California's Proposition 8

[Sayonara]

Actually, it really is true.

No, it's not.

 

The proposition was that a homosexual marriage cannot produce children, not "an unassisted same-sex couple can't have a child which is their own genetic product". Male partners can employ surrogacy and female partners can use donor sperm. All cases can adopt.

 

The rest of your post is moot as far as that concern goes.

 

In addition, I am fairly certain that male homosexual couples are extremely unlikely to adopt a child. I am not sure if that applies to lesbian couples. In any case, this is an extremely legitimate reason, since population is an important part of a country.

That unlikeliness is not due to homosexual males having no desire to start a family; it's due to legal and social barriers, and the same good old fashioned string-em-up prejudice that comes from the promulgators of disingenuous poppycock such as "gays can't have children" *.

 

And you say "population is an important part of a country", as if (a) nobody has noticed that the human population is dangerously high, and (b) it wasn't already mentioned in this very thread that the number of children awaiting new parents likely outnumbers all prospective adoptive couples put together, homosexual and heterosexual alike.

 

 

* I know you haven't said that, just to be clear.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Sayonara³

[Mr Skeptic]

I have a utilitarian value system, from which the wrongness of murder follows pretty clearly.

 

I hope you're playing devil's advocate here, but if not, your value system is different than mine, and all I can argue is that my value system finds your value system to be depraved.

 

Go on then, explain how you can say murder is wrong without falling back on "just because". Just to be clear here, I am not arguing that homosexuality is wrong, just that when it comes down to the nity grity, deciding what is wrong is quite arbitrary, and so you have to respect the fact that many people think something is wrong just because of some reason that you don't agree with. Eg that god said so.

 

Oh, and my value system is also utilitarian. If you can prove that it is the correct value system, I will be quite pleased.

 

No, it's not.

 

The proposition was that a homosexual marriage cannot produce children, not "an unassisted same-sex couple". Male partners can employ surrogacy and female partners can use donor sperm. All cases can adopt.

 

The rest of your post is moot.

 

Please give me an example of any homosexual couple making a baby with each other, or how it is possible to do so with current technology. I was quite aware of the surrogate method, as I mentioned in my post. But in that case, the baby belongs genetically to only one of the parents. I am aware that some heterosexual couples also require surrogates or adoption. That is irrelevant; it is the exception and not the rule.

 

Also, care to show me how homosexual couples have as many children on average as heterosexual couples?

 

Next thing I know you will be telling me that there is no medicinal difference between blacks and whites, because whites can also get malaria. It really does matter that blacks are more susceptible, even if only by a little.

[iNow]

Just since it seems to bear repeating, there are zero valid reasons why homosexual unions should be treated any differently by the State than heterosexual unions.

 

The bans on marriage for homosexual couples represent bigotry, ignorance, and discrimination, nothing more.

[Sayonara]

Please give me an example of any homosexual couple making a baby with each other, or how it is possible to do so with current technology. I was quite aware of the surrogate method, as I mentioned in my post. But in that case, the baby belongs genetically to only one of the parents. I am aware that some heterosexual couples also require surrogates or adoption. That is irrelevant; it is the exception and not the rule.

What's irrelevant is your baseless claim that the genetic contribution of both parents is a prerequisite for married partners to have a child.

 

Also, care to show me how homosexual couples have as many children on average as heterosexual couples?

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

Next thing I know you will be telling me that there is no medicinal difference between blacks and whites, because whites can also get malaria. It really does matter that blacks are more susceptible, even if only by a little.

I really won't be telling you that. Get off your high horse.

[Mr Skeptic]

What's irrelevant is your baseless claim that the genetic contribution of both parents is a prerequisite for married partners to have a child.

 

Yes, it is a prerequisite for the child to be the biological child of both parents. Obviously, the other partner can adopt the child, but then they will be an adoptive parent and not a biological parent.

 

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

When I don't see, I know it is time to get new glasses or turn the light on. It is yet another difference betweens homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, and one that the government might have a practical reason to care about (ie, population growth).

 

I really won't be telling you that. Get off your high horse.

 

At least I hold the high ground. If ever I claim that statistically significant differences are not important, be sure to correct me.

 

I'm quite surprised how many people on a science forum are offended because someone asked for a valid difference and I gave some. Incidentally, the post I was answering (below) asked for a valid difference, not a reason one should be banned.

 

I still have yet to see a single valid argument for why homosexual marriage should be viewed any differently whatsoever by the state than hetersexual marriage.

 

For fun, I'll put down more valid differences:

5. The obvious one. Heterosexual marriage involves partners of different sex, homosexual marriage involves partners of the same sex.

6. Another good one. One may require legal protection against pitchforks and torches, the other does not.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
multiple post merged

[bascule]

Go on then, explain how you can say murder is wrong without falling back on "just because".

 

Well, as a utilitarian, I don't have a unilateral opinion on the issue of whether murder is wrong. For example, if it came down to killing one person who doesn't want to die versus everyone else on earth dying, I would happily murder that person to save everyone else on earth.

 

I would need to make a utilitarian calculation based on the context to determine if a given act is morally justifiable.

 

I am not arguing that homosexuality is wrong, just that when it comes down to the nity grity, deciding what is wrong is quite arbitrary, and so you have to respect the fact that many people think something is wrong just because of some reason that you don't agree with.

 

Deciding what is wrong is only arbitrary if you don't have a methodological value system.

 

Oh, and my value system is also utilitarian. If you can prove that it is the correct value system, I will be quite pleased.

 

How can I "prove" a particular value system is correct? That's not really possible. However, my value system is, as best I can make it, internally self-consistent and based on the best evidence I have available. It's as close to scientific as a system of moral values can be.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, as a utilitarian, I don't have a unilateral opinion on the issue of whether murder is wrong. For example, if it came down to killing one person who doesn't want to die versus everyone else on earth dying, I would happily murder that person to save everyone else on earth.

 

I would need to make a utilitarian calculation based on the context to determine if a given act is morally justifiable.

 

I didn't even mean always wrong. Just murder in general. When it comes down to it, I don't think anyone can come up with a particularly good reason. (see below)

 

Deciding what is wrong is only arbitrary if you don't have a methodological value system.

 

Yes, but to decide whether a methodological value system is right or wrong requires a methodological value system. This means that a methodological value system is also arbitrary. It'll eventually come down to "I'm right because I believe I am right". I'm glad you see that easily; many people don't.

 

If I am wrong about this, I will be happy to know it.

 

How can I "prove" a particular value system is correct? That's not really possible. However, my value system is, as best I can make it, internally self-consistent and based on the best evidence I have available. It's as close to scientific as a system of moral values can be.

 

Yes, these are the reasons I also go with a utilitarian system.

 

---

 

Lest people wonder how we got to this slightly off topic topic, it is because I suggested that a valid difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage is that many people consider one to be "wrong". However, I don't see how it is possible to prove to them that it isn't wrong, since they will be judging that with their own value system and I see no way to prove a value system invalid.

[iNow]

Try to remember, I asked what valid reasons there were in favor of the State treating homosexual unions any differently than heterosexual unions.

[doG]

Yes, it is a prerequisite for the child to be the biological child of both parents. Obviously, the other partner can adopt the child, but then they will be an adoptive parent and not a biological parent.

 

Does this apply to heterosexual parents that can't have children as well?

 

I'm quite surprised how many people on a science forum are offended because someone asked for a valid difference and I gave some.

 

No you didn't. Your alleged valid arguments don't hold up.

Edited November 13, 2008 by doG

[Sayonara]

Yes, it is a prerequisite for the child to be the biological child of both parents. Obviously, the other partner can adopt the child, but then they will be an adoptive parent and not a biological parent.

And what's the problem with that, exactly?

 

We have been through this already. Stop trolling.

 

 

It is yet another difference betweens homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, and one that the government might have a practical reason to care about (ie, population growth).

Again, you have ignored very basic points.

 

1) Most countries in the West want the birth rate to drop;

2) Marriage doesn't make it any more or less possible for anyone to have a child;

3) There is no "Bureau of Genetic Purity" which checks that each baby born is the offspring of two people who are married to each other.

 

If all you've got are false requirements, you should seriously think about letting that one go.

 

 

At least I hold the high ground.

You really don't. Not when you think it is acceptable to make such spurious comments as "Next thing I know you will be telling me that there is no medicinal difference between blacks and whites, because whites can also get malaria. It really does matter that blacks are more susceptible, even if only by a little".

 

 

I'm quite surprised how many people on a science forum are offended because someone asked for a valid difference and I gave some.

Firstly, nobody is offended "because you gave valid differences".

 

Secondly, it does not appear that anyone is 'offended' per se, but that they simply disagree with you, which is completely different. If people are being short with you I think you will find it is because your rationale is tiresome and disingenuous, and your 'differences' are both trivial and immaterial to Proposition 8.

 

Sorry to be so blunt but you really have been asking for that for several posts.

 

Look, it's simple: nobody is denying that homosexual and heterosexual couples are not different in any way. Of course they are different. But this is entirely unrelated to the concept of LEGAL EQUALITY.

 

Your mission to prove that homo~ and heterosexual marriages are 'different' is a complete waste of everyone's time, and it's encouraging you to say things that are going to get you into arguments that you can do without. It's not even answering the right question: as iNow pointed out... "I asked what valid reasons there were in favor of the State treating homosexual unions any differently than heterosexual unions."

 

The nearest you have got to talking about that is population control, and you got that backwards. So excuuuuuse me if I don't have much faith in your analysis of the social ramifications of your position.

 

Lest people wonder how we got to this slightly off topic topic, it is because I suggested that a valid difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage is that many people consider one to be "wrong". However, I don't see how it is possible to prove to them that it isn't wrong, since they will be judging that with their own value system and I see no way to prove a value system invalid.

Which is a healthy question to ask of any 'proof' that is the exclusive product of a value system, but in this case you are wrong.

 

What you are saying is that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are different because some people think the former is "right" and the latter "wrong", some people think the opposite, some people think both are "right", and doubtless there are some people who for whatever reason think that both are wrong.

 

But these are not intrinsic differences between the unions. These are differences between, and only between, the opinions of the different groups of observers. Citing that as a difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriages is intellectually bankrupt. Given your stance on value systems, I'm pretty sure that is not what you intended.

[ParanoiA]

Lest people wonder how we got to this slightly off topic topic, it is because I suggested that a valid difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage is that many people consider one to be "wrong". However, I don't see how it is possible to prove to them that it isn't wrong, since they will be judging that with their own value system and I see no way to prove a value system invalid.

 

I do appreciate the point you're making here, but doesn't this apply to everything we toss about here in the forums? Everything we bicker about boils down to my value system verses your value system, both of which were arbitrarily chosen, ultimately. So, we're basically just leveraging our value systems against each other, thread after thread. Why stop there now?

 

Unless of course your only point was to answer iNow's charge on valid arguments. In that, you have succeeded, definitely. Outnumbered you are, since emotion is clouding their reception, but that point is made. You don't really get to invalidate someone's opinion. You can refute it, make a mockery of it, embarrass it, prove it to be hypocritical, prove it to be bigotry - but you can't invalidate it. If that's your point here, I'd say you've made it.

 

Beyond that, yeah the arguments are all refutable and unacceptable conclusions to be made by the state.

 

And what's the problem with that' date=' exactly?

 

We have been through this already. Stop trolling.[/quote']

 

Why do you insist on presuming a value judgement over and over again? Homosexuals CAN NOT make babies as the biological result of their union. Period. They can use third parties to create a biological child between ONE of the partners and someone else. And, no, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Again' date=' you have ignored very basic points.

 

1) Most countries in the West want the birth rate to drop;

2) Marriage doesn't make it any more or less possible for anyone to have a child;

3) There is no "Bureau of Genetic Purity" which checks that each baby born is the offspring of two people who are married to each other.

 

If all you've got are false requirements, you should seriously think about letting that one go.[/quote']

 

Again, those are rebuttals to a VALID argument. As long as hetero marriages produce biological offspring that dwarfs the number of homosexual offspring, then it is a valid difference between the two. Again, nothing wrong with it, but it's a fact.

 

Firstly' date=' nobody is offended "because you gave valid differences".

 

Secondly, it does not appear that anyone is 'offended' per se, but that they simply disagree with you, which is completely different. If people are being short with you I think you will find it is because your rationale is tiresome and disingenuous, and your 'differences' are both trivial and immaterial to Proposition 8.[/quote']

 

You're clearly offended. You jump in all of these threads about homosexuality and you're emotive when you do so. iNow asked for valid arguments, and those are valid. They aren't arguments or points that any decent human being would support, but they are valid.

 

They are valid because they are genuine differences that people can choose to assign value to, in one way or another. We can choose to see the value in the notion that homosexual marriages will produce far less offspring when considering overpopulation. We can choose to see value in any of those differences, and they are valid. It has squat to do with our support or incrimination of it.

Edited November 13, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Riogho]

Maybe so many people are against it just because the idea of that is kinda icky.

[pioneer]

Marriage had an objective purpose when it was created. Marrying for love is quite new to marriage. Before that marriage was more or less arranged by the family or match makers. Even in more recent times, marriages were not allowed without the blessing of the family. From a pure practical point of view, putting aside subjective sentiment, this was a more efficient way for making marriages last. It was setting up a team that could coordinate together and coordinate with the extended circle with least pressure.

 

One reason third party marriage arrangements lasted longer, was a third party can be more objective, for another person, because they are not under the same infatuation spell. If a guy is thinking with his lower brain, he can't see if she is good for him or vice versa. If we compare the data before we added the personal subjectivity of "marry for love-infatuation", versus the third party objectivity standard, the ratio of full duration marriages dropped by 30-50%. The subjective marriage approach might have a higher ratio of the subjectivity called love, infatuation and passion, but the marriage duration dropped substantially due to adding subjectivity to something more objective.

 

The question is why would all the previous generations want marriage to last by using the more objective third party match making standard, even of it did not maximize love and passion? It is well established that human babies and children need extra caring and attention beyond other animals. The goal of objective marriage had more to do with the needs of the children. Marriage originally was designed for the future and not maximized to the present.

 

From a practical point of view, it doesn't take that many passion or love sessions to generate a child. But it takes marriage duration to maximize the children throughout the needs of their future, using minimum resources.

 

At the other extreme is a free for all style (no marriage) based on the pure subjectivity of impulse, love and passion between two (or more) people, animals or objects. This has a lower average duration, based on the data. This will provide more genetic diversity, but it is far more resource intensive to provide for the needs of the children. Science appears to have shown, that humans genetics is not changing too fast. However, the mind continues to expand through the advancements of culture. This approach maximizes the biological slow boat but minimizes the needs of the fast boat.

 

If we did away with the current social mop that is required to clean up after the subjective addendum added to objective marriage, the affect on the evolution of the children would be far more obvious. Maybe we can try a social experiment, where we remove the mop, for one year, to see the affect on the future of the children. The ancients may have been objective to this mop requirement, since they probably tried it both ways. Objective marriage was more efficient for the future and therefore closer to natural, since nature does not have the mop.

 

We can't go backwards, socially, to the old fashion objective marriage standard, especially since we have the cultural mop in place to clean up after the subjectivity we added. The question is, are the gays using a subjective appeal to add another subjective layer? Or are there objective reasons that will lower the required mop and therefore be closer to natural, where there no mop requirement.

 

What I would do is run an experiment. Allow the gays to use civil unions for a ten year experiment, to see if the mop increases or decreases. We will work under the assumption the smallest mop is closest to natural since animals don't have a mop. If the mop decreases due to this subjectivity, I would include them in marriage If the mop increases, then you wait a little longer until they get the kinks out and mop starts to get smaller.

 

This is a science forum, which is suppose to work using objectivity or at least the preponderance of the data. What are the objective reasons for gay marriage that enhances the objective reasons for instituting marriage? The impression I get is, we need to push gay marriage into the system before any data is gathered. Once it is in, even if the entire system is made more subjective and less natural efficient, it will be too late to change it. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are objective reasons and data.

[Mr Skeptic]

3. It is different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc.

 

Oh, I just realized why everyone is so pissed. I meant to say that many people find it different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc. I didn't mean to say I did (though of those I consider it different and personally disgusting).

 

And it matters what people think because representatives are supposed to represent them.

 

Again, sorry for the confusion.

 

No you didn't. Your alleged valid arguments don't hold up.

 

I've yet to see any reason why not. Simply asserting something is invalid doesn't make it invalid.

 

And what's the problem with that, exactly?

 

There's no problem. But how does it not being a problem make it not a valid difference? My original statement (that homosexual couples can't make babies) is perfectly true, even if it is irrelevant in your eyes.

 

We have been through this already. Stop trolling.

 

trolling: Messages intended solely to annoy and/or offend other users by going against the clear nature of a board, topic or chat room are not allowed. ...

 

I thought that political correctness was not a prerequisite to this forum, and that supporting one's arguments was actually encouraged.

 

Again, you have ignored very basic points.

 

1) Most countries in the West want the birth rate to drop;

 

How did I ignore that? I made no value judgments, only said that the government has an interest in managing population, and that there is different rate of population growth in homosexual and heterosexual couples. If the government wants to reduce population, then they should support homosexual marriages, no?

 

2) Marriage doesn't make it any more or less possible for anyone to have a child;

 

No, but shooting yourself with a gun doesn't make it any less possible for you to live either. It makes it less probable, which is still a significant difference.

 

3) There is no "Bureau of Genetic Purity" which checks that each baby born is the offspring of two people who are married to each other.

 

No, but that is the expectation of most people.

 

If all you've got are false requirements, you should seriously think about letting that one go.

 

All I have is valid differences. If all you have are false counterarguments and misrepresentations (you are misrepresenting my statements as arguments against gay marriage, rather than arguments that they are significantly different, specifically significantly different in such a way that the state might care.

 

If anyone can show that these are not valid differences, then I will let it go.

 

You really don't. Not when you think it is acceptable to make such spurious comments as "Next thing I know you will be telling me that there is no medicinal difference between blacks and whites, because whites can also get malaria. It really does matter that blacks are more susceptible, even if only by a little".

 

It may have been uncalled for, but I gave that as an example where you would agree that differences are important, even when no value judgments are made with these differences.

 

Firstly, nobody is offended "because you gave valid differences".

 

Good. But why are they getting offended when I give valid differences then?

 

Secondly, it does not appear that anyone is 'offended' per se, but that they simply disagree with you, which is completely different.

 

Perhaps, but when people disagree very strongly they act very similar to when they find something offensive. I have tried to say only true things, so people shouldn't disagree with my statements, though perhaps they are reading more into it than that.

 

If people are being short with you I think you will find it is because your rationale is tiresome and disingenuous, and your 'differences' are both trivial and immaterial to Proposition 8.

 

Perhaps; I was answering iNow's repeated request as to some valid differences between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, that might matter to the state. It is not intended to apply specifically to Proposition 8.

 

Sorry to be so blunt but you really have been asking for that for several posts.

 

Blunt is perfectly fine with me, so long as it is also accurate. While most of what you say is true, I don't see how the parts where you say I am wrong are true since you are disproving a slightly different statement than the one I made.

 

Look, it's simple: nobody is denying that homosexual and heterosexual couples are not different in any way. Of course they are different. But this is entirely unrelated to the concept of LEGAL EQUALITY.

 

True. Sometimes practical differences are valid differences in the eyes of the law, sometimes not.

 

Your mission to prove that homo~ and heterosexual marriages are 'different' is a complete waste of everyone's time, and it's encouraging you to say things that are going to get you into arguments that you can do without. It's not even answering the right question: as iNow pointed out... "I asked what valid reasons there were in favor of the State treating homosexual unions any differently than heterosexual unions."

 

iNow said "viewing" rather than "treating". Perhaps he meant "treating", but that is not what he said. For small enough differences you can view them as different but not treat them different, so the former requires smaller differences than the latter.

 

The nearest you have got to talking about that is population control, and you got that backwards. So excuuuuuse me if I don't have much faith in your analysis of the social ramifications of your position.

 

It is you who added an implied value judgment as to which was better. I said "managing population size" which could be in either direction.

 

Which is a healthy question to ask of any 'proof' that is the exclusive product of a value system, but in this case you are wrong.

 

What you are saying is that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are different because some people think the former is "right" and the latter "wrong", some people think the opposite, some people think both are "right", and doubtless there are some people who for whatever reason think that both are wrong.

 

But these are not intrinsic differences between the unions. These are differences between, and only between, the opinions of the different groups of observers. Citing that as a difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriages is intellectually bankrupt. Given your stance on value systems, I'm pretty sure that is not what you intended.

 

Hm. Many people are against homosexual marriage, and like I said, there is no way to prove them wrong (nor for them to prove supporters wrong). A practical aspect of morality is "might makes right", which can apply both to violence and democracy. To put it another way, supporters of gay marriage have been outvoted. I think that matters to the state...

 

Just wait for the old geezers to die out, the balance will swing the other way eventually.

[Sayonara]

Why do you insist on presuming a value judgement over and over again? Homosexuals CAN NOT make babies as the biological result of their union. Period. They can use third parties to create a biological child between ONE of the partners and someone else. And, no, there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, five points for you ParanoiA, having read back a page I appear to have been mixing questions.

 

Again, those are rebuttals to a VALID argument. As long as hetero marriages produce biological offspring that dwarfs the number of homosexual offspring, then it is a valid difference between the two. Again, nothing wrong with it, but it's a fact.

Skeptic's average offspring question makes sense now

 

You're clearly offended. You jump in all of these threads about homosexuality and you're emotive when you do so.

Yes, many of these threads eventually attract people who post comments I find offensive. I don't really see anything wrong with being emotive as long as the counter is sufficient. In this case I have been a bit off aim.

 

 

Oh, I just realized why everyone is so pissed. I meant to say that many people find it different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc. I didn't mean to say I did (though of those I consider it different and personally disgusting).

 

And it matters what people think because representatives are supposed to represent them.

 

Again, sorry for the confusion.

It has been a funny old day hasn't it?

 

All I have is valid differences. If all you have are false counterarguments and misrepresentations (you are misrepresenting my statements as arguments against gay marriage, rather than arguments that they are significantly different, specifically significantly different in such a way that the state might care.

Mistaking, not misrepresenting.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mistaking, not misrepresenting.

 

Right. Sorry. I realize I mistakenly wrote what I meant as the opinion of a lot of people as my own, and thereby painted a big bullseye on myself.

 

I do appreciate the point you're making here, but doesn't this apply to everything we toss about here in the forums? Everything we bicker about boils down to my value system verses your value system, both of which were arbitrarily chosen, ultimately. So, we're basically just leveraging our value systems against each other, thread after thread. Why stop there now?

 

Right. A value system vs value system will result in both sides making good arguments in their own eyes, while to them it appears that the other's arguments are invalid. It actually is possible to convince someone with a different value system to change their mind, but the arguments they find convincing must be based on their value system.

 

For example, many times people believe contradictory things, or things that are contradictory with reality. It is no problem for them if they are unaware, but if it is brought to their attention they usually want to resolve it. Or they might get angry and stop listening. But if they listen, showing them how their value system leads to a contradiction may change their minds.

 

For example, telling a Christian that there are homosexual animals, and that homosexuality in humans is at least in part based on genetics. This then puts their God in the position of a hypocrite. If God created man, and gave him genes to be homosexual, and God only does good, then how can God claim that what He designed is wrong?

 

However, arguing like this is difficult, especially if you are not familiar with the other's value system. In addition, he could just reject the new information ("no, the studies about homosexuality are done by people with an agenda"), which is why you can't prove it to him.

 

Unless of course your only point was to answer iNow's charge on valid arguments. In that, you have succeeded, definitely. Outnumbered you are, since emotion is clouding their reception, but that point is made. You don't really get to invalidate someone's opinion. You can refute it, make a mockery of it, embarrass it, prove it to be hypocritical, prove it to be bigotry - but you can't invalidate it. If that's your point here, I'd say you've made it.

 

Yes, that is part of my argument that it is an important difference that many find it morally objectionable, and they can't really be proved wrong.

 

This is another application of "might makes right". When many people disagree with someone's opinion, and especially if they give some reasons they disagree or just plain mock it, the oddball feels a pressure to conform. He might not, but others will. And eventually he'll die out, and perhaps be replaced by someone with different opinions. So in this way a population's opinions can slowly be changed.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, many of these threads eventually attract people who post comments I find offensive. I don't really see anything wrong with being emotive as long as the counter is sufficient. In this case I have been a bit off aim.

 

Heh..the Ron Paul thread proves I'm not exempt to such things either.

[iNow]

Oh, I just realized why everyone is so pissed. I meant to say that many people find it different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc. I didn't mean to say I did (though of those I consider it different and personally disgusting).

You just betrayed your own ignorance on this topic. With a single comment, you have blanketly dismissed all homosexuality, love, connection, emotion, caring, and compassion as "personally disgusting."

 

You are arguing the label, not the issue. For example, I don't personally find anything whatsoever disgusting about two people in love, regardless of what plumbing they have in their crotchel region:

 

 

 

Yet, your blanket comment includes an implicit hate for the acts of genuine connection such as the above. Try to think of the actual individuals you are summarily dismissing, and how their feelings and preferences are being disregarded when you make comments like that.

 

 

 

So what? Grow up if you are not comfortable enough with your own sexuality to look at the picture above.

 

 

I mean, seriously... why are either of those supposed to be granted different rights by the state than people like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

If anyone can show that these are not valid differences, then I will let it go.

Validity depends on context. Nobody asked "what are some differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples."

 

The question was if there were valid reasons for the state to allow a right to heterosexuals and deny it to homosexuals, specifically on the subject of legality of union. Your points do not hold up to this criterion. While they are valid in one context, they are not in this arena.

 

If people are to be treated differently and have the laws applied differently based on their sexuality alone, I want to know what specific reasons other than ignorance, bigotry, and discrimination support such an approach.

 

It's been shown that it's genetic, so I fail to see the difference between amending the constitution to ban homosexual unions and amending the constitution to ban brunettes from getting married.

 

I want someone on the "pro-ban" side to detail the reasons why the laws should be applied differently to homosexual couples, and why they should not share the same rights as heterosexual couples.

 

 

 

This isn't about religious concepts of marriage. This isn't about children, and population. This isn't about anything except the unequitible application of the laws and discrimination of rights based on genetic traits, and it's absolutely dispicable that it's almost 2009 and we're still debating such iron age bigotries.

[doG]

I still have yet to see a single valid argument for why homosexual marriage should be viewed any differently whatsoever by the state than hetersexual marriage.

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

2. Male homosexual couples cannot breast feed babies (breast feeding turns out to be rather important' date=' for health and for bonding) even if they adopt them.

3. It is different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc.

4. There aren't a lot of laws about homosexual marriage, and these laws might be different than those about heterosexual marriage, making all of this quite complicated especially when different states disagree.[/quote']

No you didn't. Your alleged valid arguments don't hold up.

I've yet to see any reason why not. Simply asserting something is invalid doesn't make it invalid.

 

Regarding the validity of your points we see that iNow specifically asked for a valid argument why the State should view homosexual marriage differently than heterosexual marriage.

 

Your first point is about homosexuals being unable to reproduce unassisted and yet the ability to reproduce is not a requirement for heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. The State cares not if the man is impotent or the woman infertile. That being the case there's no valid reason the State should treat gay couples any differently and that pretty much makes your first point invalid unless you advocate that heterosexual couples meet some kind of reproductive test. Feel free to demonstrate to us why the State should view homosexual couples that can't reproduce differently than heterosexual couples that can't reproduce.

 

Your second point asserts that marriages of gay men should be seen differently by the State than heterosexual marriages because gay men can't breastfeed. Again, the State has no requirement that a woman in a heterosexual marriage be able to breastfeed so there's no reason for the State to see this as a valid argument against the marriage of gay men. Feel free to demonstrate why the State should have a breastfeeding requirement to validate your argument.

 

Your third point is that the State should see homosexual marriages differently than heterosexual marriages simply because you view such unions as different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc. Some people consider mixed race marriages and interfaith marriages as different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc. as well even if they are between heterosexual couples. Please explain why these value tests should be applied to gay couples and not other couples where their union is seen as disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional and wrong. That would validate this point in the context of iNow's assertion.

 

Your fourth point simply asserts that the States should view homosexual marriages differently than heterosexual marriages because the laws vary from State to State. This is true of heterosexual marriage though since the age requirement and various medical requirements for a marriage license vary from State to State. Why should this variation apply to licenses for homosexuals and not for heterosexuals?

 

Now, why should your points not apply to heterosexual couples if you think they are valid arguments against gay couples.

[Realitycheck]

How about this one. They can get herefied. Call it a herege. It sounds similar enough that you get the idea, but different enough that you know that it is not at all the same. Do they accept their differences and do they try to assert that is same sex is the same as heterosexual relations, that it is all in the head ... Oh wait, it is all in the genes, er, wait a minute, was it in the head or in the genes? It was in the genes, then a decision was made, and reconciliation was made between the head and the genes, but it is not at all and never will be the same.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why should we bother distinguishing?

[iNow]

We should not. Separate but equal is not equal at all.

[Realitycheck]

Because a marriage is a union between mates, nothing more. I can't believe how shortsighted everyone on this forum is.

 

Because gay marriage sounds THAT STUPID.

Edited November 14, 2008 by agentchange

[john5746]

Because a marriage is a union between mates, nothing more. I can't believe how shortsighted everyone on this forum is.

 

And that would make you blind?

[doG]

Because a marriage is a union between mates, nothing more. I can't believe how shortsighted everyone on this forum is.

 

Because gay marriage sounds THAT STUPID.

 

So you are opposed to abstinent marriage as well? Men and women that marry only for the legal benefits with no sexual element?