stuart Mill. But is "do no harm" enough of a basis for a religion? Is it impossible that God should have other intentions for us than just that we avoid hurting each other? Or is there something to the concept that we are not only to be good, but holy -- be like Him?

If you believe in Christianity, you believe that God instituted marriage as the sexual relationship most conducive to holiness -- that is, most patterned after God's attributes. Mormons take it a step further and declare it not only to be so patterned, but to be God's actual way of eternal life.

*People who get it on with whales (cetaceans). I just made that word up, before anyone runs for his/her dictionary.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 08:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 08:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lindy9556@Feb 1 2005, 11:13 PM

Cal- I think that there have been some really good statements given, and I will be wrong no matter what I think. I am who I am, you are who you are....we think different. Nothing wrong with that. I'm right, you're wrong....                      just kidding 

I would be a little more impressed if you could give some logical reasons for your opinion, but that is your choice. No hard feelings.

Sorry Cal, I'm not out to impress anyone. Just don't have the quiet time to think about logical reasons for my opinion I guess. Glad that the lack of logical reasoning is not held agains me at this time

[Lindy]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 4 2005, 03:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 4 2005, 03:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 4 2005, 12:21 PM

that not all homosexual behavior arises from a genetic disposition to be attracted only to the same sex? 

I've noticed this particularly with women. Some women are very "butch" from birth. Total tomboys. But most women I know who are "lesbians" (and being involved in "theatre", I work with homosexuals of both genders frequently) seem to go back and forth between men and women. They seem very confused. I wonder if our sexually permissive society adds to confusion for those who may have a temporary attraction for the same sex, but who are basically heterosexual. I know some male homosexuals that I feel quite sure are simply biologically homosexual, and nothing will ever change that.

I think a lot has to do with the permissiveness of society, as I read your post....I automatically thought of someone I know who declared herself lesbian, lives the lifestyle, etc. She is raising her nephew at the moment, and confided in her sister that she (the gay one) knows that she is just going thru a phase, she won't be a lesbian for life, it's just something she has to get out of her system. Confused? I never thought of it that way. Permitted to act upon a temporary attraction....... but basically heterosexual.....yep, that rang a bell.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 4 2005, 08:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 4 2005, 08:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 4 2005, 07:21 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 4 2005, 12:21 PM

Cal,

Would you be willing to acknowledge, notwithstanding the studies indicating a genetic basis for some homosexual tendencies, that not all homosexual behavior arises from a genetic disposition to be attracted only to the same sex? 

Clearly, many people who have homosexual relationships also are capable of being attracted, or at least sexually aroused, by the opposite sex; otherwise, there would never be a case of a man marrying, having children, and then coming out as gay (as was the case of one of Word Perfect's founders.)  Nor would you ever see heterosexual men doing homosexual acts in all-male environments like ships or prison.  ("The traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy, and the lash!")

I think there is probably a core of genetically effeminate men who are exclusively homosexual, and a much larger class of men --maybe most -- who'd screw a snake if someone held it straight for them, or, less crudely, are capable of sexual arousal by a broad range of partners, male, female, interspecies, inanimate, or whatever.

Since you've been arguing against maintaining a moral disapproval of homosexual conduct based on its supposed genetic basis, does that argument still hold up when it's clear that the genetic basis is not present?

I think you make a good point---No, I recognize that there is a continuum as to the influence of environment and genetics in this issue. There are undoubtedly many people who engage in homosexual acts that feel no biological compulsion to do so.

However, nothing you have said refutes the fact that there is almost certainly a group that have no real choice in the matter. They were born homosexual, and couldn't be changed anymore than most hetero's could be changed. But, you have also pointed out that there are people in between the extremes of both. This is consistent with almost all biological characteristics. They fall on a bell curve with extremes at each end.

The answer to your last question is, no--- where there is no genetic basis, and clearly God didn't create them that way, then I would hold them to the same standard as a homosexual would be.

Fair enough. Although on a practical basis, distinguishing between "real" homosexuals and others would probably be impossible for purposes of deciding what moral standard people should be held to.

I think the standard of sex only within a marriage between a man and woman is the best and most practically workable standard, if you're going to have any standard at all. True, it does look as if some West Hollywood residents got dealt a pretty bad hand by their Creator (if you hold Him responsible for the random genetic fluctuations that cause this kind of thing), and it does seem kinda unfair to deny them their first choice of partners. On the other hand, even you would favor denying certain people their first choice of partners, if they were so unlucky as to be genetically endowed with some kind of unambiguously destructive sexual preference. (I won't mention any, lest I be accused -- tiresomely -- of comparing gays with cetaceaphiles* or some other such nonsense.)

Equality is a pretty myth. It's a credit to the race that we pretend people are equal -- and in God's eyes we may be -- but in the world, no two beings are equal in either their advantages or their burdens. I, for my part, seem to have been assembled with a defective bosom burner. (I'm looking for spares in Home Depot's kitchen section.) Most "faith-promoting" stories which get half the congregation all weepy leave me absolutely cold. It's been that way as long as I can remember. If the Church is really what it claims to be, and I am to be judged based on my faith in it, that puts me at a huge disadvantage compared to people whose bosoms light up like 1871 Chicago at the drop of a mildly inspiring anecdote. I conclude that the fact that following the gospel is not equally easy for all people has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. God is just, no matter whether or not I understand how his justice works.

So, to Bill Clinton or anyone else possibly genetically impelled to promiscuity, the gospel says suck it up and be faithful, yea even unto Hillary. To an alcoholic, it says don't get drunk. And to someone with an innate predisposition towards homosexuality, it is especially hard, with the only consolation for a life of not-trivial loneliness being a promise that it's somehow worth it.

As an alternative, we could just stop making moral distinctions between various sexual relationships, and make consent the only criterion, turning God into a kind of cosmic John Stuart Mill. But is "do no harm" enough of a basis for a religion? Is it impossible that God should have other intentions for us than just that we avoid hurting each other? Or is there something to the concept that we are not only to be good, but holy -- be like Him?

If you believe in Christianity, you believe that God instituted marriage as the sexual relationship most conducive to holiness -- that is, most patterned after God's attributes. Mormons take it a step further and declare it not only to be so patterned, but to be God's actual way of eternal life.

*People who get it on with whales (cetaceans). I just made that word up, before anyone runs for his/her dictionary.

I was with you until you started asserting that gays shouldn't be allowed by society to marry. It is one thing to insist a personal preference against it, but quite another to insist that the God you believe in wants to impose your set of values on everyone.

Not everyone believes in the same God, nor should they feel obligated to. That is what "freedom of religion" is all about. If gays should be prevented from marrying because that is the way "God" wants it, you are saying that because "your God" wants it a certain way, everybodies' God wants it that way. Some what "theo-centric". (Coining a new word: Theocentric means " assuming that one's view of God should be everyone's view of God.)

Since the authority upon which many people rely upon to bring down the wrath of God on gays is cited from the OT, I maintain, there is precious little authority even from the traditional Christian scriptures to condemn gays the way many Christians do. A God that condones slavery (as the OT God does) doesn't have the credibility to pass judgement on how gays live their lives IMHO. (You can tell that I don't believe in the God of the OT)

[pushka]

LOL Cal...well said...I agree with every word!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

I'm reading over what I wrote, and I don't see where I said society ought to limit marriage to men and women because that's what God wants. There are rational, secular, pragmatic, arguments supporting the special status of traditional marriage, including the following:

1. Coherence. Giving only one class of relationships the official status of marriage saves us the trouble of deciding which of the infinite number of alternative relationships the state will sanction. If we institute gay marriage, we'd have to consider polygamy, polyamory, consanguinous marriages (subject to genetic screening or commitments to nonfertility), etc. Bright lines are sometimes useful as a practical matter.

2. Preserving a legal framework for the one relationship which, in the ordinary course of things and according to reasonable expectations, results in the birth of children.

3. Tradition. This argument is kind of like the environmentalist "precautionary principle," but with a twist that prevents it from being self-contradictory like that principle. The idea is that it is never entirely clear what the ultimate effects of an action are, and that we should at least consider whether by removing a long-enduring social institution, we may cause unintended consequences. That's not to say we should never change anything, only that we ought to be careful in how we go about knocking out interior walls, some of which may be loadbearing.

Again, you may not be convinced by these arguments, but this is not a simple matter of "Gays shouldn't marry because God doesn't like it."

By the way, the New Testament also condemns gay sex, along with all other sex outside of marriage.

3.

[Amillia]

Good points PD.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:07 PM

First, you can read the studies for yourself. They are well known and can be fairly easily accessed through Google research. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to go beyond the fundamental conclusions reached by the studies--your accusation that I have not provided logical reasoning I find, well, illogical. On the otherhand, what evidence or study can you site that would show that homosexuality is purely environmental. Fact is, the Minnesota and Australian studies establish that it is not just environmental as Skinner or Pavlov would have us believe. They were of the school that all human behavior is environmentally determined. The most recent research is showing more and more how genetics plays a powerful part in human behavior.

Neither Skinner nor Pavlov would have been aware that homosexuals have anatomical structures in their brains that resemble that of the other sex--are you going to try to tell me that brain anatomy is environmental?

Cal: I have read many studies. I realize that this is a highly political subject; studies done with agendas are hardly scientific. I prefer the non-biased studies done for other agendas such as studies of sexual behavior of endangered species (higher primates) in order to preserve the species.

However, since you asked I would tell you that brain development after birth is environmental. A child is not born with a fully developed brain. In fact the brain is not fully "wired" until the about age of 20. You are wrong when you imply or indicate that human children are "brain" capable of reproduction or sex at birth. Come on my friend you are asking me to be logical and scientific and insist of such palpably absurd statements. If a child’s brain develops after birth in a manner different than both parents it is not genetic. Come on – I know you are brighter that this!

I am sure you realize that those that are classified as "slow minded" often do not progress beyond the 5 or 6 normal years of “brain” development and these people are not capable of determining their sexual orientation. We still consider these brain-children to suffer rape if involved in the act of reproduction with an adult.

What I asked before I ask again - why do you insist that behavior controlled exclusively by the cognitive part of the central nervous system is not learned.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 7 2005, 11:37 AM

Cal,

I'm reading over what I wrote, and I don't see where I said society ought to limit marriage to men and women because that's what God wants. There are rational, secular, pragmatic, arguments supporting the special status of traditional marriage, including the following:

1. Coherence. Giving only one class of relationships the official status of marriage saves us the trouble of deciding which of the infinite number of alternative relationships the state will sanction. If we institute gay marriage, we'd have to consider polygamy, polyamory, consanguinous marriages (subject to genetic screening or commitments to nonfertility), etc. Bright lines are sometimes useful as a practical matter.

2. Preserving a legal framework for the one relationship which, in the ordinary course of things and according to reasonable expectations, results in the birth of children.

3. Tradition. This argument is kind of like the environmentalist "precautionary principle," but with a twist that prevents it from being self-contradictory like that principle. The idea is that it is never entirely clear what the ultimate effects of an action are, and that we should at least consider whether by removing a long-enduring social institution, we may cause unintended consequences. That's not to say we should never change anything, only that we ought to be careful in how we go about knocking out interior walls, some of which may be loadbearing.

Again, you may not be convinced by these arguments, but this is not a simple matter of "Gays shouldn't marry because God doesn't like it."

By the way, the New Testament also condemns gay sex, along with all other sex outside of marriage.

3.

Very good points - I would also add that there has been no effort to demonstrate that human society can benefit in the long run by endorsing and encouraging "gay" marriages. The scientists that have used chaos theory to predict devastating effects on the environment if a minor parameter is altered, is accepted without question. Yet the altering of the accepted social sexual habits within the society of a dominant species is not a matter of concern?

Society benefits from marriage, in that society is granted another generation. This continual cycle is necessary for society to survive. It requires that society support marriage based on children. It is the engine of natural selection and survival of the human species. Even non-religious evolutionist must realize that protection of reproductive behaviors is essential to continued human society.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 7 2005, 11:37 AM

Cal,

I'm reading over what I wrote, and I don't see where I said society ought to limit marriage to men and women because that's what God wants. There are rational, secular, pragmatic, arguments supporting the special status of traditional marriage, including the following:

1. Coherence. Giving only one class of relationships the official status of marriage saves us the trouble of deciding which of the infinite number of alternative relationships the state will sanction. If we institute gay marriage, we'd have to consider polygamy, polyamory, consanguinous marriages (subject to genetic screening or commitments to nonfertility), etc. Bright lines are sometimes useful as a practical matter.

2. Preserving a legal framework for the one relationship which, in the ordinary course of things and according to reasonable expectations, results in the birth of children.

3. Tradition. This argument is kind of like the environmentalist "precautionary principle," but with a twist that prevents it from being self-contradictory like that principle. The idea is that it is never entirely clear what the ultimate effects of an action are, and that we should at least consider whether by removing a long-enduring social institution, we may cause unintended consequences. That's not to say we should never change anything, only that we ought to be careful in how we go about knocking out interior walls, some of which may be loadbearing.

Again, you may not be convinced by these arguments, but this is not a simple matter of "Gays shouldn't marry because God doesn't like it."

By the way, the New Testament also condemns gay sex, along with all other sex outside of marriage.

3.

Where does the NT condemn gay marriage directly. I'm not interest in inferences, I would like clear, direct reference. Maybe its there, I have just not seen it. By the way, I'm not interested in Paul's opinions, only Jesus's direct statements.

As to you other reasons, you state them well, however, they really amount to: Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because it might upset the way things are traditionally done. With that reasoning, the US would still belong to GB.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 8 2005, 07:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 8 2005, 07:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:07 PM

First, you can read the studies for yourself. They are well known and can be fairly easily accessed through Google research. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to go beyond the fundamental conclusions reached by the studies--your accusation that I have not provided logical reasoning I find, well, illogical. On the otherhand, what evidence or study can you site that would show that homosexuality is purely environmental. Fact is, the Minnesota and Australian studies establish that it is not just environmental as Skinner or Pavlov would have us believe. They were of the school that all human behavior is environmentally determined. The most recent research is showing more and more how genetics plays a powerful part in human behavior.

Neither Skinner nor Pavlov would have been aware that homosexuals have anatomical structures in their brains that resemble that of the other sex--are you going to try to tell me that brain anatomy is environmental?

Cal: I have read many studies. I realize that this is a highly political subject; studies done with agendas are hardly scientific. I prefer the non-biased studies done for other agendas such as studies of sexual behavior of endangered species (higher primates) in order to preserve the species.

However, since you asked I would tell you that brain development after birth is environmental. A child is not born with a fully developed brain. In fact the brain is not fully "wired" until the about age of 20. You are wrong when you imply or indicate that human children are "brain" capable of reproduction or sex at birth. Come on my friend you are asking me to be logical and scientific and insist of such palpably absurd statements. If a child’s brain develops after birth in a manner different than both parents it is not genetic. Come on – I know you are brighter that this!

I am sure you realize that those that are classified as "slow minded" often do not progress beyond the 5 or 6 normal years of “brain” development and these people are not capable of determining their sexual orientation. We still consider these brain-children to suffer rape if involved in the act of reproduction with an adult.

What I asked before I ask again - why do you insist that behavior controlled exclusively by the cognitive part of the central nervous system is not learned.

The Traveler

I don't recall claiming that behavior can't be learned, even homosexuality. All I said was that there is evidence that it also have genetic components as evidenced by the identical twin studies and anatomical brain differences between gays and straights.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 8 2005, 07:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 8 2005, 07:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 7 2005, 11:37 AM

Cal,

I'm reading over what I wrote, and I don't see where I said society ought to limit marriage to men and women because that's what God wants.  There are rational, secular, pragmatic, arguments supporting the special status of traditional marriage, including the following:

1.  Coherence.  Giving only one class of relationships the official status of marriage saves us the trouble of deciding which of the infinite number of alternative relationships the state will sanction.  If we institute gay marriage, we'd have to consider polygamy, polyamory, consanguinous marriages (subject to genetic screening or commitments to nonfertility), etc.  Bright lines are sometimes useful as a practical matter.

2.  Preserving a legal framework for the one relationship which, in the ordinary course of things and according to reasonable expectations, results in the birth of children.

3.  Tradition.  This argument is kind of like the environmentalist "precautionary principle," but with a twist that prevents it from being self-contradictory like that principle.  The idea is that it is never entirely clear what the ultimate effects of an action are, and that we should at least consider whether by removing a long-enduring social institution, we may cause unintended consequences.  That's not to say we should never change anything, only that we ought to be careful in how we go about knocking out interior walls, some of which may be loadbearing. 

Again, you may not be convinced by these arguments, but this is not a simple matter of "Gays shouldn't marry because God doesn't like it."

By the way, the New Testament also condemns gay sex, along with all other sex outside of marriage. 

3.

Very good points - I would also add that there has been no effort to demonstrate that human society can benefit in the long run by endorsing and encouraging "gay" marriages. The scientists that have used chaos theory to predict devastating effects on the environment if a minor parameter is altered, is accepted without question. Yet the altering of the accepted social sexual habits within the society of a dominant species is not a matter of concern?

Society benefits from marriage, in that society is granted another generation. This continual cycle is necessary for society to survive. It requires that society support marriage based on children. It is the engine of natural selection and survival of the human species. Even non-religious evolutionist must realize that protection of reproductive behaviors is essential to continued human society.

The Traveler

How does allowing gay marriage change traditional marriage. Gays will marry gays, they are not going to encroach on anyone's traditional marriage.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 9 2005, 12:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 9 2005, 12:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Traveler@Feb 8 2005, 07:31 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 7 2005, 11:37 AM

Cal,

I'm reading over what I wrote, and I don't see where I said society ought to limit marriage to men and women because that's what God wants.  There are rational, secular, pragmatic, arguments supporting the special status of traditional marriage, including the following:

1.  Coherence.  Giving only one class of relationships the official status of marriage saves us the trouble of deciding which of the infinite number of alternative relationships the state will sanction.  If we institute gay marriage, we'd have to consider polygamy, polyamory, consanguinous marriages (subject to genetic screening or commitments to nonfertility), etc.  Bright lines are sometimes useful as a practical matter.

2.  Preserving a legal framework for the one relationship which, in the ordinary course of things and according to reasonable expectations, results in the birth of children.

3.  Tradition.  This argument is kind of like the environmentalist "precautionary principle," but with a twist that prevents it from being self-contradictory like that principle.  The idea is that it is never entirely clear what the ultimate effects of an action are, and that we should at least consider whether by removing a long-enduring social institution, we may cause unintended consequences.  That's not to say we should never change anything, only that we ought to be careful in how we go about knocking out interior walls, some of which may be loadbearing. 

Again, you may not be convinced by these arguments, but this is not a simple matter of "Gays shouldn't marry because God doesn't like it."

By the way, the New Testament also condemns gay sex, along with all other sex outside of marriage.  

3.

Very good points - I would also add that there has been no effort to demonstrate that human society can benefit in the long run by endorsing and encouraging "gay" marriages. The scientists that have used chaos theory to predict devastating effects on the environment if a minor parameter is altered, is accepted without question. Yet the altering of the accepted social sexual habits within the society of a dominant species is not a matter of concern?

Society benefits from marriage, in that society is granted another generation. This continual cycle is necessary for society to survive. It requires that society support marriage based on children. It is the engine of natural selection and survival of the human species. Even non-religious evolutionist must realize that protection of reproductive behaviors is essential to continued human society.

The Traveler

How does allowing gay marriage change traditional marriage. Gays will marry gays, they are not going to encroach on anyone's traditional marriage.

It is the legality of it that worries me. Moving boundaries that have proven to keep a society in order will ultimately be it's destruction.

Just try allowing your kids to start changing the set rules of the house a little at a time and you will see what it leads to. Because if one standard can be changed, so can they all.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 8 2005, 11:02 PM

How does allowing gay marriage change traditional marriage. Gays will marry gays, they are not going to encroach on anyone's traditional marriage.

Unfortunately my friend your assumption that gays are only interested in other gays is not true. You may argue that my personal experiences in the military are not scientific and not to your liking but since I looked 13 I experienced the predatory behavior of every single gay I encountered. I have also not encounter any effort by the gay movement to halt and outlaw gay intrusions on those that do not appreciate it.

That aside, I see no reason to support and encourage gay marriages. I have not even encountered any effort to demonstrate that gay marriage will benefit and is necessary for society. I believe society has an obligation to support and encourage marriage between a man and a woman because families and children are necessary and benefit society.

Now, before you attempt to use an argument that has no real benefit I would point out that murder can occur without destroying society – plus, despite the fact that murder occurs, the population seems to grow anyway. The very idea that no one should concern themselves with murder because there are enough that do not murder that society can continue is not an argument that demonstrates murder should not be opposed. So please do not use a stupid argument for homosexuality. You may say that there is a big difference between murder and homosexual relationships but that would not be completely true in that both exist in all human society of any size and both have always existed in human society yet society has not been destroyed. So, what I am saying is that the fact that they can exist in society is not evidence that either “ought” to exist in society or that society has an obligation to support and encourage. Society has an obligation to support and encourage marriages between a man and a woman in order to guarantee a next generation. As I stated before this attitude is necessary for survival of the fittest and is very much a part of “natural” selection. Hand waiving and making rash innuendo is not scientific. We began this discussion with you accusing me of not being logical or scientific. My point is that it is neither logical nor scientific to alter or force change when it is not necessary, will not benefit and could be detrimental. The part of the previous statement that needs to be proven prior to change is the necessary and beneficial. The part about things that could be detrimental is not under the same obligation of demonstration – in fact, I believe that in the absence of necessary and beneficial, we must assume detrimental rather than be under the obligation to prove it. Yet for some odd reason whenever I suggest such a thing, people like yourself, say I am not logical or scientific. Sorry but I don’t buy the rhetoric or the smoke and mirrors - even it it has become the more popular in certain semi-intellectual circles at many of our universities.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 9 2005, 07:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 9 2005, 07:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 8 2005, 11:02 PM

How does allowing gay marriage change traditional marriage. Gays will marry gays, they are not going to encroach on anyone's traditional marriage.

Unfortunately my friend your assumption that gays are only interested in other gays is not true. You may argue that my personal experiences in the military are not scientific and not to your liking but since I looked 13 I experienced the predatory behavior of every single gay I encountered. I have also not encounter any effort by the gay movement to halt and outlaw gay intrusions on those that do not appreciate it.

That aside, I see no reason to support and encourage gay marriages. I have not even encountered any effort to demonstrate that gay marriage will benefit and is necessary for society. I believe society has an obligation to support and encourage marriage between a man and a woman because families and children are necessary and benefit society.

Now, before you attempt to use an argument that has no real benefit I would point out that murder can occur without destroying society – plus, despite the fact that murder occurs, the population seems to grow anyway. The very idea that no one should concern themselves with murder because there are enough that do not murder that society can continue is not an argument that demonstrates murder should not be opposed. So please do not use a stupid argument for homosexuality. You may say that there is a big difference between murder and homosexual relationships but that would not be completely true in that both exist in all human society of any size and both have always existed in human society yet society has not been destroyed. So, what I am saying is that the fact that they can exist in society is not evidence that either “ought” to exist in society or that society has an obligation to support and encourage. Society has an obligation to support and encourage marriages between a man and a woman in order to guarantee a next generation. As I stated before this attitude is necessary for survival of the fittest and is very much a part of “natural” selection. Hand waiving and making rash innuendo is not scientific. We began this discussion with you accusing me of not being logical or scientific. My point is that it is neither logical nor scientific to alter or force change when it is not necessary, will not benefit and could be detrimental. The part of the previous statement that needs to be proven prior to change is the necessary and beneficial. The part about things that could be detrimental is not under the same obligation of demonstration – in fact, I believe that in the absence of necessary and beneficial, we must assume detrimental rather than be under the obligation to prove it. Yet for some odd reason whenever I suggest such a thing, people like yourself, say I am not logical or scientific. Sorry but I don’t buy the rhetoric or the smoke and mirrors - even it it has become the more popular in certain semi-intellectual circles at many of our universities.

The Traveler

Ah.....gay marriage is not for the purpose of benefiting society, it is for the purpose of benefiting gays! A just because a few gay guys hit on you in the military is hardly reason to make laws designed to discriminate against them. Besides, now you know how some women probably feel when they get hit on by you (Ok, that was a low blow--couldn't help myself--I apologize ahead of time! ).

So ,you still haven't made a factual case as to why gays shouldn't AT THE VERY LEAST be allowed the same civil rights to union as hetero's.

By the way, I'm simple defending a minority groups civil rights. Just remember, Mormons were a discriminated minority group once---what if the majority all of a sudden decided that Mormons should not be allowed to marry? By your logic, that could happen. If the majority can discriminate against one minority group, it can do so against any. Social norms have a way of waving like the flag in the wind. The beauty of a Bill of Rights is that the ability of the "prevailing wind" of majority opinion to determine which group gets discriminated against is limited.

None of the arguments against gay unions that I have heard hold any water. They all come down to----vague generalities like "it's not natural", "it's not traditional" or even worse " it will lead to the extinction of the race" or "I just don't like it, so it should be against the law". These psuedo-justifications simply express personal preference rather than an argument on facts.

The fact is that many societies have tolerated several variations on traditional marriage---mormons included.

[neo_xero8]

as with all of his children, God hates their sins and not them. God loves you gay or straight. He may not be happy with your actions or choices, but he still LOVES you. I don't care what anyone says, there are about 100 gay people in my school, self proclaimed anyway, and every homosexual person i kno wof, has CHOSEN to be that way, and I don't believe it has ANYTHING to do with genetics. I think that it is directly related to temptation and the Adversary. I believe that if they truly want to, anyone can overcome homosexual feelings. I believe homosexuality is a sin, "neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man," girls were made for guys, and vice versa, that's the way it is. But in either case, God loves us all people, as much as I don't like gay people, I respect their right to live and do as they please as much as anyone else, as a VERY FAMOUS PROPHET once said, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." I believe that not only applies to religion, but to everday life as well. But this is just my particular view on the subject.

[Snow]

Originally posted by neo_xero8@Feb 10 2005, 05:08 PM

I don't care what anyone says, there are about 100 gay people in my school, self proclaimed anyway, and every homosexual person i kno wof, has CHOSEN to be that way.

Yes yes yes,

...and I am the Queen of Sheeba and you are a reasonable educated adult.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2005, 08:19 AM

Ah.....gay marriage is not for the purpose of benefiting society, it is for the purpose of benefiting gays! A just because a few gay guys hit on you in the military is hardly reason to make laws designed to discriminate against them. Besides, now you know how some women probably feel when they get hit on by you (Ok, that was a low blow--couldn't help myself--I apologize ahead of time! ).

So ,you still haven't made a factual case as to why gays shouldn't AT THE VERY LEAST be allowed the same civil rights to union as hetero's.

By the way, I'm simple defending a minority groups civil rights. Just remember, Mormons were a discriminated minority group once---what if the majority all of a sudden decided that Mormons should not be allowed to marry? By your logic, that could happen. If the majority can discriminate against one minority group, it can do so against any. Social norms have a way of waving like the flag in the wind. The beauty of a Bill of Rights is that the ability of the "prevailing wind" of majority opinion to determine which group gets discriminated against is limited.

None of the arguments against gay unions that I have heard hold any water. They all come down to----vague generalities like "it's not natural", "it's not traditional" or even worse " it will lead to the extinction of the race" or "I just don't like it, so it should be against the law". These psuedo-justifications simply express personal preference rather than an argument on facts.

The fact is that many societies have tolerated several variations on traditional marriage---mormons included.

You and I disagree.

First I am concerned that you think marriage is a right owed to who ever wants it. Your notion that marriage is nothing but a default relationship that society is obligated to make available regardless of consequences at the whim of whoever ask appears foolish to me. As I have posted marriage ought to be a protected privilege, granted by society in select circumstances (a man and a woman) in order to guarantee families that will provide a next stable generation so society does not vanish. The attitude that mankind should be able to do anything they wish until it is proven dangerous is itself reckless. The entire history of mankind is full of such foolish notion. Let us introduce rabbits in Australia, or kudzu in America, lets clear cut rain forest, or overbuild on a watershed hillside. In all such cases when it was proven to be a disaster it was already to late.

logic point #1. Before making a change (even minor) to any complex system we ought to be reasonably certain that the change is beneficial. If the sponsors and believers of a change do not understand what is at stake enough to be able to demonstrate that it is beneficial most likely it is NOT.

logic point #2. When considering effects of change in a complex system it is logical to consider extreme possibilities. This is a scientific principle used to understand possibilities at thresholds should a major shift occur. For example if society refused to acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result such relationships were unable to continue and completely vanished what effect would that have on society. Anything? If society did acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result those relationships became the overwhelming relationship in that society, what effect would that have on society. Quite possibly that society could vanish completely. A foolish notion? Perhaps, but if this logic had been employed most man made environmental (and other) disasters would been avoided.

logic point #3. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose from a moral stand point. The moral question all should ask is what would happen if everybody engaged in any activity? Let us take anger. If everybody escalated anger in society would society benefit? No. Let use take kindness. If everybody escalated kindness would society benefit? Yes. We can conclude that kindness is of great moral value and anger is of little moral value. Now let us take homosexual marriage. If everybody engaged in homosexual marriage and endorsed and supported it above every other relationship leaving families to fend for themselves without protection would society benefit? I don’t think so. How about nobody engaged in or endorse homosexual marriages leaving them to fend for themselves and instead supported only families that support children? Society would continue prosper without question for another generation.

You do not have to destroy a forest in America in order to introduce kudzu, but once introduced and allowed unimpeded access to the forests of America the kudzu destroyed forest all by it’s self. It may not destroy all the forest but it will destroy enough to make a lasting difference.

But we already have a condition in which marriage is broken. The greatest problems of poverty in this country is directly connected to society’s recent neglect of marriage. Your proposal will doubtfully contribute to any possible fix. If anyone wants a homosexual relationship I am willing to live and let live, up to the point that they demand by power of law that society back the homosexual relationship as much as the relationship upon which children must depend in order to survive. My support stops there. I cannot no will I pretend that society will be just fine without any effort to demonstrate society will be benefitted for the investment. And that lack of effort to answer questions coupled with blame and cries of homophobia indicates this is not the direction society should even consider.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2005, 08:19 AM

None of the arguments against gay unions that I have heard hold any water. They all come down to----vague generalities like "it's not natural", "it's not traditional" or even worse " it will lead to the extinction of the race" or "I just don't like it, so it should be against the law". These psuedo-justifications simply express personal preference rather than an argument on facts.

The fact is that many societies have tolerated several variations on traditional marriage---mormons included.

I would post something about the current shameful neglect of children and families. When personal pleasure becomes the only reason to consider marriage, society suffers. When we decide not to honor parents that sacrifice in order that children may survive by claiming that it is just as honorable to seek nothing but personal sexual gratification, society suffers.

To support pleasures and scoff and scorn those that would protect children over indulging in erotic undisciplined pleasures society suffers. Your argument that there are plenty that care about children that we can honor every foolish sexual behavior with as much value as caring for children, I cringe knowing there is no possible good to be added to such a society. That you cannot see any logic or benefit in making any effort to protect families and children as the cherished future for mankind is a total bewilderment to me. I guess all I can say is that I hope and pray that G-d will grant you your wish. But I also hope and pray that I will not have to share it with you. I would rather be in that society the maintains the honor and sacredness of children and families.

The Traveler

[neo_xero8]

Snow, I would like to inform you that I'm not kidding and ther are literally close to 100 self proclaimed homosexual people in my school, all of which have informed me that they have chosen that themselves for one reason or another. I'd appreciate it if you were jumping to conclusions. If I post on these forums it's just my opinion, but I'm not going to flat out lie.

[Cal]

Originally posted by neo_xero8@Feb 10 2005, 06:08 PM

as with all of his children, God hates their sins and not them. God loves you gay or straight. He may not be happy with your actions or choices, but he still LOVES you. I don't care what anyone says, there are about 100 gay people in my school, self proclaimed anyway, and every homosexual person i kno wof, has CHOSEN to be that way, and I don't believe it has ANYTHING to do with genetics. I think that it is directly related to temptation and the Adversary. I believe that if they truly want to, anyone can overcome homosexual feelings. I believe homosexuality is a sin, "neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man," girls were made for guys, and vice versa, that's the way it is. But in either case, God loves us all people, as much as I don't like gay people, I respect their right to live and do as they please as much as anyone else, as a VERY FAMOUS PROPHET once said, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." I believe that not only applies to religion, but to everday life as well. But this is just my particular view on the subject.

Very simplistic view of the world. Too bad it doesn't comport with the actual scientific evidence on the subject.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 10 2005, 10:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 10 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 9 2005, 08:19 AM

Ah.....gay marriage is not for the purpose of benefiting society, it is for the purpose of benefiting gays! A just because a few gay guys hit on you in the military is hardly reason to make laws designed to discriminate against them. Besides, now you know how some women probably feel when they get hit on by you (Ok, that was a low blow--couldn't help myself--I apologize ahead of time! ).

So ,you still haven't made a factual case as to why gays shouldn't AT THE VERY LEAST be allowed the same civil rights to union as hetero's.

By the way, I'm simple defending a minority groups civil rights. Just remember, Mormons were a discriminated minority group once---what if the majority all of a sudden decided that Mormons should not be allowed to marry? By your logic, that could happen. If the majority can discriminate against one minority group, it can do so against any. Social norms have a way of waving like the flag in the wind. The beauty of a Bill of Rights is that the ability of the "prevailing wind" of majority opinion to determine which group gets discriminated against is limited.

None of the arguments against gay unions that I have heard hold any water. They all come down to----vague generalities like "it's not natural",  "it's not traditional" or even worse  " it will lead to the extinction of the race" or "I just don't like it, so it should be against the law". These psuedo-justifications simply express personal preference rather than an argument on facts.

The fact is that many societies have tolerated several variations on traditional marriage---mormons included.

You and I disagree.

First I am concerned that you think marriage is a right owed to who ever wants it. Your notion that marriage is nothing but a default relationship that society is obligated to make available regardless of consequences at the whim of whoever ask appears foolish to me. As I have posted marriage ought to be a protected privilege, granted by society in select circumstances (a man and a woman) in order to guarantee families that will provide a next stable generation so society does not vanish. The attitude that mankind should be able to do anything they wish until it is proven dangerous is itself reckless. The entire history of mankind is full of such foolish notion. Let us introduce rabbits in Australia, or kudzu in America, lets clear cut rain forest, or overbuild on a watershed hillside. In all such cases when it was proven to be a disaster it was already to late.

logic point #1. Before making a change (even minor) to any complex system we ought to be reasonably certain that the change is beneficial. If the sponsors and believers of a change do not understand what is at stake enough to be able to demonstrate that it is beneficial most likely it is NOT.

logic point #2. When considering effects of change in a complex system it is logical to consider extreme possibilities. This is a scientific principle used to understand possibilities at thresholds should a major shift occur. For example if society refused to acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result such relationships were unable to continue and completely vanished what effect would that have on society. Anything? If society did acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result those relationships became the overwhelming relationship in that society, what effect would that have on society. Quite possibly that society could vanish completely. A foolish notion? Perhaps, but if this logic had been employed most man made environmental (and other) disasters would been avoided.

logic point #3. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose from a moral stand point. The moral question all should ask is what would happen if everybody engaged in any activity? Let us take anger. If everybody escalated anger in society would society benefit? No. Let use take kindness. If everybody escalated kindness would society benefit? Yes. We can conclude that kindness is of great moral value and anger is of little moral value. Now let us take homosexual marriage. If everybody engaged in homosexual marriage and endorsed and supported it above every other relationship leaving families to fend for themselves without protection would society benefit? I don’t think so. How about nobody engaged in or endorse homosexual marriages leaving them to fend for themselves and instead supported only families that support children? Society would continue prosper without question for another generation.

You do not have to destroy a forest in America in order to introduce kudzu, but once introduced and allowed unimpeded access to the forests of America the kudzu destroyed forest all by it’s self. It may not destroy all the forest but it will destroy enough to make a lasting difference.

But we already have a condition in which marriage is broken. The greatest problems of poverty in this country is directly connected to society’s recent neglect of marriage. Your proposal will doubtfully contribute to any possible fix. If anyone wants a homosexual relationship I am willing to live and let live, up to the point that they demand by power of law that society back the homosexual relationship as much as the relationship upon which children must depend in order to survive. My support stops there. I cannot no will I pretend that society will be just fine without any effort to demonstrate society will be benefitted for the investment. And that lack of effort to answer questions coupled with blame and cries of homophobia indicates this is not the direction society should even consider.

The Traveler

First I am concerned that you think marriage is a right owed to who ever wants it.  Your notion that marriage is nothing but a default relationship that society is obligated to make available regardless of consequences at the whim of whoever ask appears foolish to me.  As I have posted marriage ought to be a protected privilege, granted by society in select circumstances (a man and a woman)  in order to guarantee families that will provide a next stable generation so society does not vanish.  The attitude that mankind should be able to do anything they wish until it is proven dangerous is itself reckless.  The entire history of mankind is full of such foolish notion.  Let us introduce rabbits in Australia, or kudzu in America, lets clear cut rain forest, or overbuild on a watershed hillside.  In all such cases when it was proven to be a disaster it was already to late.

The reasons you give for why gays should not marry are full of holes. You have yet to prove that a gay couple can't raise a stable secure individual. Second, there is no evidence that the percent of gay relationships are going to increase just because gays are afforded the same civil rights under Family Law that straights have. You call the idea foolish or reckless, but he only facts you can muster are references to rabbits in Australia? This is a completely inappropriate analogy. The two issues have virtually nothing in common. Tampering with environments in a biolgical sence is not relevant here. The only issue you raised was whether the human race can go on reproducing while allowing gays to marry. You little analogies of upsetting the balance of nature have nothing to do with this issue. It is a distractor to fill up space.

You have introduced no evidence that allowing gays to marry will upset anything, where as there is plenty of evidence AHEAD OF TIME, that cutting the rainforests and introducing foreign species can disrupt established ecosystems--that people do it only reflects ignorance and greed, and a disrgard for KNOWLEDGE already acquired. There is no store of data that shows that if gays marry the world will fall apart.

Your fear that gayness is going to overtake society if we allow gays to marry is simple paranoia without factual basis. It is a fear based on fear itself. There is no evidence that societies in the past that have been more tolerant of gays have suffered from any MORE reproductive or family problems than those that suppress gays. Gayness is not a social disease, it is a biological fact. As I pointed out, it exists in most mammalian groups studied, and these groups have been around, quite successfully for longer than we have.

Your arguments are not scientific because you have started it based on a Conclusion. You already have your bias, and are simply trying to bolster it. But you are short on facts and long on speculation and opinion.

Your "bolstering" is based on a supposition that has no foundation: You say WHAT IF everyone in society were gay? That is the error of logic known as "the slippery slope". There is NO evidence that is gays were more accepted and had more civil rights that society would deteriorate. NONE. There is no evidence that tolerance of gays would lead to any substancial increase of homosexuality. NONE. A small % of Chimpanzees engage in homosexual behavior, with no "laws" or "rules" against it--has the chimpanzee society suffered any ill effects. Have they all turned into gays?

No, I'm sorry, but your aguments don't hold water, but simply reflect your bias. YOu will have to come up with something better.

[Amillia]

The reasons you give for why gays should not marry are full of holes.

lGod said so.

You have yet to prove that a gay couple can't raise a stable secure individual.

Everyone knows that the best and most effectual teaching tool is EXAMPLE.