Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

NO, NO, NO! You are assuming that nothing exists outside of Space/Time and you have nothing with which to support that.
Excuse me, but you are the one assuming, and not a particularly correct assumption at that. You said:

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND"

How can there be space into which space can expand?

Throw away your euclidean notions of space for a while and imagine that space itself has a particular geometry. What lies outside this geometry is NOT space, nor anything anyone can imagine scientifically at the moment.

Personally, I think god's creative will exists outside of this.

You cannot control what sexually arouses you. You can control what you do with that arousal. Two very different things. If you are arguing that a person can change from being hetero to being homo (and we're not talking about bi-sexual people here) then you should be willing to do it for us and prove that it can be done.

You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.

Underlying your position is that homosexual behavior is "less than" in some way when you ask, "Do we give vent to all concieveable sexual urges for the simple reason that they are there?" Knowing fullwell that no one is arguing for that, we are arguing for equal rights for all consenting adults to participate in the LEGAL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE as set forth in US Law.

Marriage is NOT an absolute right. It must adhere to certain LEGAL FORMS. It certainly is something more than the standard contracts between any two consenting adults,

You cannot marry under the age of 18.

You cannot marry more than one person at a time.

You cannot marry a relative within a certain degree of consanguinity.

You cannot marry your pet.

You cannot marry another person of the same gender.

Your right to privacy however, allows you to engage in whatever sexual behavior you wish. You just can't use this as a sole basis of marriage.

[numinus]

It's the laws passed by religious people penalizing homosexual people and denying them legal equality that is the issue. Sex between consenting adults should not be subject to government or religious control unless unwanted babies are being produced--which is hardly an issue with gay sex, is it?
But you said it yourself - you wanted gay marriage LEGALIZED.

What is that if not 'subject to government control'?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Excuse me, but you are the one assuming, and not a particularly correct assumption at that. You said:

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND"

How can there be space into which space can expand? Throw away your euclidean notions of space for a while and imagine that space itself has a particular geometry. What lies outside this geometry is NOT space, nor anything anyone can imagine scientifically at the moment.

Personally, I think god's creative will exists outside of this.

I was using the term space metaphorically. If something is expanding it has to be able to expand in SOME sense. I was using the metaphorical "space" to refer to the area where you are postulating God's Creative Will exists. I would like to refer to that area with some word, but I am willing to allow you to pick the word if that will make you happy.

Marriage is NOT an absolute right. It must adhere to certain LEGAL FORMS. It certainly is something more than the standard contracts between any two consenting adults,

You cannot marry under the age of 18.

You cannot marry more than one person at a time.

You cannot marry a relative within a certain degree of consanguinity.

You cannot marry your pet.

You cannot marry another person of the same gender.

Your right to privacy however, allows you to engage in whatever sexual behavior you wish. You just can't use this as a sole basis of marriage.

No one is arguing that marriage is an absolute right. I have always defined it as it is set forth in US Law, between consenting adults. The only reason that one cannot marry a member of the same gender is the deeply entrenched religious bigotry in this culture. Don't go stupid here, Numi, pets are not consenting adults, neither are refridgerators. Under 18 (differs from state to state) one is not a consenting adult, and plural marriage is not legal in this country at this time but it has been in many countries down through history. Look at how many wives King Solomon had. There is no reason that I know of to ban plural marriages any more than gay marriages.

[Mare Tranquillity]

But you said it yourself - you wanted gay marriage LEGALIZED.

What is that if not 'subject to government control'?

No, I want the control removed, right now the government interferes on the basis of a bunch of religious myths and penalizes homosexual people for no good reason. I want that to end, the only way for that to happen is for the government to change the religious-based laws it currently has on the books.

[Segep]

Einstein's field equations (minus the cosmological constant) predicts 3 distinct geometries of the universe - spherical, flat, and pseudo-spherical. Depending on the geometry, the universe is either, contracting, static or expanding. And since we are talking about symmetrical geometries, its origin is not at the its expanding horizon.

Hubble observed that the universe is indeed expanding, at a more or less stable or reduced rate.



A rational law or a principle is merely that which govern 'like things'. The laws of physics govern matter and energy, the laws of mathematics, that of numbers and their operations, and so forth.

A statement of equality among human persons implies an operation within a set of 'like things'. And if there is 'sameness' within human nature, then a law or principle that is applicable to it equally, must exist.

Understand?

Not really, because none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. The only "sameness" in human nature that pertains to this discussion is that nobody can control who they are attracted to.



So what's the point of legislating something that you do in your own bedroom, eh?

Rather than keep it private, as is your right, you in fact invite other people to your bedroom.

No offense, but you are not invited to my bedroom. If you're in there it's because you want to be there.

[r0beph]

Excuse me, but you are the one assuming, and not a particularly correct assumption at that. You said:

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND"

How can there be space into which space can expand?

Throw away your euclidean notions of space for a while and imagine that space itself has a particular geometry. What lies outside this geometry is NOT space, nor anything anyone can imagine scientifically at the moment.

Personally, I think god's creative will exists outside of this.



You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.



Marriage is NOT an absolute right. It must adhere to certain LEGAL FORMS. It certainly is something more than the standard contracts between any two consenting adults,

You cannot marry under the age of 18.

You cannot marry more than one person at a time.

You cannot marry a relative within a certain degree of consanguinity.

You cannot marry your pet.

You cannot marry another person of the same gender.

Your right to privacy however, allows you to engage in whatever sexual behavior you wish. You just can't use this as a sole basis of marriage.


*sigh* So why shouldn't gays marry? listing what marriages entail serves nothing in your argument. There are two marriages, Legal and religious, I don't have to be christian to get married, I don't have to be muslim to get married, I can simply go to the courthouse and get a marriage license with a consenting woman and thus be married. So provide for me a valid reasoning that this should NOT be allowed for homosexual couples? And saying "because the law says so" is very far from valid. Denying couples marriage puts them at an extreme disadvantage to insurance claims, taxation, and other factors. You lose nothing by allowing them a marriage license, and you gain justice.

You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.

Of course you can change how you manifest them. But let's try it this way. Let's take hunger for example.

You are hungry, and have two foods to choose from, Chicken or Fermented green beans.

For each person their attractant gender is the chicken, the other the rotten beans.

This may seem silly but seriously, if suddenly the world flipped upside down and said that sleeping with a woman, as a male, was WRONG. Would you sleep with men?

[Coyote]

Excuse me, but you are the one assuming, and not a particularly correct assumption at that. You said:

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND"

How can there be space into which space can expand?

Throw away your euclidean notions of space for a while and imagine that space itself has a particular geometry. What lies outside this geometry is NOT space, nor anything anyone can imagine scientifically at the moment.

Personally, I think god's creative will exists outside of this.



You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.



Marriage is NOT an absolute right. It must adhere to certain LEGAL FORMS. It certainly is something more than the standard contracts between any two consenting adults,

You cannot marry under the age of 18.

You cannot marry more than one person at a time.

You cannot marry a relative within a certain degree of consanguinity.

You cannot marry your pet.

You cannot marry another person of the same gender.

Your right to privacy however, allows you to engage in whatever sexual behavior you wish. You just can't use this as a sole basis of marriage.


Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. That's it.

A pet can't consent.

A close relative can consent but there are possible genetic problems if they have children.

A child can not consent.

Who cares if people have more then one spouse? Why shouldn't they?

Except for bigamy every one of those involves a partner who is not consenting or the potential for medical problems.

Gay marriage doesn't have that problem and that whole argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same legal benifits and protections with the consenting partner of their choice that marriage provides heterosexuals?

Why should they NOT marry if they marry?

[Coyote]

So what's the point of legislating something that you do in your own bedroom, eh?

Rather than keep it private, as is your right, you in fact invite other people to your bedroom.

How do you come to that conclusion?

[numinus]

I was using the term space metaphorically. If something is expanding it has to be able to expand in SOME sense. I was using the metaphorical "space" to refer to the area where you are postulating God's Creative Will exists. I would like to refer to that area with some word, but I am willing to allow you to pick the word if that will make you happy.

Space is FINITE. Our environment is FINITE. Time is FINITE.

That's that.

No one is arguing that marriage is an absolute right. I have always defined it as it is set forth in US Law, between consenting adults. The only reason that one cannot marry a member of the same gender is the deeply entrenched religious bigotry in this culture.

No. It is deeply entrenched in the natural rights of man - the right to motherhood and the rights of children, to be precise.

Don't go stupid here, Numi, pets are not consenting adults, neither are refridgerators. Under 18 (differs from state to state) one is not a consenting adult, and plural marriage is not legal in this country at this time but it has been in many countries down through history. Look at how many wives King Solomon had. There is no reason that I know of to ban plural marriages any more than gay marriages.

No.

The marital institution SERVES a set of the natural rights of man.

If a union or a contract merely manifests an agreement between 'consenting adults', then there is NOTHING for the marital institution to serve.

Even the free exercise of religion can't be accomodated in this definition of marriage (note the supreme court opinion regarding mormon polygamy).

As for the marriage of minors, it is again rooted on the rights of children, and NOT some arbitrary definition of legal age.

As for animals and inanimate objects, nothing is stopping you from treating them like your husband or wife. You just can't make the state recognize such a 'union' for the same reason stated above.

Bottom line - one cannot suppose to attach the impetus of the state to something that is exclusively the affair of 'consenting adults'.

[numinus]

Not really, because none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. The only "sameness" in human nature that pertains to this discussion is that nobody can control who they are attracted to.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue at hand.

The cornerstone of the law postulates the INHERENT EQUALITY of all human persons. This equality does not make sense when applied to the rights consequent to one's biological nature like motherhood and children.

No offense, but you are not invited to my bedroom. If you're in there it's because you want to be there.

None taken.

When you wish to legalize what goes on in your bedroom, then you are necessarily inviting me into it for the simple reason that the government you are petitioning is MY government as well.

[numinus]

*sigh* So why shouldn't gays marry? listing what marriages entail serves nothing in your argument. There are two marriages, Legal and religious, I don't have to be christian to get married, I don't have to be muslim to get married, I can simply go to the courthouse and get a marriage license with a consenting woman and thus be married. So provide for me a valid reasoning that this should NOT be allowed for homosexual couples? And saying "because the law says so" is very far from valid. Denying couples marriage puts them at an extreme disadvantage to insurance claims, taxation, and other factors. You lose nothing by allowing them a marriage license, and you gain justice.

Sigh

The marital institution is directly related to the right of women to motherhood and the rights of children as stated in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN - the us being a signatory of BOTH documents.

Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

You cannot change your appetites - only the way you manifest them.

Of course you can change how you manifest them. But let's try it this way. Let's take hunger for example.

You are hungry, and have two foods to choose from, Chicken or Fermented green beans.

For each person their attractant gender is the chicken, the other the rotten beans.

This may seem silly but seriously, if suddenly the world flipped upside down and said that sleeping with a woman, as a male, was WRONG. Would you sleep with men?

What has this got to do with legislating what is purely a personal choice?

Do you even wish to legislate such a thing?

[numinus]

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. That's it.

No. It is not merely a contract between two consenting adults.

No other contract results in the birth of another human being, the responsibility consequent to the well-being of this person, and the family relations that accrue from it.

A pet can't consent.

But it can be the subject of a contract. And marriage, as you claim, is merely a contract.

A close relative can consent but there are possible genetic problems if they have children.

Exactly. The remote possibilty of endangering the well-being of the children that results from the union is enough reason to invalidate it.

The state is saying - proceed with your inclinations and choices at YOUR OWN RISK.

A child can not consent.

Of course a child can consent - only not legally binding. It has something to do with the rights of children.

Who cares if people have more then one spouse? Why shouldn't they?

Why shouldn't they indeed?!

The state's reasons for not making it legal, however, is quite clear.

A polygamous family setting is simply not the environment into which one brings children into this particular society.

Except for bigamy every one of those involves a partner who is not consenting or the potential for medical problems.

And since when does 'potential for medical problems' been cause for the state to prohibit one's choice, hmm?

Gay marriage doesn't have that problem and that whole argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

A homosexual union does not correspond to the right of motherhood nor the rights of children. Therefore, there is no reason to cover it within the institution of marriage.

Its that simple.

Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same legal benifits and protections with the consenting partner of their choice that marriage provides heterosexuals?

Because it will never result in family relations.

Why should they NOT marry if they marry?

They can do as they wish.

Just don't call it a marriage.

[numinus]

How do you come to that conclusion?

Because the government you are asking to legalize it is also everybody else's government.

[Coyote]

No. It is not merely a contract between two consenting adults.

No other contract results in the birth of another human being, the responsibility consequent to the well-being of this person, and the family relations that accrue from it.


It's a contract between two consenting adults. The issue of children is incidental to the contract. Originally, it was a political and legal contract to deal with inheritance and property rights and alliances. Many of these contracts do not result in children. If a couple does not have children, are they not allowed to call themselves "married"? What if a gay couple has children?



But it can be the subject of a contract. And marriage, as you claim, is merely a contract.

I claim it is a contract between consenting adults. That is the the important qualifier. In addition, a non-human animal can not enter into a legally binding contract.


Exactly. The remote possibilty of endangering the well-being of the children that results from the union is enough reason to invalidate it.

The state is saying - proceed with your inclinations and choices at YOUR OWN RISK.


However, these risks do not apply to gay unions.


Of course a child can consent - only not legally binding. It has something to do with the rights of children.


When I talk about "consent" I am talking about legally binding consent.


Why shouldn't they indeed?!

The state's reasons for not making it legal, however, is quite clear.

A polygamous family setting is simply not the environment into which one brings children into this particular society.


Actually the only reason it is illegal by the state is because of the religious values of a majority. That's it. I'm not saying I am pro-polygamy, only that there really isn't a logical reason to forbid it.


A homosexual union does not correspond to the right of motherhood nor the rights of children. Therefore, there is no reason to cover it within the institution of marriage.


What right of motherhood? How are the rights of children affected? Gay couples can be parents as well if that is an issue.


Because it will never result in family relations.


Neither will the marriage of infertile couples. So what?

[Coyote]

Because the government you are asking to legalize it is also everybody else's government.

Then I would assume the very fact that the government sanctions heterosexual marriage is not keeping it private but in fact inviting other people to your bedroom?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Space is FINITE. Our environment is FINITE. Time is FINITE.
That's that.
This is another example of why one cannot discuss with you, here you are again making ABSOLUTE statements with nothing to back them up. Humans have no proof if time and space are infinite.

No. It is deeply entrenched in the natural rights of man - the right to motherhood and the rights of children, to be precise.
Meaningless terms, empty rhetoric, "the right to motherhood", yet you would deny that "right" to a lesbian, but not to a woman who had to use a fertility clinic to become pregnant.



No. The marital institution SERVES a set of the natural rights of man.
You have not defined the "natural rights of man" therefore you have said nothing.

If a union or a contract merely manifests an agreement between 'consenting adults', then there is NOTHING for the marital institution to serve.
Nothing except the consenting adults who enter into the legal contract, and that would include all the heterosexual couples--but I guess you are saying that they aren't consenting adults, are you?

Even the free exercise of religion can't be accomodated in this definition of marriage (note the supreme court opinion regarding mormon polygamy).
That's silly, of course you can exercise freedom of religion, YOU JUST CAN'T LEGALIZE YOUR VERSION OF RELIGION AND FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO FOLLOW IT. Freedom of religion means ALL religions--like it or not.

As for the marriage of minors, it is again rooted on the rights of children, and NOT some arbitrary definition of legal age.

As for animals and inanimate objects, nothing is stopping you from treating them like your husband or wife. You just can't make the state recognize such a 'union' for the same reason stated above.

Bottom line - one cannot suppose to attach the impetus of the state to something that is exclusively the affair of 'consenting adults'.

This whole paragraph is nonsense. The impetus of the State can be attached to any damn thing that the law says it can be. Right now the law is giving impetus to Christian religious myths and dogma because Christians had the votes to abrogate the Constitutional right to equal protection. As Christian influence wanes people are coming to realize that many rights have been usurped by religious dogma and laws based on religious myths despite Constitutional guarantees.

We (not you) are discussing US Law and the legal contract of marriage as codified in those US Laws. Consenting adults are the only people allowed to marry and in the case of homosexual consenting adults they have been singled out and denied the legal contract of marriage for no reason except religious dogma--which is an abrogation of the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

I don't know, Num, you might be better of going back to Kant.

[Mare Tranquillity]

When you wish to legalize what goes on in your bedroom, then you are necessarily inviting me into it for the simple reason that the government you are petitioning is MY government as well.

You have the cart before the horse, when YOUR government crashed into Coyote's bedroom and made Coyote's activities ILLEGAL, your government trampled on Coyote's Constitutional rights because of religious dogma. All Coyote is doing now is trying to win back his legal and Constitutional rights that were stolen by the religious majority. All he is asking for is what you claim for yourself.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sigh

The marital institution is directly related to the right of women to motherhood and the rights of children as stated in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN - the us being a signatory of BOTH documents.

Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?
Of course, homosexual people have children all the time. Are you really going to argue that children who are adopted or are the product of in vitro fertilization are somehow "less than" children who are the product of peno/vaginal intercourse? Are the families raising these children "less than" in some way and therefore not deserving of equal rights? If you are going to argue that a homosexual couple's relationship is "less than" because they don't have children, then I think you will have to acknowledge that a heterosexual couple's realtionship is also "less than" if they do not have children. It's called equality and there is no rational argument for excluding the few percent of homosexual people from the legal institution of marriage.

What has this got to do with legislating what is purely a personal choice?
Do you even wish to legislate such a thing?
Heterosexual people legislated their personal choice in such a way as to deny legal rights to other people. So why should not sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander? If sexual orientation is a personal choice for homosexuals then it has to be for heterosexuals too, therefore the two "choices" should still be equal in the eyes of the law.

[r0beph]

Sigh
The marital institution is directly related to the right of women to motherhood and the rights of children as stated in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN - the us being a signatory of BOTH documents.

Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

What has this got to do with legislating what is purely a personal choice?

Do you even wish to legislate such a thing?

If that's the case (in bold) why does insurance / taxation etc related to marriage, that's the biggest issue. I call shenanigans.

Article 23
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

The right of men and women (not of a man and a woman) does not have quantifiers related to the number of gender inclusive to the marriage. This has NO baring on the rights of women or children save the inclusion of the provisionary requirement for child protection in the case of dissolution (divorce). You're interpretation is outside of the obvious intention.

as for your question: Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

cleary supports [any man] (including those who wish to marry men...) and [any woman] (including those who wish to marry women). as there is again, no quantifier or designation that constitutes man + woman as the prerequisite to be subject to these inherent rights.

So as to your argument, you've sealed it yourself. Clearly denying homosexuals marriage is a violation of a treatise we are signatory to, since were the intention to provide ONLY for a man and a woman, it would have been worded as such rather than simply stating Men and Women to include all persons...good day sir.

[jb_1430]

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

cleary supports [any man] (including those who wish to marry men...) and [any woman] (including those who wish to marry women).

Just click the heels of your ruby read slippers and say three times, "there's no place like home".

[Mare Tranquillity]

Just click the heels of your ruby read slippers and say three times, "there's no place like home".

You are right, even if you are being raised by two men or two women. Glad you agree.:)

[r0beph]

Just click the heels of your ruby read slippers and say three times, "there's no place like home".

please explain what exactly you mean here...I really don't understand your point.

[Segep]

Because it will never result in family relations.

They can do as they wish.

Just don't call it a marriage.

http://stopsterilemarriage.com/images/cafepress-ssm-white.png (http://www.stopsterilemarriage.com/)<~~~Link

[jb_1430]

please explain what exactly you mean here...I really don't understand your point.

Your statement,

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

cleary supports [any man] (including those who wish to marry men...) and [any woman] (including those who wish to marry women). as there is again, no quantifier or designation that constitutes man + woman as the prerequisite to be subject to these inherent rights.



PURE FANTASY. None of the human rights conventions have included even a mention of sexual orientation or gender identity and such language is always proposed, debated and rejected. Most recently in the DOHA declarations in 2004.

[r0beph]

Your statement,



PURE FANTASY. None of the human rights conventions have included even a mention of sexual orientation or gender identity and such language is always proposed, debated and rejected. Most recently in the DOHA declarations in 2004.


what are you talking about? I quoted the UNDoHR =s

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1060)


this has nothing to do with gender "identity" nor orientation, nor was that my intent. Simply stating to numinus that even though the wording distinctly mentions men and women, it makes no statement in regards to which gender either should be intent on marrying only that it is inherent that they BE ALLOWED... I'm still lost as to your interpretation of what I said.


That being said, I understand the argument as marriage should be maintained for procreational purposes, however I don't see any problem with those who cannot procreate, sterile, hermaphroditic, gay, lesbian, or otherwise couples without the ability to procreate, marrying. The idealism put forth by that argument makes no sense outside of a religious pseudomorality. That ideology itself is pure fantasy. However, it is not oz like, more of a brothers grimm fair.

[numinus]

It's a contract between two consenting adults. The issue of children is incidental to the contract. Originally, it was a political and legal contract to deal with inheritance and property rights and alliances. Many of these contracts do not result in children. If a couple does not have children, are they not allowed to call themselves "married"? What if a gay couple has children?

Inheritance and property rights are direct results of the FAMILY RELATIONS that accrue from marriage.

At the heart of these family relations are the biological ties consequent to the union BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

Granted that individual couples enter into marriage for whatever reason they can imagine.

In the point of view of the state, however, the institution of marriage, and the rights that are granted therein, cannot be for anything other than this fundamental human relation in society - the FAMILY.

I claim it is a contract between consenting adults. That is the the important qualifier. In addition, a non-human animal can not enter into a legally binding contract.

If it is like any other contract, then the agreement binds only the parties involved therein, no?

One cannot ask for certain privileges from the government just because one entered into a contract with another 'consenting adult', no?

And what exactly are the privileges gained in the marital institution that is absent from any other contract? They relate directly to FAMILY RELATIONS, do they not?

And so, your argument has gone full circle!

However, these risks do not apply to gay unions.

And neither do they relate to children being produced within the union.

When I talk about "consent" I am talking about legally binding consent.

But the thing is, legally binding consent is not the issue with minors. The issue is their welfare. If a minor entered into a simple agreement with an adult, the worst that could happen is that the agreement is null and void.

However, if a minor consents to sexual intercourse with an adult, the adult is liable for a criminal offense, whether he is aware of the age or not.

Actually the only reason it is illegal by the state is because of the religious values of a majority. That's it. I'm not saying I am pro-polygamy, only that there really isn't a logical reason to forbid it.

But there is a logical reason for it.

Inherent in the institution of marriage is an ideal concept of family, which the state endorses.

It can't be for religious values since the constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. But it stops short of polygamy, even though polygamy is being argued for precisely religious reasons.

And so, you can exercise your religion all you want, but you cannot expect the state to make this exercise legally binding, especially when it conflicts with certain principles the state is contemplating.

What right of motherhood?

A woman has the inalienable right to become a mother. This is clearly derived from the natural fecundity of her GENDER. And because she has this right, the state must create an atmosphere conducive to this decision.

A man, on the other hand, has NO inalienable right to fatherhood. His fatherhood is dependent entirely upon the sufferance of his partner, and formalized within the legal institution of marriage.

How are the rights of children affected?

The upbringing of children rests INDEFEASIBLY within the biological mother, and extends to the father through marriage. The only thing that can nullify this is the child's welfare. In fact, no law nor contract can diminish nor supersed this.

This bond is not only the child's right, but also represents the ideal conditions of his welfare.

Gay couples can be parents as well if that is an issue.

The parenthood of homosexual men is a privilege conferred ENTIRELY within the subjective view of the state - in regard to orphans. The primary consideration is the conditions of family the child has a right to if he had biological parents.

The parenthood of a homosexual woman, on the other hand, arises from her natural biological fecundity. 'Paternity' rests on her own free choice and that of her partner, without the interference of the government, as it should be.

Neither will the marriage of infertile couples. So what?

But infertility is a condition that is within human reason to correct, in regards to human reproductive potential. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is NOT.

[jb_1430]

Pure fantasy. The UNDHR in no way "supports" same sex marriage. It is only your desparate need to believe so that leads to your conclusion. The gays have sought to amend the declarations because they do no "support" marriage between same sex partners. Precisely the opposite of what you claim.


what are you talking about? I quoted the UNDoHR =s

[B][URL="http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1060"]Article 16...

[numinus]

Then I would assume the very fact that the government sanctions heterosexual marriage is not keeping it private but in fact inviting other people to your bedroom?

Incorrect.

The government sanctions marriage as it relates to family relations - not the sexual act.

And since no family relations can ever come from a homosexual union, what is there to legalize except the sexual act?

[Mare Tranquillity]

what are you talking about? I quoted the UNDoHR =s

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1060)


this has nothing to do with gender "identity" nor orientation, nor was that my intent. Simply stating to numinus that even though the wording distinctly mentions men and women, it makes no statement in regards to which gender either should be intent on marrying only that it is inherent that they BE ALLOWED... I'm still lost as to your interpretation of what I said.


That being said, I understand the argument as marriage should be maintained for procreational purposes, however I don't see any problem with those who cannot procreate, sterile, hermaphroditic, gay, lesbian, or otherwise couples without the ability to procreate, marrying. The idealism put forth by that argument makes no sense outside of a religious pseudomorality. That ideology itself is pure fantasy. However, it is not oz like, more of a brothers grimm fair.

This argument is based on the two different kinds of interpretation placed on law by different groups. In some situations something is legal as long as the law does not specifically DENY its legality, conversely in some situations everything is illegal unless it is specifically ALLOWED in the wording of the law.

This sometimes referred to as interpreting the law "broadly" or "narrowly". The fact is that the law is ambiguous on this point and each one of you is correctly arguing from one of the two positions. In the US we have tended to interpret law broadly so as to give the greatest amount of freedom possible, but people who are unhappy with any activity tend to try to get the law read narrowly--religious people to a large extent--as a way of restricting freedom. Of late, anti-discrimation law has been read narrowly, if someone is not specifically named in the law then they are excluded (transgendered people have been excluded from anti-gay legislation by the courts even though almost everybody in this silly country thinks trannies are gay). Again, religious people have been behind this narrow definition of the law because they are fighting against other people's sexual expression every step of the way, they want a terribly narrow definition of "acceptable sexuality" based on their religious myths and taboos and they are willing to ignore all science and reason, and even re-write law to force others to comply with their relgion's tenets.

[numinus]

This is another example of why one cannot discuss with you, here you are again making ABSOLUTE statements with nothing to back them up. Humans have no proof if time and space are infinite.

Nothing to back them up, you say?

You claim the universe is infinite metaphorically.

I claim the universe is finite scientifically.

Who exactly is making statements with nothing to back them up, eh?

Meaningless terms, empty rhetoric, "the right to motherhood", yet you would deny that "right" to a lesbian, but not to a woman who had to use a fertility clinic to become pregnant.

A lesbian has the right to motherhood. Parenthood of her biological child, however, cannot be legally transferred to her lesbian partner.

And while her lesbian partner may act as 'de facto' parent, that is within the exclusive province of her choice. The state may not legally bind her to it whenever she chooses otherwise.

You have not defined the "natural rights of man" therefore you have said nothing.

You need only browse social and political philosophies to realize that the natural rights of man are indeed defined.

Nothing except the consenting adults who enter into the legal contract, and that would include all the heterosexual couples--but I guess you are saying that they aren't consenting adults, are you?

A contract is an agreement between parties. There is no reason for the government to interfere with an agreement between consenting adults.

But a marriage, on the other hand, involves the lives of children that result from this union. So there are compelling reasons for the government to involve itself in marriage.

That's silly, of course you can exercise freedom of religion, YOU JUST CAN'T LEGALIZE YOUR VERSION OF RELIGION AND FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO FOLLOW IT. Freedom of religion means ALL religions--like it or not.

EXACTLY!

If one cannot compel the government to attach legal impetus to one's free exercise of religion (which is guaranteed in the constitution), what makes you think you can in regards to your choice of sexual orientation, eh?


This whole paragraph is nonsense. The impetus of the State can be attached to any damn thing that the law says it can be. Right now the law is giving impetus to Christian religious myths and dogma because Christians had the votes to abrogate the Constitutional right to equal protection.

And how exactly is that being done, eh?

As Christian influence wanes people are coming to realize that many rights have been usurped by religious dogma and laws based on religious myths despite Constitutional guarantees.

And what rights are those, eh?

We (not you) are discussing US Law and the legal contract of marriage as codified in those US Laws. Consenting adults are the only people allowed to marry and in the case of homosexual consenting adults they have been singled out and denied the legal contract of marriage for no reason except religious dogma--which is an abrogation of the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Consenting homosexual adults have every right to live their own lives as they please. If cohabitation is their thing, nothing is stopping them.

They cannot, however, claim certain privileges granted married couples because these privileges are there as the result to FAMILY RELATIONS.

And what, exactly, are these privileges? Mostly tax breaks. All other privileges can be had with the help of even the most mediocre lawyer and some foresight.

I don't know, Num, you might be better of going back to Kant.

You think?

I find your interpretation of the equal application of the law a little absurd.

Are you in favor of giving an inalienable right to motherhood, the basis of all family relations and hence the marital institution, to gay men?

If a female employee is given maternity leave, is it logical to give this to male employees as well?

And in divorce proceedings, is the right of the husband to custody of the children equal to that of the wife?

And if some couples can adopt, why not everyone?

Spare me this patently defective notion of equality.

[numinus]

You have the cart before the horse, when YOUR government crashed into Coyote's bedroom and made Coyote's activities ILLEGAL, your government trampled on Coyote's Constitutional rights because of religious dogma. All Coyote is doing now is trying to win back his legal and Constitutional rights that were stolen by the religious majority. All he is asking for is what you claim for yourself.

Since when is sex illegal?

Prostitution is illegal - not consensual sex.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Incorrect.

The government sanctions marriage as it relates to family relations - not the sexual act.

And since no family relations can ever come from a homosexual union, what is there to legalize except the sexual act?

The fallacy in your argument is bolded, the idea that homosexual people never have children, cannot have children is nonsense as demonstrated by the tens of thousands of homosexual families in this country alone. Homosexuals can have children through all the same ways that any other couple can have them--including surrogacy or in vitro fertilization like sterile hetero couples do.

You want to define "family relations" by one single kind of sex act and restrict legal rights based on performing that one single kind of sex act, you practically worship that one single kind of sex act--it becomes the be-all and end-all of your legal existence, when in point of fact it is just one of many kinds of sex acts and has no more intrinsic value than other. It does have utilitarian value in that it can produce offspring sometimes, but it isn't the only way to have children so it cannot be the Holy Grail that you are trying to make it out to be.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Since when is sex illegal?

Prostitution is illegal - not consensual sex.

Until the sodomy laws were declared un-Constitutional homosexuality was a felony in many places. I know a woman who had her son taken from her by the courts in Texas because she was in a lesbian relationship. She was arrested at work, handcuffed, placed in jail, her own Mother testified against her in court and she was declared an unfit Mother, convicted of the felony of having homosexual relations, and she has never seen her 6 year old son again.

You have got to be a very young man.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing to back them up, you say?

You claim the universe is infinite metaphorically.

I claim the universe is finite scientifically.

Who exactly is making statements with nothing to back them up, eh?


I never said that space was metaphorically infinite. At least quote me correctly if you are going to try to refute me.

YOU postulated that God's Will existed outside of space/time. I referred to the area where God's Will existed as a "space" metaphorically--how else could I refer to it since, according to you, it exists outside of space/time. I needed some way to refer to that God's Will area which may very well be infinite. Are you now saying that the God's Will area (come up with your own description of that area) is NOT infinite? Are you placing limits on God by doing so?

[numinus]

Of course, homosexual people have children all the time.

They have children within the union?

Please!

Are you really going to argue that children who are adopted

Children who have no surviving parents or relatives become the responsibility of the state.

And because the state is made responsible, the standards of adoption are ENTIRELY within its prerogative.

or are the product of in vitro fertilization are somehow "less than" children who are the product of peno/vaginal intercourse?

A woman has the RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, however else she chooses to get pregnant.

Are the families raising these children "less than" in some way and therefore not deserving of equal rights?

They deserve equal rights.

Tax breaks are not rights - they are privileges. Adoption is not a right - it is a privilege.

What rights do you think are conferred to married couples that cannot be enjoyed by homosexual ones?

If you are going to argue that a homosexual couple's relationship is "less than" because they don't have children, then I think you will have to acknowledge that a heterosexual couple's realtionship is also "less than" if they do not have children.

Correct.

Infertility is a ground for nullification of a marriage.

It's called equality and there is no rational argument for excluding the few percent of homosexual people from the legal institution of marriage.

They can enter into the legal institution of marriage. Only with another person of different gender. Same goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Equality enough for you?

Heterosexual people legislated their personal choice in such a way as to deny legal rights to other people. So why should not sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander?

Nobody legislated marriage.

It is the natural union between a man and a woman for the purpose of FAMILY.

And if the purpose is family within the union, then a homosexual relation is NOT AN OPTION.

It has been this way long before any conception of law came to be.

If sexual orientation is a personal choice for homosexuals then it has to be for heterosexuals too, therefore the two "choices" should still be equal in the eyes of the law.

Correct.

The law cannot interfere in the peaceful exercise of your choices.

However, a child's existence was never the choice of the child. The child, more than anyone in any marriage, requires the protection of the state.

[jb_1430]

This argument is based on the two different kinds of interpretation placed on law by different groups. In some situations something is legal as long as the law does not specifically DENY its legality, conversely in some situations everything is illegal unless it is specifically ALLOWED in the wording of the law.

This sometimes referred to as interpreting the law "broadly" or "narrowly". The fact is that the law is ambiguous on this point and each one of you is correctly arguing from one of the two positions.

Nooooo. The UDHR is not about whether gay marriage is "legal" or "illegal". This is a declaration of human rights. Nobody is arguing that gay marriage is not a Human right and therefore should not be allowed. robpeh is arguing for an interpretation he wishes were true. I, the interpretation that was intended when written in 1948 and has been applied ever since.


Can there be any doubt that those delegates more than 50 years ago wanted to protect the natural marriage union and family, comprised of a husband, wife and children?
http://www.ucg.org/commentary/politicians.htm



and thats why


The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLARC) is seeking to amend the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to include the protection of homosexuality.
http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs/wcf3_landolt.htm


AND, even that is in the context of trying to secure rights for gays in countries where homosexuality is criminalized by law and openly and freely discriminated against by the culture, and doesnt even address any "right" to marriage.


Yet as the century draws to a close, a sizeable minority of the world's population continues to be denied full membership of that ''human family''. Governments around the world deploy an array of repressive laws and practices to deprive their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens of their dignity and to deny them their basic human rights. Lesbian and gay people are imprisoned under laws which police the bedroom and criminalize a kiss; they are tortured to extract confessions of ''deviance'' and raped to ''cure'' them of it; they are killed by ''death squads'' in societies which view them as ''disposables''; they are executed by the state which portrays them as a threat to society.

These are violations of some of the fundamental rights which the UDHR seeks to protect and which AI campaigns to defend.
http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/E5DAC0E3A6A36FEE80256A4C00522F56?Open&Highlight=2,gay


You need to live in OZ to believe that



2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

cleary supports [any man] (including those who wish to marry men...) and [any woman] (including those who wish to marry women).

and that the governments of the world, except for 5 nations and Mass., are all violating anybody's declared human rights.

[vyo476]

They have children within the union?

Please!

You're right, a man and a man cannot produce a child alone. They shouldn't be allowed to get married. And while we're at it, let's ban all sterile people from getting married - especially those sterile people who would marry fertile people, those scoundrels. It'd be a real shame if the world's burgeoning surplus population became more tolerable.

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER.

Infertility is a ground for nullification of a marriage.

Yes, but infertility is not a grounds for not allowing them to get married in the first place.

A woman has the RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, however else she chooses to get pregnant.

So she has the right to become a mother by whatever means she chooses, but not to become a mother while married to the consenting person of her choice - because she cannot become a mother the consenting person of her choice biologically if that consenting person is another female. This presupposes that the only point of marriage is to biologically produce offspring and that's just a crock.

What rights do you think are conferred to married couples that cannot be enjoyed by homosexual ones?

I don't think it's any specific right other than the right to be equal. Heterosexuals are allowed to get married, and if homosexuals are to be considered fully and completely equal, they should be, too.

They can enter into the legal institution of marriage. Only with another person of different gender. Same goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Equality enough for you?

The definition of marriage was formed in a time when homosexuality was considered to be wrong and evil. It's defined as a union between a man and a woman because any other kind of union would have been blasphemous - even one hundred years ago. We've updated how we think of homosexuality - we ought to update the definition of marriage, too. It's only fair.

It is the natural union between a man and a woman for the purpose of FAMILY.

And if the purpose is family within the union, then a homosexual relation is NOT AN OPTION.

It has been this way long before any conception of law came to be.

The natural purpose of sexuality is the creation of children. The natural purpose of marriage is to join together the parents who will raise the child (or children). Should we force all married couples to breed? Once again, should we outlaw the marriage of sterilized heterosexuals?

People screw to make kids. They get married so that those kids have a stable family structure to grow up in. People don't get married to have kids - they get married before having children to set up that structure preemptively and give it time to grow. If the one main reason for marriage was the production of children than the wedding ceremony would just be the bride and groom ****ing on stage.

However, a child's existence was never the choice of the child. The child, more than anyone in any marriage, requires the protection of the state.

You've stated that the only purpose of marriage is to produce children, right? And that a homosexual marriage cannot produce children. Therefore, how are you "protecting" children by disallowing homosexual marriage? The whole point of your argument is that there wouldn't be any children to protect.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Vyo answered your post quite nicely, I thought, thank you, Vyo.:)

Tax breaks are not rights - they are privileges. Adoption is not a right - it is a privilege.
A privilege codified into law becomes a right for those whom the law specifies the benefit and one can go to court to force the granting of this right. Adoption should be a right for married couples so that if one enters the marriage with a child the other person has the right to adopt that child and become a legal family member for them, should they? That would protect the child if their natural parent was killed. So why deny this to a lesbian couple? Or a gay male couple? If your interest is protecting the child, then anyone with a child--no matter what legal way they obtained the child: surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, adoption--should be given the same rights to guarantee the child's protection.

What rights do you think are conferred to married couples that cannot be enjoyed by homosexual ones?
There are 1049 specific rights and privileges (according to the Government Accounting Office) reserved for legally married people in US Law, none of those are available to homosexual people because they are denied legal marriage.

Infertility is a ground for nullification of a marriage.
So does this mean that if you married a person and swore before God and church full of your friends and family to love them till death do you part, that you would throw them out like last week's garbage if it turns out that they are incapable of bearing children?

[jb_1430]

This presupposes that the only point of marriage is to biologically produce offspring and that's just a crock.


Why people get married isnt the issue. In some countries you get married because your dad sold you for a dowry. Why the government has decided to license and regulate opposite sex marriage is the issue. Only a man and a woman can produce their child.

[jb_1430]

There are 1049 specific rights and privileges (according to the Government Accounting Office) reserved for legally married people in US Law, none of those are available to homosexual people

None of them are available to my girlfreind and I. On what basis do you think justifies denying me those rights?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why people get married isnt the issue. In some countries you get married because your dad sold you for a dowry. Why the government has decided to license and regulate opposite sex marriage is the issue. Only a man and a woman can produce their child.
Twaddle! The fact that it takes input from each to produce a child in no reason to limit marriage to hetero couples now that in vitro fertilization is available. Continuing to support outmoded ways of thinking and outdated laws in hardly conducive to progress. The whole argument is stupid, a few years ago the argument was about intrerracial marriage, before that it was women getting to vote, before that it was women getting to own property... on and on it goes. There used to be huge theological battles over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, whether the Earth was the center of the Universe, whethere the Earth was flat. Religious people have been dragged kicking and screaming into the future against their will for thousands of years. Rights for homosexual people is just the flavor of the month and soon enough it will be replaced with some other idiocy based on scripture and homosexual rights will be just as much a non-issue as interracial marriage is now.

Sometimes I wish God would Rapture up all the religious people and leave the rest of us in peace.

[Mare Tranquillity]

None of them are available to my girlfreind and I. On what basis do you think justifies denying me those rights?

You have not gotten married, these rights are reserved for legally married consenting adults. You do have the right to marry your girlfriend as long as you are male and both of you are of age. This right is denied to homosexual people, they are not allowed to marry the consenting adult of their choice as you are.

Unlike yourself, I am campaigning for equal rights, I am not asking anything for myself that I would deny to anyone else, whereas you wish to retain your right to marry the consenting adult of your choice, but prevent others from doing the same. It's religious bigotry.

[numinus]

If that's the case (in bold) why does insurance / taxation etc related to marriage, that's the biggest issue. I call shenanigans.

Article 23
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

The right of men and women (not of a man and a woman) does not have quantifiers related to the number of gender inclusive to the marriage. This has NO baring on the rights of women or children save the inclusion of the provisionary requirement for child protection in the case of dissolution (divorce). You're interpretation is outside of the obvious intention.

as for your question: Are you arguing that a homosexual union relates to these rights, thereby necessitating the institutionalization of such a union?

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

cleary supports [any man] (including those who wish to marry men...) and [any woman] (including those who wish to marry women). as there is again, no quantifier or designation that constitutes man + woman as the prerequisite to be subject to these inherent rights.

So as to your argument, you've sealed it yourself. Clearly denying homosexuals marriage is a violation of a treatise we are signatory to, since were the intention to provide ONLY for a man and a woman, it would have been worded as such rather than simply stating Men and Women to include all persons...good day sir.

The article says that 'the family is the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL group unit of society' and you go on to claim that this is applicable to homosexual unions?

What sort of logic are you using?

Btw.

"Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

[numinus]

The fallacy in your argument is bolded, the idea that homosexual people never have children, cannot have children is nonsense as demonstrated by the tens of thousands of homosexual families in this country alone. Homosexuals can have children through all the same ways that any other couple can have them--including surrogacy or in vitro fertilization like sterile hetero couples do.

There is no fallacy.

Children can never come from a homosexual union.

You need to procreate OUTSIDE the union for that.

You want to define "family relations" by one single kind of sex act and restrict legal rights based on performing that one single kind of sex act, you practically worship that one single kind of sex act--it becomes the be-all and end-all of your legal existence, when in point of fact it is just one of many kinds of sex acts and has no more intrinsic value than other. It does have utilitarian value in that it can produce offspring sometimes, but it isn't the only way to have children so it cannot be the Holy Grail that you are trying to make it out to be.

And family relations derive from this single 'utilitarian value', which by some stroke of coincidence, is also the one thing that makes the family 'the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL group unit of society'.

[numinus]

Until the sodomy laws were declared un-Constitutional homosexuality was a felony in many places. I know a woman who had her son taken from her by the courts in Texas because she was in a lesbian relationship. She was arrested at work, handcuffed, placed in jail, her own Mother testified against her in court and she was declared an unfit Mother, convicted of the felony of having homosexual relations, and she has never seen her 6 year old son again.

You have got to be a very young man.

See how logical the law operates!

A defective law made null.

[numinus]

I never said that space was metaphorically infinite. At least quote me correctly if you are going to try to refute me.

"I was using the term space metaphorically"

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND, that space is part of the Universe for which their is not even a theoretical end."

Do you deny having said any of the above?

Please refrain from dishonest debate and from ridiculing my comprehension of simple english.

YOU postulated that God's Will existed outside of space/time. I referred to the area where God's Will existed as a "space" metaphorically--how else could I refer to it since, according to you, it exists outside of space/time. I needed some way to refer to that God's Will area which may very well be infinite. Are you now saying that the God's Will area (come up with your own description of that area) is NOT infinite? Are you placing limits on God by doing so?

Please spare me the run-around.

[r0beph]

Actually I must argue this here. If something (space) is expanding, it DOES NOT (via physics) require space to expand into, since space itself is what is expanding, space is thus being created. As far as the "universe" theoretically it is "infinite" as far as the layman need be concerned. The thing is that the "universe" spatially is created by it's very expansion, beyond that, no idea, depending on the dimensional theory applied you could simply go to XYZ 0,0,0 and end back up at 10^a, 10^a, 10^a coordinately (where a is the exponential of the arbitrary coordinates given for the opposing side of the universe in which you entered by exiting at the 0,0,0 coord.) Or you could simply cease to exist, though I doubt this, since mass itself creates the space around it, ones mass by being their to observe the location and crossing that threshold actually would create space ;) but I digress this is not for this thread, nor forum.

[quote]
A lesbian has the right to motherhood. Parenthood of her biological child, however, cannot be legally transferred to her lesbian partner.

And while her lesbian partner may act as 'de facto' parent, that is within the exclusive province of her choice. The state may not legally bind her to it whenever she chooses otherwise.

This is your bias speaking. Plain and simple. Anti-gay rhetoric. Marriage has nothing to do with "motherhood", if you even think that..I have about 30 friends I'd like you to meet of mine who have no marriage and children. To say that marriage has anything to do with children is ridiculous.

Marriage is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); a close and intimate union. Which should be afforded to ANY two people regardless of gender or orientation. The fact that workforce insurers have a prerequisite ALONE should be reason enough to allow for marriage between same sex partners. Any other definition is purely a religious idealism.


You need only browse social and political philosophies to realize that the natural rights of man are indeed defined.

A contract is an agreement between parties. There is no reason for the government to interfere with an agreement between consenting adults.

But a marriage, on the other hand, involves the lives of children that result from this union. So there are compelling reasons for the government to involve itself in marriage.

Marriage does NOT effect the children in any way. A father and mother NOT married can both apply their workplace insurance to their child as well it should be. Now where this DOES come into play is due to the bad insurer policies on many insurers have. Here's a hypothetical that shows the problem with your definition. A woman has a child, the father is no where in the picture, she is in fact a lesbian and ends up in a lesbian relationship. Now she has a car accident and can no longer work and ends up losing her insurance that covered her and her child. Now the spouse of this woman has insurance that will not cover the child nor the disabled mother. Another hypothetical. A woman has a child and remarries, now whatever supposed "for the children" effects that the marriage have now apply to this father EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NO CHILDREN OF HIS OWN. How is this supported by your argument?


Consenting homosexual adults have every right to live their own lives as they please. If cohabitation is their thing, nothing is stopping them.

They cannot, however, claim certain privileges granted married couples because these privileges are there as the result to FAMILY RELATIONS.

And what, exactly, are these privileges? Mostly tax breaks. All other privileges can be had with the help of even the most mediocre lawyer and some foresight.

I cannot see anything that is afforded via marriage that has anything to do with anything here. You don't really get tax breaks unless you have kids, which has nothing to do with marriage itself, as you can get those same breaks married or not with kids. And in fact being married OFTEN costs more in taxes.



Are you in favor of giving an inalienable right to motherhood, the basis of all family relations and hence the marital institution, to gay men?

again your supposing something that is completely aside from marriage. that inalienable right is given by biology, not a marriage license. And again, motherhood has nothing to do with marriage. If you think that then you MUST by virtue NOT allow sterile couples to marry.

If a female employee is given maternity leave, is it logical to give this to male employees as well?

This is stupid, however there is precedence for this. I worked with a man who took maternity leave because the wife had a job that required her attention and the father cared for the kid after it was born. The only maternity leave his girlfriend took was to pop the lil kid out.


And in divorce proceedings, is the right of the husband to custody of the children equal to that of the wife?
this is purely due to tradition and not law.


And if some couples can adopt, why not everyone?

they should be allowed, this is more religious ideology becoming law, something that should not exist. notice the locations and their majority religious beliefs.

Florida and New Hampshire had laws forbidding adoption by homosexuals;
Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota and Virginia had legal precedences in which courts ruled that gays and lesbians are automatically unfit as parents because of their sexual orientation.
California, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey had laws or regulations which specifically permit homosexual adoption.
The remaining 40 states and the District of Columbia had no laws either forbidding or permitting adoption by gays or lesbians individuals or couples.


Spare me this patently defective notion of equality.

Equality is not defective, it's simply not applied all the time, when it very well should be. Women don't get paid as much as men, same education, same abilities, it's a statistic fact. It still isn't right though.

[jb_1430]

I did say produce "their child", not "a" child.
You seem to start with the presumption that government should license and regulate everything, and must have a reason NOT to regulate to support any decision not to. I start from the other perspective, that government needs some valid governmental interest before they regulate a human relationship. And I dont think helping gays feel a little bit better about themselves is a valid governmental interest.
As well, absent the governmental interest involved in the procreation of children, there is no rational reason to deny my girlfriend and I the rights and privilidges granted to married couples.


Twaddle! The fact that it takes input from each to produce a child in no reason to limit marriage to hetero couples now that in vitro fertilization is available. Continuing to support outmoded ways of thinking and outdated laws in hardly conducive to progress. The whole argument is stupid, a few years ago the argument was about intrerracial marriage, before that it was women getting to vote, before that it was women getting to own property... on and on it goes. There used to be huge theological battles over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, whether the Earth was the center of the Universe, whethere the Earth was flat. Religious people have been dragged kicking and screaming into the future against their will for thousands of years. Rights for homosexual people is just the flavor of the month and soon enough it will be replaced with some other idiocy based on scripture and homosexual rights will be just as much a non-issue as interracial marriage is now.

Sometimes I wish God would Rapture up all the religious people and leave the rest of us in peace.

[jb_1430]

Unlike yourself, I am campaigning for equal rights, I am not asking anything for myself that I would deny to anyone else, whereas you wish to retain your right to marry the consenting adult of your choice, but prevent others from doing the same. It's religious bigotry.

Noooo you are arguing for unequal rights. Rights superior to the rights of my girlfriend and I, seemingly, without any rational purpose for doing so.
And I am an atheist, Im just familiar with the purpose of marriage laws.

[vyo476]

I start from the other perspective, that government needs some valid governmental interest before they regulate a human relationship.


So allowing homosexual marriage to be made legal is regulation? And disallowing it is...deregulation? I think you have it mixed up there. If it weren't for governments sticking their noses into this, homosexual marriage would be freely legal in a lot of places in this country. It took government regulation to strike it down (think San Francisco).

The government has regulated homosexual marriage to make it illegal. Making it legal would not be regulating it.

And I dont think helping gays feel a little bit better about themselves is a valid governmental interest.

Of course you don't. You aren't gay. You have nothing to gain by helping gays. I'm not sure if you honestly think you have anything to lose by helping gays, but hey, maybe you do think that.

Isn't it tricky when minorities start asking for equality? Damn those black people for wanting to be considered human beings instead of property. Damn those women for wanting to vote. Damn those gay people for wanting to get married. The white, straight men of this country have nothing to gain by allowing any of those things to happen - other than living up to the ideals of freedom and equality.

[vyo476]

Rights superior to the rights of my girlfriend and I, seemingly, without any rational purpose for doing so.

Let me get this straight. We want to allow people to marry other people of the same gender. This is because homosexual couples cannot have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. You believe that this would not be fair to you and your girlfriend, because you don't currently enjoy the rights of a married couple.

GROW UP.

If you want the rights of a married couple, you have to get married. That isn't changing. If you and your girlfriend wanted to get married, you could. Once you get married, you'll have all the rights of a married couple. Homosexual couples are not so lucky; they cannot go out and get married, and are therefore disallowed those marital rights.

[jb_1430]

This is your bias speaking. Plain and simple. Anti-gay rhetoric. Marriage has nothing to do with "motherhood", if you even think that..I have about 30 friends I'd like you to meet of mine who have no marriage and children. To say that marriage has anything to do with children is ridiculous.

Marriage is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); a close and intimate union.

And can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

[vyo476]

Let's just put it out there, shall we?

Is there any really good reason to keep homosexuals from getting married? Can any of you clearly and succinctly come up with a decent reason to prevent them from marrying each other?

Is it because marriage is supposed to be about producing children? Well boohoo, so homosexual couples won't be able to produce their own children. There are a lot of children out there that don't have homes, and a married homosexual couple would be better equipped to care for such a child than an unmarried homosexual couple. The purpose of marriage is to provide a framework for the family - not to create the family.

[jb_1430]

GROW UP.




???? Im 47. And I can grow up, while you will always be stupid.
Soooo if I understand your arguement, the issuance of the peace of paper by the government magically creates the valid governmental interest in regulating intimate relationships???? Can you verbalize what this interest is and how it is created by a piece of paper?

[vyo476]

???? Im 47. And I can grow up, while you will always be stupid.

At least I'm smart enough to actually read peoples' posts.

Soooo if I understand your arguement, the issuance of the peace of paper by the government magically creates the valid governmental interest in regulating intimate relationships???? Can you verbalize what this interest is and how it is created by a piece of paper?

Oh look, you didn't read my post. Imagine that.

Here's how it works: if you want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, you can. If homosexuals want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, they can't - or at least, they can't marry the consenting person of their choice, because hundreds of years ago someone decided that marriage can only be between a man and a woman for reasons that are no longer valid today.

And allowing homosexual marriage would not be regulating it. Making it illegal is regulating it. Legalizing it puts it in the hands of the individuals to do with as they would. Think about it - the Second Amendment makes owning firearms legal, but doesn't "regulate" that ownership; it took further legislation to "regulate" firearms ownership. Making homosexual marriage legal wouldn't regulate marriage; it would take further legislation to narrow down who can legally marry, and we're not talking about that right now.

[jb_1430]

Soooo, again, can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

And I dont know what kind of alternate reality that you dwell in but I can assure you that marriages are both licensed and regulated in the US.




At least I'm smart enough to actually read peoples' posts.



Oh look, you didn't read my post. Imagine that.

Here's how it works: if you want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, you can. If homosexuals want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, they can't - or at least, they can't marry the consenting person of their choice, because hundreds of years ago someone decided that marriage can only be between a man and a woman for reasons that are no longer valid today.

And allowing homosexual marriage would not be regulating it. Making it illegal is regulating it. Legalizing it puts it in the hands of the individuals to do with as they would. Think about it - the Second Amendment makes owning firearms legal, but doesn't "regulate" that ownership; it took further legislation to "regulate" firearms ownership. Making homosexual marriage legal wouldn't regulate marriage; it would take further legislation to narrow down who can legally marry, and we're not talking about that right now.

[r0beph]

Soooo, again, can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

And I dont know what kind of alternate reality that you dwell in but I can assure you that marriages are both licensed and regulated in the US.

You're still missing the point and your arguments are losing my interest. But let me give you a little hypothetical.

A gay couple walks into a resturaunt, asking for a table.
The Maitre D' informs them, sorry, even though this restaurant is full of other couples consisting of men and women, you are not allowed to come in. I needn't even mention there is tons of legal precedence adversely supporting the rights of a homosexual[couple] in this type of action on the behalf of the restaurant. Cue the insurance companies. A homosexual couple MAY NOT walk into their human resources department, apply for the spousal insurance their work offers, and because they are GAY, are denied this right that EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER.


The institution of marriage is not "sacred" except in the eyes of the religious zealot. a persons marriage itself may be sacred to them, but the institution is not.
Please show reasons they should not be allowed to married, I needn't prove further that they as humans have the right to create what they consider a sacred bond between them and their love.
Please show me what marriage has to do with "a child" "children" or whatever the hell you're talking about earlier, this still goes over my head....

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is no fallacy.

Children can never come from a homosexual union.

You need to procreate OUTSIDE the union for that.



And family relations derive from this single 'utilitarian value', which by some stroke of coincidence, is also the one thing that makes the family 'the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL group unit of society'.

Thus spake the infallible NUMINUS--speaking ex cathedra from his belly-button. You make pronouncements but you can't prove them, thus you are one of the religious sheeple bleating in the wilderness.

[Mare Tranquillity]

See how logical the law operates!

A defective law made null.

She never got her son back, in fact she's never seen him again. Jesus must be proud.

[Mare Tranquillity]

"I was using the term space metaphorically"

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND, that space is part of the Universe for which their is not even a theoretical end."

Do you deny having said any of the above?

Please refrain from dishonest debate and from ridiculing my comprehension of simple english.
Please spare me the run-around.
The run-around was the explanation that you apparently cannot comprehend. Just like you quoted correctly (this time) I was using the term "space" metaphorically to delineate an area where YOU said God's Will exists. Too bad you can't comprehend such a simple concept--go back to Kant.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I did say produce "their child", not "a" child.
You seem to start with the presumption that government should license and regulate everything, and must have a reason NOT to regulate to support any decision not to. I start from the other perspective, that government needs some valid governmental interest before they regulate a human relationship. And I dont think helping gays feel a little bit better about themselves is a valid governmental interest.
As well, absent the governmental interest involved in the procreation of children, there is no rational reason to deny my girlfriend and I the rights and privilidges granted to married couples.

Except the Law, and the Law is what I wish to see changed. Right now it legislates a bunch of religious myths and forces us all to abide by them--that should change.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Noooo you are arguing for unequal rights. Rights superior to the rights of my girlfriend and I, seemingly, without any rational purpose for doing so.
And I am an atheist, Im just familiar with the purpose of marriage laws.

Equal rights means that everyone is treated equally under the law, you and she get married and the law grants things to you that are denied to anyone that isn't legally married. How is it "unequal" for ALL consenting adults to have the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice when YOU have that right?

As an atheist, what is the purpose of marriage law?

[Mare Tranquillity]

And can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

Yes, I can. One thousand forty nine legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities codified into US law and granted only to LEGALLY MARRIED couples in the United States of America. Is that rational enough for you? Legal rights! Equality! How much more rational can it get?

[vyo476]

Yes, I can. One thousand forty nine legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities codified into US law and granted only to LEGALLY MARRIED couples in the United States of America. Is that rational enough for you? Legal rights! Equality! How much more rational can it get?

Exactly, Mare.

Jb, Numinus, why don't you just admit that you don't like gay people, or that the idea of gay people getting married just bothers you? Honesty is best.

Gentlemen, answer me this: Why would it be bad to allow homosexuals to marry? What are the negative consequences?

[Coyote]

Exactly, Mare.

Jb, Numinus, why don't you just admit that you don't like gay people, or that the idea of gay people getting married just bothers you? Honesty is best.

Gentlemen, answer me this: Why would it be bad to allow homosexuals to marry? What are the negative consequences?


They're going to breed like rabbits?

[Castle]

Gentlemen, answer me this: Why would it be bad to allow homosexuals to marry? What are the negative consequences?
Personally, I don't think there are any.......as long as those marriages are outside the confines of religion - with respect to those religions that do not condone homosexual unions. As viewed by the state, there should be no difference in my opinion. Let them marry and enjoy all the legal rights afforded them by the state just as the rest of us do.....along with those other legal matters. Damn it all to hell that I chose not to be a divorce lawyer!

Religion is another matter. If my church chooses not to marry homosexual couples, there should be NO law forcing them to do so as this has no bearing on their legal status.

-Castle

[Mare Tranquillity]

They're going to breed like rabbits?

Breed like GAY rabbits!:eek:

[Mare Tranquillity]

Personally, I don't think there are any.......as long as those marriages are outside the confines of religion - with respect to those religions that do not condone homosexual unions. As viewed by the state, there should be no difference in my opinion. Let them marry and enjoy all the legal rights afforded them by the state just as the rest of us do.....along with those other legal matters. Damn it all to hell that I chose not to be a divorce lawyer!

Religion is another matter. If my church chooses not to marry homosexual couples, there should be NO law forcing them to do so as this has no bearing on their legal status.

-Castle

ABSOLUTELY!

[jb_1430]

Equal rights means that everyone is treated equally under the law, you and she get married and the law grants things to you that are denied to anyone that isn't legally married. How is it "unequal" for ALL consenting adults to have the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice when YOU have that right?

As an atheist, what is the purpose of marriage law?

You obviously operate on about the third grade level when it comes to your understanding of equal protection laws. Laws discriminate between people all the time. Our constitution doesnt prohibit all discrimination but instead requires that the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. Boning some guy in the
a s s just simply isnt the same conditions or circumstance. ONLY a man and a woman can produce their child.

[Segep]

You obviously operate on about the third grade level....


Coming from you, that's rich. It really is.



Boning some guy in the
a s s....


'nuff said.

[Segep]

Now to address the "meat" of your post, what little there is.

Our constitution doesnt prohibit all discrimination but instead requires that the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

The similarity is your family is no better than my family, and your family has far more protections. Why does your child deserve better treatment than mine?

[jb_1430]

Now to address the "meat" of your post, what little there is.



The similarity is your family is no better than my family, and your family has far more protections. Why does your child deserve better treatment than mine?

Im single, no kids. And ONLY a man and a woman can produce their child.

[numinus]

Actually I must argue this here. If something (space) is expanding, it DOES NOT (via physics) require space to expand into, since space itself is what is expanding, space is thus being created.

Correct.

Don't tell me. Tell mare.

As far as the "universe" theoretically it is "infinite" as far as the layman need be concerned.

The 'theoretical' expansion of the universe through infinity rests on a curious 'quantity' called the cosmological constant.

I say curious because it has this unique property of being created out of NOTHING (meaning it's energy density remains the same despite indefinite spatial expansion - hence 'constant').

And in the real, common sense world, NOTHING, or EMPTY SPACE doesn't exist. Remember that space-time is functionally dependent on the existence of matter/energy.

The thing is that the "universe" spatially is created by it's very expansion, beyond that, no idea, depending on the dimensional theory applied you could simply go to XYZ 0,0,0 and end back up at 10^a, 10^a, 10^a coordinately (where a is the exponential of the arbitrary coordinates given for the opposing side of the universe in which you entered by exiting at the 0,0,0 coord.) Or you could simply cease to exist, though I doubt this, since mass itself creates the space around it, ones mass by being their to observe the location and crossing that threshold actually would create space ;) but I digress this is not for this thread, nor forum.

The cartesian coordinate system you are describing exists only in mathemtics, and not the real world. The closest you get from this ideal is the minkowski space with a time-dependent curvature. And since this itself involves a uniform and homogenous distribution of matter throughout, its curvature is a straight line.

Bottom line - ideas of nothingness and infinity, while helpful in formulating theoretical models, simply doesn't exist within the realms of physics.

You're better off imagining god and the devil, I think.

This is your bias speaking. Plain and simple. Anti-gay rhetoric. Marriage has nothing to do with "motherhood", if you even think that..I have about 30 friends I'd like you to meet of mine who have no marriage and children. To say that marriage has anything to do with children is ridiculous.

What I have said is the anthropological basis of the institution of marriage.

If it is dependent on how individual couples see it, as you claim, then it is entirely subjective, no?

Where is the sense in having the state legislate something that is entirely dependent on the couples, themselves, eh?

Marriage is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); a close and intimate union.

Circular.

Which should be afforded to ANY two people regardless of gender or orientation.

You need no one to 'afford' you of an intimate union save yourself and your partner. You needlessly involve the state with your own affairs.

The fact that workforce insurers have a prerequisite ALONE should be reason enough to allow for marriage between same sex partners. Any other definition is purely a religious idealism.

No.

It is a consequence of the right to motherhood. When one recognizes this right as inherent in the FEMALE GENDER, the practical necessities for a woman to EXERCISE this right must be PRESENT.

This simply means that a woman's choice is made WITHOUT prejudice.

A woman who chooses to become a mother and is left alone to fend for herself and her child constitutes prejudice.

Not that women are incapable of this, only that it creates a bias to her entire gender.

Marriage does NOT effect the children in any way. A father and mother NOT married can both apply their workplace insurance to their child as well it should be. Now where this DOES come into play is due to the bad insurer policies on many insurers have. Here's a hypothetical that shows the problem with your definition. A woman has a child, the father is no where in the picture, she is in fact a lesbian and ends up in a lesbian relationship. Now she has a car accident and can no longer work and ends up losing her insurance that covered her and her child. Now the spouse of this woman has insurance that will not cover the child nor the disabled mother.

This is unbelievably off-tangent!

The right to motherhood necessarily INCLUDES the conditions that does not prejudice a woman's choice to it.

And so, rather than scream for homosexual marriages, the more logical solution is a legislation that would afford single mothers financial security, no?

Another hypothetical. A woman has a child and remarries, now whatever supposed "for the children" effects that the marriage have now apply to this father EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NO CHILDREN OF HIS OWN. How is this supported by your argument?

The biological father is still responsible for the child concieved IN the union, whether he is still married to the mother or not, no? Isn't that a clear consequence of the family relations that result in marriage.

And if the mother divorces the second husband, is the husband liable for child support?

I cannot see anything that is afforded via marriage that has anything to do with anything here. You don't really get tax breaks unless you have kids, which has nothing to do with marriage itself, as you can get those same breaks married or not with kids. And in fact being married OFTEN costs more in taxes.

Which solidifies my point, exactly.

As I said - the tax breaks given to married couples are there as support for the mother exercising her right to motherhood and the family relations that result from it.

again your supposing something that is completely aside from marriage. that inalienable right is given by biology, not a marriage license. And again, motherhood has nothing to do with marriage. If you think that then you MUST by virtue NOT allow sterile couples to marry.

Correct again.

Motherhood is not conferred to a woman by a marriage license.

Marriage, in the legal sense, is simply a way by which the state recognizes this right and the family relations that accrue from it.

This is stupid, however there is precedence for this. I worked with a man who took maternity leave because the wife had a job that required her attention and the father cared for the kid after it was born. The only maternity leave his girlfriend took was to pop the lil kid out.

Good for him. However, to legislate such a thing and compel all employers to it is absurd, no?

this is purely due to tradition and not law.

It is a principle even the law upholds.

The mother is the first person an infant bonds with - even before birth.

Purely tradition indeed!

they should be allowed, this is more religious ideology becoming law, something that should not exist. notice the locations and their majority religious beliefs.

Florida and New Hampshire had laws forbidding adoption by homosexuals;
Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota and Virginia had legal precedences in which courts ruled that gays and lesbians are automatically unfit as parents because of their sexual orientation.
California, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey had laws or regulations which specifically permit homosexual adoption.
The remaining 40 states and the District of Columbia had no laws either forbidding or permitting adoption by gays or lesbians individuals or couples.


What are you talking about?

Adoption is a PRIVILEGE whereby the state transfers responsibility to parents that are not biologically related to the child.

I don't agree with excluding potential foster parents exclusively due to their sexual preference.

It doesn't mean, however, that sexual preference doesn't play a part in the family environment being contemplated for the child.

Equality is not defective, it's simply not applied all the time, when it very well should be. Women don't get paid as much as men, same education, same abilities, it's a statistic fact. It still isn't right though.

What are you talking about?

I am FOR gender equality.

Motherhood for males and fatherhood for females are naive and fundamentally defective notions of gender equality.

[jb_1430]

Yes, I can. One thousand forty nine legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities codified into US law and granted only to LEGALLY MARRIED couples in the United States of America. Is that rational enough for you? Legal rights! Equality! How much more rational can it get?

The fact that gays want these rights, privileges, and responsibilities isnt really a rational purpose for the government to grant them.

[numinus]

Let's just put it out there, shall we?

Is there any really good reason to keep homosexuals from getting married? Can any of you clearly and succinctly come up with a decent reason to prevent them from marrying each other?

Is it because marriage is supposed to be about producing children? Well boohoo, so homosexual couples won't be able to produce their own children. There are a lot of children out there that don't have homes, and a married homosexual couple would be better equipped to care for such a child than an unmarried homosexual couple. The purpose of marriage is to provide a framework for the family - not to create the family.

How truly odd your mind works!

Is there any really good reason to suppose that homosexuality constitutes an end for which the political and social order is established?

It is not enough that the state guarantees your privacy in the exercise of this preference - you need for the state to blow sunshine up your ass as well.

[numinus]

Thus spake the infallible NUMINUS--speaking ex cathedra from his belly-button. You make pronouncements but you can't prove them, thus you are one of the religious sheeple bleating in the wilderness.

Have you ever seen people procreate homosexually?

Proof indeed!

[numinus]

The run-around was the explanation that you apparently cannot comprehend. Just like you quoted correctly (this time) I was using the term "space" metaphorically to delineate an area where YOU said God's Will exists. Too bad you can't comprehend such a simple concept--go back to Kant.
LMAO

You are using 'space' metaphorically to define an area occupied by will?

And I'm the one who can't comprehend!

LMAO some more.

[numinus]

Exactly, Mare.

Jb, Numinus, why don't you just admit that you don't like gay people, or that the idea of gay people getting married just bothers you? Honesty is best.

And that's the only way you can understand, eh?

Putting people in neat little boxes with their corresponding labels.

Gentlemen, answer me this: Why would it be bad to allow homosexuals to marry? What are the negative consequences?

And you are inclined to making laws that are superflous and devoid of purpose, eh?

[Coyote]

The fact that gays want these rights, privileges, and responsibilities isnt really a rational purpose for the government to grant them.

They simply want the same legal rights, protections, and benefits as heterosexual marriages. You don't have to call it "marriage" - but they have a right to the same legal protections, rights, benefits as heterosexual couples as long as the government is going to be involved in marriage.

It's a matter of equality. One of group is prohibited from marrying the adult consenting partner of their choice. It is like the old laws against mixed race marriages.

[jb_1430]

They simply want the same legal rights, protections, and benefits as heterosexual marriages. You don't have to call it "marriage" - but they have a right to the same legal protections, rights, benefits as heterosexual couples as long as the government is going to be involved in marriage.



They have NO MORE right to these "legal protections, rights, benefits" than my girlfriend and I do. Just no rational purpose whatsoever denying me those rights, if you insist on taking procreation out of the equation.

[vyo476]

And you are inclined to making laws that are superflous and devoid of purpose, eh?

So now making laws based on the extension of equality and freedom is superfluous?

[vyo476]

The fact that gays want these rights, privileges, and responsibilities isnt really a rational purpose for the government to grant them.

So now the government grants rights?

Go read the Ninth Amendment and ask yourself if the government is meant to examine and "grant" every human right that it recognizes.

The government has to justify denying rights - not granting them.

[r0beph]

What I have said is the anthropological basis of the institution of marriage.

If it is dependent on how individual couples see it, as you claim, then it is entirely subjective, no?

Where is the sense in having the state legislate something that is entirely dependent on the couples, themselves, eh?
Yet the state does this by saying THEY CANNOT marry.



Circular.

Here HERE! This is not my statement this IS THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS PER THE DICTIONARY. If that itself is circular, then we have problems.


You need no one to 'afford' you of an intimate union save yourself and your partner. You needlessly involve the state with your own affairs.

*sigh*



No.

It is a consequence of the right to motherhood. When one recognizes this right as inherent in the FEMALE GENDER, the practical necessities for a woman to EXERCISE this right must be PRESENT.

This simply means that a woman's choice is made WITHOUT prejudice.

A woman who chooses to become a mother and is left alone to fend for herself and her child constitutes prejudice.

Not that women are incapable of this, only that it creates a bias to her entire gender.

Constitutes prejudice? So if a lone woman decides to go find a random man to procreate with, though she has no job, no income, she should be supported for the malfeasance? (well we DO support them no? Without marriage at all.)



This is unbelievably off-tangent!

The right to motherhood necessarily INCLUDES the conditions that does not prejudice a woman's choice to it.

And so, rather than scream for homosexual marriages, the more logical solution is a legislation that would afford single mothers financial security, no?

ever seen the cheques given to single mothers with 3 kids? There IS A LOT OF FINANCIAL SECURITY. Marriage doesn't effect this in the least bit.



The biological father is still responsible for the child concieved IN the union, whether he is still married to the mother or not, no? Isn't that a clear consequence of the family relations that result in marriage.

And if the mother divorces the second husband, is the husband liable for child support?

In truth, there are several ways to answer this. First, the biological father is pretty much responsibile union(marriage) notwithstanding. And the second husband. If he so much as acts as the father of the child, he too can be held responsible, adoption notwithstanding. So I think you're misconstruing some of the variables here.


Which solidifies my point, exactly.

As I said - the tax breaks given to married couples are there as support for the mother exercising her right to motherhood and the family relations that result from it.

Tax breaks are given to help mothers. Ok, so what of the tax breaks given to couples who never have children? Is this abuse of the system? Should this be legislated? Logical fallacy abound.


Correct again.

Motherhood is not conferred to a woman by a marriage license.

Marriage, in the legal sense, is simply a way by which the state recognizes this right and the family relations that accrue from it.


so you're denying the inherent right of family to homosexuals. You needn't legislate this right, you simply should not deny it, which the law currently does. And I quote 'Family n. "a social unit living together;" ' Which can easily be constituted by two homosexuals, male or females, in love.


Good for him. However, to legislate such a thing and compel all employers to it is absurd, no?

Maternity leave has NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE, this is simply straw.



It is a principle even the law upholds.

The mother is the first person an infant bonds with - even before birth.

Purely tradition indeed!

Again, what are YOU talking about, motherhood != marriage. Stop associating two nonassociates.


What are you talking about?

Adoption is a PRIVILEGE whereby the state transfers responsibility to parents that are not biologically related to the child.

I don't agree with excluding potential foster parents exclusively due to their sexual preference.

It doesn't mean, however, that sexual preference doesn't play a part in the family environment being contemplated for the child.

And well it shouldn't. Assuming that two males or two women would be less parents than any other, is completely ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of single parent (mother and father) households. This would be no less problematic to a child having two fathers or two mothers, than a single parent household would. However this is actually irrelevant to the argument here, and should not even be discussed. I real