Same sex marriage

[barok 0]

It`s legal in Vermont. Same sex marriages that is. Company benefits and civil rights are what they were after.

 

Marriage has been diluted to a ridiculous level already - people marry for all kinds of crazy reasons - I know a bunch of folks who have married for citizenship. So if 2 people who don`t love each other, who have never and never will have sex, and who have no remote interest in raising each other`s children can get married, and it`s cool with the various gov`s around the world - "here`s our inspection team, matching his and her towels, check, see yah."@should be no reason to let a few gay folks call themselves married, get their company benefits, what have you. Hell many companies these days offer up benefits for same-sex partners. It`s all part of attracting the best employees.

 

giving gay couples custody of children - I think that`s a different issue - and has nothing at all to do with whether or not they are married. Case by case of course, I wouldn`t stand up in favor or against it unless I knew the case. I think it should be regulated.

[rachael 0]

No money to anyone.

Thats what I say.

 

[powwwers 0]

"Share the wealth"

that`s what Homer says

 

[Wizz 11]

And we all listen to Homer of course.

[mikazooki 0]

i am totally in favour of same sex marriages, and allowing them the rights and recogntion of heterosexuals who marry. and am happy to call it marriage and not a civil partnership or something of the like.

 

we live in a dynamic society, and we should welcome change that leads to more equal rights.

[fukdane 2]

I think it's a ludicrous idea.

 

Ocean11 has basically written what I would on the matter.

[mogski 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
I have an issue about it because two blokes doing what they do is different from what me and my wife do, and it serves a different biological purpose. It also has different social repercussions.

Okay, so what you do is "normal practice"? Because you do what the majority does makes it socially correct?

We live in Japan, most of us moan our arses of about the place and most of its BS, but we have learnt to live and accept these. Wrong? How can it be then that this issue cannot be viewed in the same manner?

Disclaimer: I am not a gay basher nor a gay supporter, so all you who are one or the other do not bother looking for me. I am not interested and I have big dog!

[mikazooki 0]

im a little disturbed there isnt more open support for this idea.

 

homosexual people are not freaks. and use of words like deviancy, afflict and debilitating are all emotive and carry heavy negative connotations.

 

i have spent a long time close to gay culture and am aware of the overwhelming nature of some of the behaviour. however, heterosexual behaviour is not devoid of these characteristics, they are just less concentrated. and the open and promiscuous side of homosexuality is not what is being discussed, it is the monogomous and devoted relationships at question.

 

homosexual people are normal people who have an alternative sexual preference. to say it is not natural is totally underestimating the size of the gay population. i think there are adequate numbers to suggest it is a normal variation.

 

**editted to improve poor expression** the persistance of the homosexual or any trait is possible if it confers some immediate advantage to the individual but does not adversely affect

the survival of a line of genes. this seems improbable in purely homosexual behaviour. however, as part of a continuum of characteristics, it is still possible to be passed to subsequent generations. the same can be said of it as a behavioural response. it successfully confers some advantage to the individual and is not disadvantageous to the degree that a person exhibiting this behaviour is unable to integrate with society.

 

the point being it is natural for some people so dont hassel them out**

 

[old wording - as for its lacking role in procreation, that argument assumes it is a genetic trait. and if it is considered as part of a spectrum including bisexuality then that provides a means for the transmission and success of this trait. if it is not genetic it is an adaptive behavioural characterisitc which is obviously successful because of the large numbers of people who have adopted it and integrate well into society.]

 

the fact of integratrion is a very important point. it distinguishes homosexuality from peadophilia and other worrying widespread behaviours. these behaviours have significant negative impacts on other people and rightly scorned by society. homosexuality does not fall into this category.

 

it has a long recorded history within humanity. it does exist in other animal populations , so if we can get around calling it a deviancy and rather a natural variation, then we should be able to grant these people the equal rights they deserve.

[Goemon 0]

I think it's quite simple: For the people who oppose same-sex marriages, just don't marry someone of the same sex. What's all the huff? Why do you care so much what 2 consenting adults are doing?

 

In general, I just don't understand why some people feel the need to regulate other people's lifestyles. For anyone interested in consensual laws (although, primarily focused on the US), I recommend this comprehensive book . The book's main theme is:

 

 Quote:

You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

[Ocean11 0]

Where to start with this all wrongheadedness?

 

 Quote:

i have spent a long time close to gay culture and am aware of the overwhelming nature of some of the behaviour. however, heterosexual behaviour is not devoid of these characteristics, they are just less concentrated.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming nature of some of the behaviour is the logical end point of the condition. The same indiscriminate and aggressive promiscuity is also apparent in sheep that happen to be gay too (there have been studies, reported recently.)

 

 Quote:

homosexual people are normal people who have an alternative sexual preference.

Sorry, there's no such thing as an alternative sexual preference. There's the one that works biologically, and there's a whole variety of others that don't. Homosexual people are normal to the extent that they realize that their deviant sexual preference is not a unique and fascinating gift to society that must be talked about all the time.

 

 Quote:

to say it is not natural is totally underestimating the size of the gay population.

Read the thread. Nobody is saying it isn't natural.

 

 Quote:

i think there are adequate numbers to suggest it is a normal variation.

Which is to say, a normal deviation.

 

 Quote:

as for its lacking role in procreation, that argument assumes it is a genetic trait.

No it doesn't. The whole of the rest of your foray into genetics is sadly misinformed.

 

 Quote:

it distinguishes homosexuality from peadophilia and other worrying widespread behaviours.

Homosexuality and paedophilia are quite obviously linked. That's not to say that every homosexual is so uncivilized as to commit paedophilia, although I expect to hear that I have suggested this at some point later on.

 

 Quote:

it has a long recorded history within humanity. it does exist in other animal populations, so if we can get around calling it a deviancy and rather a natural variation, then we should be able to grant these people the equal rights they deserve.

That is to say, if we get ourselves tied in knots of fallacy, say white is black, trip over words that can be found in any dictionary, and then artificially confer a right that is manifestly not deserved.

 

mikazooki, I understand that you have some doubts about the concept of rights. I do too. If two men can't have children by nature, one of the basic purposes of marriage, what 'right' do they have to get married and have children (i.e. be given them)?

 

mogski, to answer your Japan analogy we have learnt a measure of tolerance of the BS, but as for acceptance, speak for yourself. While I can quite happily tolerate gay people living together and pursuing their own happiness as they see fit, I don't see the need to pretend that they are married in the true sense of the word, because they aren't.

[Ocean11 0]

Goemon, nobody's talking about regulating anybody else's lifestyle.

 

The issue is this; there is a certain status conferred on people who meet certain conditions. Gays are saying they want that status, although they don't meet the conditions. It's like Konishiki saying he wants to be yokozuna without winning two tourneys first.

 

That doesn't stop gays doing anything to which they are entitled to do, or limit their freedom in any way.

 

Not giving them children to look after similarly is not depriving them of anything to which they're entitled.

 

I don't see what their problem is...

[Goemon 0]

Ocean: I am not suggesting that the sumo association should simply crown Konishiki yokozuna; I just don't agree when the sumo association does not allow Konishiki to even compete simply because he is Hawaiian.

 

I will certainly agree that this is a fine line to define, but I think you are denying someone something when you reward someone else for doing the same thing (ie partnering). If you want to bring in the requirement that the partners biologically produce offspring, then that is a different discussion (in my mind).

 

You can argue from a biological process, but you must concede that biology and science are "advancing" every day. What may be biologically impossible today may change in the future; if you want to base law on biology/nature you may still find that the law will need to change to accomodate changes in nature (whether "naturally occurring" changes or "synthetically nudged ahead by science" changes).

 

 

Regarding the entitlement of the blessing of children, I'm not talking about that really. I don't think that children should be given away at every street corner to whoever wants one. To Barok's point above also, I think the adoption process is fairly regulated now and should continue to be regulated with a lengthy, detailed screening process. Certainly the adoption process screens parents more thoroughly than the biological process...

[Ocean11 0]

Goemon, nobody stopped Konishiki competing, just as nobody stops gays competing (at least in civilized countries). But just as Konishiki didn't win, gays won't win biologically either. Sad, but true. Hence, no laurels.

 

I don't know when you're going to 'get' this, but marriage isn't just 'partnering'. If it were, you might want to partner with your parakeet - and why not? Marriage is about putting together and protecting the basic building block of families. Conferment of the status of marriage isn't a reward as such - it is a recognition and a protection. I'm sure that in some societies, no actual rewards are given or expected.

 

And biology isn't changing, although science is developing. But I can't quite see what you have in mind for the future of its effects on the status or nature of marriage. Could you perhaps unboggle my mind on that point?

 

I agree with you that the adoption filter is a lot finer than the biological filter, but it's the same with all filtering systems - you have the mesh with big holes first for eliminating only what obviously shouldn't get through...

[mogski 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
Marriage is about putting together and protecting the basic building block of families.

By whose rules?

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by mogski:

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
Marriage is about putting together and protecting the basic building block of families.

By whose rules?

Sorry, but that's infantile. You can answer that yourself...

[Glen Falting 0]

On behalf of the lurking members here - congratulations everyone for such a great thread. Things were getting a little boring around here.

[mikazooki 0]

where to start with all this wrong headed brain farting?...

 

 Quote:

Unfortunately, the overwhelming nature of some of the behaviour is the logical end point of the condition. The same indiscriminate and aggressive promiscuity is also apparent in sheep that happen to be gay too (there have been studies, reported recently.)

yo what? logical end point? i know of both promiscuous heterosexuals and homosexuals, and also know of many monogymous couples. i believe these people would disagree with your so-called logical end point.

 

 Quote:

Sorry, there's no such thing as an alternative sexual preference. There's the one that works biologically, and there's a whole variety of others that don't.

huh?

 

why no alternative preference? one preference produces offspring, big deal. there are more reasons than babies to be in a relationship, and there are most certainly alternatives to coital union for having sex (even for heterosexual couples). these work perfectly well biologically providing security, support and pleasure. so what makes them not an alternative biologically?

 

 

 Quote:

 Quote:

i think there are adequate numbers to suggest it is a normal variation.

Which is to say, a normal deviation.

deviation carries the meaning:

 

>a noticeable or marked departure from accepted norms of behaviour

 

and if homosexuality is accepted as part of normal behaviour then use of this word does not hold. the word deviancy in addition is also taken to refer to unacceptable behaviour. given these are standard definitions of these words and they offer negative connotaions, alternatives would seem to preferable.

 

 

 Quote:

 Quote:

it distinguishes homosexuality from peadophilia and other worrying widespread behaviours.

Homosexuality and paedophilia are quite obviously linked. That's not to say that every homosexual is so uncivilized as to commit paedophilia, although I expect to hear that I have suggested this at some point later on.

"quite obviously linked" to u perhaps, but this does not make it an obvious fact. i think most homosexuals are equally abhorred by paedophilia as u or i. and subsequently i see such a link as being far from obvious.

 

you play with language in a way whch obviously carries intending meaning but can be easily backed out of. "not to say that every" also reads some, and potentially lots. and its inclusion comes complete with escape clause..."i was merely emphasising something i had not implied to avoid a misunderstanding"... but the manner in which it was stated stands, and such a statement is uncalled-for, emotively rich, and as insulting (although disclaimed by yourself) as the dog comment. deny that your choice of words imparts such intent if u will, but be aware of the ability of language to support added levels of meaning.

 

i recommend - ...although very few homosexuals are uncivilised enough to commit paedophilia... - as an alternative that isnt obviously derogatory.

 

 

u may accept that your views have been adequately conveyed, and i will consider the same has been done for mine. u may correct any sadly disordered logic if u please.

[fantastic 0]

mikazooki - he's good at doing that is Ocean11.

 

Got an A Level in English, no less!

[Ocean11 0]

Actually I have a degree in English.

 

And I'd rather be accused of slippery words than spastic logic.

 

Example of totally spastic logic;

 

 Quote:

one preference produces offspring, big deal. there are more reasons than babies to be in a relationship, and there are most certainly alternatives to coital union for having sex (even for heterosexual couples). these work perfectly well biologically providing security, support and pleasure. so what makes them not an alternative biologically?

Big deal indeed - without reproduction, there is no biology. Of course there are more reasons than babies to be in a relationship - those are social and sexual reasons, not biological. The security, support and pleasure are are social, not biological. Geddit? They are not an alternative biologically because nothing biological comes of it, apart from double the amount of vegetable peelings.

 

It's pretty lame to attack people who can use words to encompass several valid possibilities when you can't even use words sufficiently accurately not to get hideously confused yourself.

 

mikazooki, can I suggest that you actually check out a bit more about the facts and terminology of biology and genetics, and that you investigate the various medical opinions of homosexuality?

 

I'm tired of batting away at this gay-lobby agitprop, and I've said all that needs to be said about marriage between people who are not qualified.

[mogski 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
Sorry, but that's infantile. You can answer that yourself...

Infantile in what sense? I am merely asking why you beleive this. I am trying to get to the root of your beleif.

I beleive that same sex marriage is not a problem. Why? Because it harms not me or the society that I live in as far as I can see. It does not go beyond a beleif I have because I beleive that all people are free to do what they wish. It may be against a law, but who put those laws in place in the first place? Some politician who was lobbied in that manner.

There is no norm, but the norm that you beleive. To force that norm onto society because that may be all you know is, in my opinion, wrong. (Not directed at you Ocean. Take it as a general statement.) Case at hand, US.

[Goemon 0]

Ocean: Sorry, not to belabor this, but I owe you a response (I was enjoying lunch with some OLs).

 

Regarding Konishiki: Maybe it's wrong to make him the poster boy for same-sex marriage, but I was just trying to extend the metaphor which you introduced. He was not banned from the sport, but there was allegedly discriminated against by the sumo association (because he did not possess enough hinkaku). Aside from the fact that the width of his hips looks prime for child bearing, I suppose he has no relation to this discussion.

 

Regarding "partnering" versus "marriage": I guess we just have different definitions of what is alike and different between the two terms. I'm not trying to change your definition, but it would be nice if there was room for more than one definition or for a wider definition in the law books.

 

Regarding "biology isn't changing": I think there is still evolution on some scale today; perhaps you meant in a strict sense that "biology" itself is not changing? Maybe I should have worded it that "human beings continue to evolve"? Is that fair? I'm only saying that laws must change to accommodate changes in evolution, and, to a certain extent, advances in science (maybe not at the same speed, but eventually). If the scientific definition of "male" and "female" changes some day in the distant future, we should not stick to some antiquated legal definition of "male" and "female". It seems that some factions in society would prefer to stick their head in the ground and ignore changes in the world around them.

 

I don't think I unboggled your mind with that bit, but I'm a bit boggled by my lunch still.

[Ocean11 0]

As I understand it, evolution can happen very quickly within species with very short lifecycles. Within two generations, they can respond to environmental demands. Obviously that doesn't apply to humans - we generally change the environment before evolution can change us. So I don't see any changes there that are going to affect marriage much.

 

mogs, marriage is not based on religion or politics. It developed to add social protection to a biological reality (there are many instances of religion simply reflecting what the ancients observed of reality - we don't have to go overturning it simply because we aren't believers in religion).

[miteyak 0]

No, Ocean, that's not what marriage is. Whatever you feel marriage is according to your particular beliefs, as a point of law, it's a union of two consenting adults in contract, so that an emotional commitment can be extended to include a financial one. The purpose of it is so both parties can give time, money and energy to the relationship in full knowledge that if the contract is broken, the state will mediate redistribution of resources in a way deemed fair.

 

If you wish to see marraige in your particular blend of traditional extremism, feel free, but that's not the definition under the law, which is the issue under contention.

 

As for homosexuality being linked to paedophilia... try educating yourself on the subject rather than trying to justify your prejudices through unsupported statements.

[Ocean11 0]

Oh right miteyak, then that settles it. Makes you wonder how there can be any controversy about the matter at all really. Question of 'distribution of resources' is it?

 

And why do you think there are all those filters on adoption, and who do you think it is that sodomizes little boys if not homosexuals of one sort or another?

 

And let's get one thing straight - after a certain amount of time and observation characterized by complete non-judice, I developed a general post-judice. There was never a period of pre-judice involved. As for being unsupported, I don't see anybody else bringing much support in the way of documentation, let alone logic. Suffice it to say that I have seen studies of the links between one and the other, even if I cannot lay hands on them at present.

 

A bit too much new age, PC extemist blindness there I think...

[barok 0]

studies are easy to find on matters of psychology

you just do a search on this website

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

 

Here are a few abstracts that dispute the studies you are claiming, O11

 

 

J Psychol. 2000 Mar;134(2):211-24. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Psychological profile of pedophiles and child molesters.

 

Murray JB.

 

Department of Psychology, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439, USA.

 

Pedophiles and child molesters share some characteristics. Most are male, and they can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Some prefer adult sex partners but choose children because they are available and vulnerable. The sexual abuse perpetrated may be a 1-time incident and may consist only of fondling. Penetration is unlikely with young children. Perpetrators' ages range from teens to midlife. Most victims are girls, and the perpetrator usually is a relative, friend, or neighbor. The home of the victim is often the setting for the incident. When boys are victims, sexual abuse may take place outside the home, and perpetrators may be strangers. Perpetrators of sexual abuse of children often claim that they themselves were victims of childhood sexual abuse. Psychological profiles are helpful but are compromised partly because many perpetrators are prisoners and control groups are lacking for this research.

 

 

: Arch Sex Behav. 2000 Oct;29(5):463-78. Related Articles, Links

 

 

Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles.

 

Blanchard R, Barbaree HE, Bogaert AF, Dickey R, Klassen P, Kuban ME, Zucker KJ.

 

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Ray_Blanchard@camh.net

 

Whether homosexual pedophiles have more older brothers (a higher fraternal birth order) than do heterosexual pedophiles was investigated. Subjects were 260 sex offenders (against children age 14 or younger) and 260 matched volunteer controls. The subject's relative attraction to male and female children was assessed by phallometric testing in one analysis, and by his offense history in another. Both methods showed that fraternal birth order correlates with homosexuality in pedophiles, just as it does in men attracted to physically mature partners. Results suggest that fraternal birth order (or the underlying variable it represents) may prove the first identified universal factor in homosexual development. Results also argue against a previous explanation of the high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles (25% in this study), namely, that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. An alternative explanation in terms of canalization of development is suggested.