DescentBB

Yawn....this thread has reached a point where all discussion now goes to the metaphysical and unattainable aspects of why homosexuality is or is not right or wrong. Nothing truly productive will come from this thread from this point on because both sides are just going to finger point.

I'll say it again for f***s sake. If the government would just get out of the marriage business, this would be a null issue.

Blah.

Edit: Oh great, I created the second page.

I've said before I was raised on Christian values. Nobody said I couldn't take some of them with me when I strayed from the path

If we are to believe people are born gay. Then throw away the bible, throw away God , throw away everthing. The bible speaks about men turning away from wemen and seeking there own kind.It also says it is one of the things God hates.So we being human believe we can,humanize the bible and interperate the book to suit ourselves this is contrary to the teachings of this book. Also to say people have no choise in the matter.Detracts from the charactor of God.In closing poeple are not born gay, people are born with problems.Ever since the fall of Adam & Eve we as a race have been moving farther and farther away from the perfect beings God created. GAY IS A LIFESTYLE DECISION PERIOD

I think the previous poster illustrates the problem with arguing with a dogmatic belief.

forrest wrote:If we are to believe people are born gay. Then throw away the bible, throw away God , throw away everthing. The bible speaks about men turning away from wemen and seeking there own kind.It also says it is one of the things God hates.So we being human believe we can,humanize the bible and interperate the book to suit ourselves this is contrary to the teachings of this book. Also to say people have no choise in the matter.Detracts from the charactor of God.In closing poeple are not born gay, people are born with problems.Ever since the fall of Adam & Eve we as a race have been moving farther and farther away from the perfect beings God created. GAY IS A LIFESTYLE DECISION PERIOD

Your right Forrest. But the lifestyle decision they make is whether to live the rest of their lives happy or not. They can't change who they are because they were born that way.

I believe in Man/Women/Children/and family Dog, (someday for me I hope) but I don't have any problem with Man/Man and family dog or Women/Women and family dog. It's the adoption of children that has to be prevented even by law if neccessary. They should also be protected with the same laws for survivorship as you.

It's a short life and everyone deserves to be happy, but not at a kids expense.

I know what you mean though Forrest....

Bettina

Bettina, how is it that gay parents are a danger to children? Most sex crimes against kids are committed by men against children of both genders. Child sexual abuse is a crime of violence and power not a crime of lust and desire.

Hey Forrest, apparently you have some info that is unkown to the worldwide medical community. It seems to be in agreement that homosexuality has nothing to do with lifestyle choice and everything to do with a genetic predisposition to seek same gender partners.

This topic isn't about what being gay is. Save that for another thread.

What?!

A ban on Gay marriage isn't about what being gay is? What is it about then?

No, I meant deciphering whether or not a person is born gay or is influenced by life experiences into becoming gay is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about "should gays be allowed to marry and have the same legal benefits as straight married couples".

Also...

birdseye wrote:Hopefully in 50 years when gays aren't being treated as animals or second class citizens we'll get to look back on it like we do now with the civil rights movement.

Whoa, you still on the same planet as the rest of us? Damn dude, the issue at hand here is all they really can't do. Dayum. This is why I still think there is no comparison between this and the civil rights movement. There were many more things that blacks couldn't do that gays CAN already do now. Many more. Blacks were hardly considered human, as ignorant as that sounds. Nobody is debating whether or not Gays are human. Thats just plain stupid.

They can vote, they can sit at the front of the bus, plane, train, car etc... They can still adopt and raise children. They can still be a functional family. They can still pick a sexual partner of their choosing be it male or female. A lot of them are leading productive lives and a few are making tons of money for being who they are and make a huge contribution to the fashion/entertainment industry.

Sure, you get those people who are bigots and hear the rare horror story of how some gay person got beat to death but most of the time it's always in a state you expect that kind of stuff from. Some redneck backwater biblethumping state/town. Getting a little extreme if you ask me. It isn't exactly like we are talking about them being banned from being gay.

When most of the people only experience what gays are like by watching Will & Grace or Queer eye for the straight guy on TV, it is no wonder they're fighting a losing cause.

"Whoa, you still on the same planet as the rest of us? Damn dude, the issue at hand here is all they really can't do."

heheh.. repeating the same material, I see.

heheh, still sniping I see

sheepdog wrote:Bettina, how is it that gay parents are a danger to children? Most sex crimes . . . .

I don't think she's talking about sex crimes. She's talking about the qualitative difference of being born into a family that by its own definition, deprives the child of either a mother or a father.

BD

Birdseye wrote:I think the previous poster illustrates the problem with arguing with a dogmatic belief.

I think your post in response illustrates the problem of projecting Forrest's uneducated view on those who, for dissimilar reasons, come to similar conclusions.

BD

If you believe in a religion, and religion says gays are bad, what are the chances of me reversing god's written viewpoint?

Bold Deceiver wrote:

sheepdog wrote:Bettina, how is it that gay parents are a danger to children? Most sex crimes . . . .

I don't think she's talking about sex crimes. She's talking about the qualitative difference of being born into a family that by its own definition, deprives the child of either a mother or a father.

BD

Exactly...

Birdseye wrote:If you believe in a religion, and religion says gays are bad, what are the chances of me reversing god's written viewpoint?

A lot better than you'd think. In particular, because in this case, what's being discussed is what laws THIS SOCIETY should have in place -- not what God thinks. Despite what you may think, I'm not interested in imposing Christian morality on this society. It's a secular government and a secular society, and it should have secular laws. There's no point in trying to make people who aren't Christians behave like they are.

It's insulting to me for you to not try just because you think I'm going to be dogmatic about everything. It's insulting to me for you to completely dodge the arguments put forth and just claim they're "silly rationalizations" because your own prejudice makes it impossible for you to give any respect to secular arguments coming from Christians. It's insulting to have you brush off the arguments many of us have made because you think we're being dishonest and that we aren't giving our real reasons. One of my principles for discussion / debate is that I *always* argue based on what *actually* convinces me, not what I think makes it easiest to win the debate. So if my reason for having a particular law is "the Bible says so" that's what I'm going to say in debate. Conversely, if I don't say it, it's NOT a part of my reason. If you say otherwise, you're calling me a liar.

You treat me and Drakona and Sirian and Tyranny and Will Robinson and Bold Deciever exactly the same as you treat forrest -- as if everything we say is "dogmatic belief". BD makes a good point -- you're "projecting Forrest's uneducated view on those who, for dissimilar reasons, come to similar conclusions." You didn't engage Drakona's post at all; you dismissed it as dogma and line-by-line mocked it. You *think* it was just a long rationalization because you refuse to seriously consider the possibility it might not be. Until you learn to take what I and others say at face value instead of trying to psycho-analyze us, there can be no real discussion with you. Until you honestly interact with what we say instead of the psychological position you project on us, you'll never convince anybody -- not because we're dogmatic, but because you're interacting with us as if we are, and thereby losing your audience.

Didn't the Christians more or less invent marriage? Aren't they still mostly carried out by Christian clergy?

If that is the case, why are people telling the churches what marriage can or can not be? It's still their decision...

If not, and if marriage is a completely secular thing these days, is there a good, secular, reason to disallow gays marrying? If it is a simply legal construct I doubt there is a clause in there that says 'must be a man and woman'...

Sirius wrote:Didn't the Christians more or less invent marriage? Aren't they still mostly carried out by Christian clergy?

If that is the case, why are people telling the churches what marriage can or can not be? It's still their decision...

If not, and if marriage is a completely secular thing these days, is there a good, secular, reason to disallow gays marrying? If it is a simply legal construct I doubt there is a clause in there that says 'must be a man and woman'...

Marrage isn't exclusivly Christian, nor did they unilaterly invent it.

Sirius wrote:Didn't the Christians more or less invent marriage?

Marriage has been around for as long as people have. Christianity has been around for only 2000 years. Hence, Christians did not invent marriage.

Sirius wrote:is there a good, secular, reason to disallow gays marrying?

That's why we're having this discussion. Two people in particular have made points relating to the issue that nobody has really addressed (though Birdseye did a good job of mocking one of the posts rather than trying to understand it, and I'm making an effort to point that out as many times as possible in order to publicly call him out on it.) Here are two fairly good points (and there are several more, on both sides of the issue):

Drakona, in this post, wrote:If you want a warrant for a society that judges homosexual and heterosexual relationships differently, look at homosexual and heterosexual communities. It's on the communal level that society makes its judgement about what relationships it approves of, and which are valuable. If you see the homosexual community producing stable, faithful, loving, relationships--if you see them producing relationships that inspire the admiration of their communities, then you will see communities that accept homosexual relationships. If you see homosexual relationships forming a healthy base for families on a regular basis, then you'll see communities that accept homosexual families as healthy ones. And if you don't, you won't. It's really that simple.

Bold Deceiver, in this post, wrote:Children of gay marriage are destined to be deprived, from birth, of either a mother or a father.

I won't snipe if you don't recycle your material Tyr. Deal?

That's a road that goes both ways ferny, mmmk?

Children of gay marriage are destined to be deprived, from birth, of either a mother or a father. Bold Deciever

The children of my lesbian friends have a mother and a father. The father doesn't live in the home with them, but is a positive part of their lives. Compared to these girls, many of the children of my heterosexual friends seem deprived. These children are flourishing, so I don't see how your argument holds water in any "apriori" sense, BD.

sheepdog wrote:The children of my lesbian friends have a mother and a father. The father doesn't live in the home with them, but is a positive part of their lives.

Please. Grow up with the anectodotal evidence.

BD

In other words don't confuse the issue with real people, the facts etc.

Anecdotal evidence is perfectly acceptable when used to refute a claim that something is always true, which is the sort of claim you are making.

sheepdog wrote:...The children of my lesbian friends have a mother and a father. The father doesn't live in the home with them, but is a positive part of their lives....

That's what we call a broken home. Or in that case a broken home *with* two gay mothers.
That's a lot of baggage for a kid to bear. It's a long way from the 'norm'.

So BD's point stands with much merit.

Pshaw, Will and you know it. A father yourself, you know darn well how hard it is to bring kids up right no matter what your gender and the gender of your partner. I'm disappointed in you going for the rhetorical cheap shot.

sheepdog wrote:

The children of my lesbian friends have a mother and a father. The father doesn't live in the home with them, but is a positive part of their lives . . . .

What a pathetic, miserable excuse you make for fatherhood. Have a chat with Bettina (or others) about what a lovely experience it is being raised without a mother or a father. Do you truly believe that by making the generalized statement that gee, he's a "positive part of their lives", that you can substitute your lesbian friends biological sperm donor for a "father"?

Spare me. You're either very young or you're not thinking it through. I allow for the possibility that in certain rare contexts, it might be better to place a child with homosexual parents. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about institutionalizing homosexual relations in marriage, and all that that implies.

Answer the question. All things being equal, and in the event of your untimely demise, would you prefer your infant child to be raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents? Yes or no.

BD

Birdseye wrote:Anyway, this debate really can be done in a very concise manner.

Drakona and others don't believe a gay relationship is worth a straight relationship.

That would be correct.


Let's carry this logic further. Supposing that we take two relationships. One is a traditional heterosexual marriage, the other a homosexual relationship that is IN EVERY WAY identical BUT FOR the physical gender of the partners. Identical jobs, identical incomes, next door neighbors, identical homes, people of identical character and behavior outside the home, and so forth.

Identical in all ways but one: one pair is a man and a woman, the other pair is two men or two women.

Does that one difference matter? To find out, we must extend the logic.


Let's compare two other relationships. Let's take a traditional marriage and an unmarried heterosexual couple. Again, everything identical BUT FOR one detail: the second couple is not married.

Is the unmarried relationship worth as much to society as the marriage?


Let's compare again. Let's take a traditional marriage and compare to an adult and a child. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the child's parents consented to the child marrying the adult. We have two legal marriages. Let's say that the adult marriage has income of X, between both partners, and the adult-and-child marriage also has income X, between both partners. Maybe the adult brings home all the bacon, or maybe the child is a prodigy or a superstar of some kind and is carrying his/her own weight, financially. Does it matter? All things being equal between these two marriages, BUT FOR the age of the child in the second instance.

Are these two relationships of the same worth to society? Note I haven't stated an age for the child, yet. What if the child is 17? What if the child is 15? What if the child is 12? What if the child is 8? What if the child is 5? Does the child's age matter? If so, why? If not, why not?


Let's compare again. On the one side, we have a traditional Christian marriage, one man and one woman. On the other side, we have a traditional Muslim marriage, one man and one woman, and another woman, and two more women.

All other things being equal, are these marriages of the same worth to society? Note that despite our claims to honor the Islamic religion, in this country we do not recognize polygamy as marriage. Does that make us religious bigots? Are we denying those of Islamic faith their civil rights? If we did start to accept these polygamies, must we also accept polyandry? What kind of complications will be added to our divorce laws when we start to enshrine these multiparty relationships? How is the property to be divided? What if one partner wants out, but the others stick together? Who gets custody of the children and why? You do realize, in Muslim societies where polygamy is accepted, polyandry is not, and the men hold ALL of the rights. Nowhere on earth are women more oppressed than in these societies. Not only that, but all the poor young men left out in the cold with no woman and no hope of ever landing one end up as throwaways in these societies.

(Conveniently, these throwaway men can be taught to go on suicide missions, to spend their lives on the promise that any death earned in the name of their god will win them lavish numbers of virgins in the next life. Why not rush to that sexual paradise, when surely here on earth they would be relegated to a sexless life of misery and privation, because there aren't enough women to go around?)


Let's compare again. Suppose we have two very wealthy families. On the one side, we have a heterosexual married couple. On the other, we have the Free Love Communion, composed of four women and seventeen men, all mutually committed to their relationship, including living together, sleeping together, sexual intimacy, raising children, etc.

Are these relationships of equal value to society?


Now let me extend the logic one more step. Suppose we have a heterosexual marriage on one hand, and we have a bestial relationship on the other. Jim and Jill are married human beings. Larry is a human being and his wife Fluffy is a sheep. (Can you say ewe? )

All other things being equal in these households, are these relationships of equal value to society?


Suppose we have two married couples. One is a standard marriage, the other is a marriage between biological parent and child. All other things being equal, are these relationships of equal value to society? What if we replace parent and child with two siblings? What then?


Let's move on even further. Let's take sex out of the picture for our comparison relationship. Suppose we have a married heterosexual couple on the one hand, and on the other hand we have a man and a woman who have pledged to live together for life and not take on any sexual partners. They are not married, but other than not being married and not having sex, they are in every way identical to the married couple. Is this relationship of equal value to society? What if the second couple are father and daughter, or mother and son, or siblings? What if they aren't? What difference does that make?


Should we let any group of living beings of any relationship to one another claim equality with a married couple? Heck, why limit it to living beings. Suppose Bill wants to marry his vacuum cleaner. Who are you to deny him his happiness? Let's hold a ceremony in the church, and let's make sure Sally the Hoover Upright is plugged in, so that "she" may roar her approval, proving that yes, "Bill turns me on."


Is homosexuality the moral equivalence of unmarried heterosexuality? Opinions and beliefs differ. Some believe that a committed monogamous homosexual domestic partnership, otherwise indistiguishable from a successful marriage, is SUPERIOR to an unmarried heterosexual couple, in terms of the value of the relationship to society. Some believe otherwise. The issue is debateable.

Is homosexuality the moral equivalence of polygamy? Of polyandry? Of pedophilia? Of incest? There is no objective standard. The answer depends on the values of the person you ask. Yet society's answer is clear: on the whole, these relationships do not produce stable families in which to raise children. History has shown that marriage is the best relationship for the children, and children are the survival of our race. If even one generation of parents fails to nurture its children sufficiently, all that we have built and struggled for through the eons could be lost almost overnight.

Let's talk Darwin. Survival of the fittest. Only those societies who have valued marriage above all other relationships have survived. Why is that?

Birdseye wrote:Anyway, this debate really can be done in a very concise manner.

Drakona and others don't believe a gay relationship is worth a straight relationship.

Is an unmarried relationship worth a married one? Is a polygamy or polyandry worth a committed one to one marriage? Is a boy and girl dating in junior high worth a marriage? The answer to these is no, no and no.

YOUR FALLACY is that you want to extend the value judgement on relationship OVER ON TO the individuals involved. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. That is a fundamental logical flaw. The civil rights movement was about the worth of individuals. The marriage issue is about the worth of relationships.

Is the boy or girl in high school worth less as an individual than the married man or woman? No. Is the woman who sleeps with three men in three days worth less than the faithful wife? No. Is the cheating wife worth less than the faithful wife? No. Individuals are equal under our laws, and none are above the law.


Should gay couples in committed monogamous relationships be given some kind of elevated status akin to marriage? Perhaps. Should these relationships be valued higher than unmarried heterosexual relationships? Perhaps, perhaps not. If committed relationships between homosexuals are worth more to society than are fleeting or open relationships, then we should consider enshrining them. Within the homosexual subculture, perhaps there should be increased importance attached to stable long term relationships, and it may be financially wise to encode legal protections for such relationships into our laws.

Yet my questions prove that even when all other things are equal, even one difference between a traditional marriage and another relationship can be enough to establish inequality. The homosexuals want to get in to the "marriage club" without also letting all the others in, including casual-sex heterosexuals, polygamists, incestuists, pedophiles, bestial persons, and object fetishists. If you can, please make your case for why homosexual relationships deserve validation while all of these others do not.


- Sirian

sheepdog wrote:Pshaw, Will and you know it. A father yourself, you know darn well how hard it is to bring kids up right no matter what your gender and the gender of your partner. I'm disappointed in you going for the rhetorical cheap shot.

Not a cheap shot, a cold hard reality check, which is what the national debate on this issue needs if it's to be productive.
I'd probably be proud to be friends with your two-mommy friends asuming they are as good as you say they are *but* just because I have a big heart absent of predjudice on this issue doesn't mean I'm going to let political correctness and empathy shove our heads in the sand.
Call it what it is and keep it in perspective. Todays gay lifestyle is a burden for the people who live it and perhaps a much bigger burden for the children who find themselves under it's thumb.

Will,

Gee, I give facts and they're denigrated as "anecdotal evidence." As a special extra reward for my willingness to use facts to support my argument, you demean my friends' family, calling a family that is made up of three loving parents and two successful college bound daughters(who also happen to be accomplished athletes and musicians)a "broken home."

I think it's only fair that your side gives the fact thing a whirl.

Can you guys give me a concise list of the relevant facts that would support a ban on gay marriage? I would settle for a single fact, but make it a fact and not a thinly disguised variation on I don't like it, my church doesn't like it, the bible says its bad, its not the way we do it in my hometown and so on. Those are all valuative statements. Nothing wrong with valuative statements, but they're not the facts that you are looking for, are they? I mean a fact is something that is grounded in empirical evidence, isn't it?

Just to give an example, since thus far I haven't seen a fact in this discussion(aside from my own anecdotal evidence),here's a couple of examples of statements of fact:

According to a study conducted by the NIMH, there is no causal relationship between mental health and sexual orientation

Accodording to a longitudinal study conducted by the NIMH, there is no causal link between sexual orientation of parents and the sexual orientation of children.

Margo

Well lets see, you claimed that facts are proven with 'empirical evidence' and then claimed to be the only one to have provided facts but with an singular 'anecdotal' example!
I'm not sure what there is to defend at this point.

But hey, why not, this may prove to be enlightening to both of us to look into it. Here, I was careful not to just jump on the 'single mother' stats because they are quite scary but perhaps unfair in an apples-to-lesbians comparison. After all, how many lesbians does it take to make a man
But even just looking for specific examples of the father figure absent in the home we can provide some empirical 'facts' for you to consider:

"Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse"

--Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993.

Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

--Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC; GPO, 1993.

And just from a purely personal, anecdotal perspective let me just say that, for my daughters, a whole room full of lesbians can't provide that which would be missing if they tried to take my place as the father in the home.

Will Robinson wrote:And just from a purely personal, anecdotal perspective let me just say that, for my daughters, a whole room full of lesbians can't provide that which would be missing if they tried to take my place as the father in the home.

Eeeeeeeeeeeew.

Will wrote:Call it what it is and keep it in perspective. Todays gay lifestyle is a burden for the people who live it and perhaps a much bigger burden for the children who find themselves under it's thumb.

You may be right, but the burden arises out of the prejudice and intolerance of society at large. I have heard this same rationale posited for why interracial marriages are bad. Racists make life very difficult for interracial couples and their children.

All you are doing with this argument is VALIDATING the charge of bigotry being flung from the left.

I prefer my argument, absent of issues of bigotry and its consequences, which as of this reply, has yet to engender a response.


- Sirian

Hey guys,

Sirian I think that you are making a logical argument from law. You are saying that American government has a premise for legislating against certain ways in which individuals conduct their private affairs as in the case of polygamy. So, therefore it is appropriate for the government to consider and decide the legality of same gender marriage.

I think you mentioned Muslims in this regard, but I think the more widely known example of this is the early Mormon movement and current radical Mormon sects.

I agree with you. Society does and should legislate certain aspects of personal life. One reason that laws are changed and made is to promote order and safety. Certainly incest and bestiality are beyond the pale in this regard. All other things held equal, if I was a lesbian I doubt that I have the social or psychological history (not to mention the courage and honesty) that would allow me to live openly as a lesbian parent, so I don't know how far I could honestly go to say that I am personally comfortable with homosexuality.

The place we diverge is with regard to the facts of the matter. Take Will's facts. I think they are irrelvant to the appropriateness of gay marriage because they define a househod that does not have opposite gender parents in it as a broken home. To me that's a classic example of the epistemological arrogance. Will knows he's got the power advantage and so he can't be bothered to make an argument that doesn't start from blatantly false terms. I guarantee you that Will knows that it's absurd to equate gay home with broken home and that's a fact Jack.

I'm glad I'm sitting this one out. Do I see Margos claws extending?

woodchip wrote:I'm glad I'm sitting this one out. Do I see Margos claws extending?

I'm glad you are too. That would make it what, 21 to 1? And I thought I was behaving rather well!

Margo <----claws sheathed and off to a lesson with a winner of the International Sheepdog Trial.

Lol

Ok, so I didn't take the time to phrase it better.
I just want people to remember that our children look to their parents as a benchmark for measuring their own roles in society and in relationships.

My daughters see a husband who loves there mother in a way that re-enforces the traditional foundations of family that they learn about and see other families enjoy. It may seem unfair but that is the type of family that our society points to as 'whole' and a quick slam of the gavel and few legal loopholes won't change that overnight! Until the perception of two-gay-mommy families is considered uncommon but 'good' the children in a two-gay-mommy family start off with a serious burden.
So with that in mind I don't think I'm perpetuating the bigotry but rather pulling our collective heads out of the sand so we can keep it in perspective during the debate that will get us to the goal.

kufyit wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And just from a purely personal, anecdotal perspective let me just say that, for my daughters, a whole room full of lesbians can't provide that which would be missing if they tried to take my place as the father in the home.

Eeeeeeeeeeeew.

Lol

Ok, so I didn't take the time to phrase it better.
I just want people to remember that our children look to their parents as a benchmark for measuring their own roles in society and in relationships.

My daughters see a husband who loves there mother in a way that re-enforces the traditional foundations of family that they learn about and see other families enjoy. It may seem unfair but that is the type of family that our society points to as 'whole' and a quick slam of the gavel and few legal loopholes won't change that overnight! Until the perception of two-gay-mommy families is considered uncommon but 'good' the children in a two-gay-mommy family start off with a serious burden.
So with that in mind I don't think I'm perpetuating the bigotry but rather pulling our collective heads out of the sand so we can keep it in perspective during the debate that will get us to the goal.
Remember I'm not necessarily against gay marriage, I'm against the methods that are currently being used to ram it down our throats without any thought of what it means to the foundation of our culture.
Take a look at how long it took and what steps were endured during the womans sufferage movement.

Sirian wrote:
Let's carry this logic further. Supposing that we take two relationships. One is a traditional heterosexual marriage, the other a homosexual relationship that is IN EVERY WAY identical BUT FOR the physical gender of the partners. Identical jobs, identical incomes, next door neighbors, identical homes, people of identical character and behavior outside the home, and so forth.

Identical in all ways but one: one pair is a man and a woman, the other pair is two men or two women.

Does that one difference matter? To find out, we must extend the logic.

I don't understand what logic you're using to assume that any and all relationships are comparable in some useful way, but I'll follow this one through.

Sirian wrote:Let's compare two other relationships. Let's take a traditional marriage and an unmarried heterosexual couple. Again, everything identical BUT FOR one detail: the second couple is not married.

Is the unmarried relationship worth as much to society as the marriage?

I'm not sure, is it? What does this phrase "worth as much to society" mean? Is the primary function of a relationship supposed to be calculated in terms of the larger benefit to society?

Sirian wrote:Let's compare again. Let's take a traditional marriage and compare to an adult and a child. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the child's parents consented to the child marrying the adult. We have two legal marriages. Let's say that the adult marriage has income of X, between both partners, and the adult-and-child marriage also has income X, between both partners. Maybe the adult brings home all the bacon, or maybe the child is a prodigy or a superstar of some kind and is carrying his/her own weight, financially. Does it matter? All things being equal between these two marriages, BUT FOR the age of the child in the second instance.

Are these two relationships of the same worth to society? Note I haven't stated an age for the child, yet. What if the child is 17? What if the child is 15? What if the child is 12? What if the child is 8? What if the child is 5? Does the child's age matter? If so, why? If not, why not?

This is an invalid comparison. The reason children are not allowed to marry is because we assume that, to some degree, children haven't developed the ability to rationally make useful and productive decisions in their lives. This isn't the case in homosexual relationships between two adults. There simply isn't any similarity between this hypothetical relationship and an informed, consensual homosexual relationship between two adults, which is what we're talking about.

Sirian wrote:Let's compare again. On the one side, we have a traditional Christian marriage, one man and one woman. On the other side, we have a traditional Muslim marriage, one man and one woman, and another woman, and two more women.

All other things being equal, are these marriages of the same worth to society? Note that despite our claims to honor the Islamic religion, in this country we do not recognize polygamy as marriage. Does that make us religious bigots? Are we denying those of Islamic faith their civil rights? If we did start to accept these polygamies, must we also accept polyandry? What kind of complications will be added to our divorce laws when we start to enshrine these multiparty relationships? How is the property to be divided? What if one partner wants out, but the others stick together? Who gets custody of the children and why? You do realize, in Muslim societies where polygamy is accepted, polyandry is not, and the men hold ALL of the rights. Nowhere on earth are women more oppressed than in these societies. Not only that, but all the poor young men left out in the cold with no woman and no hope of ever landing one end up as throwaways in these societies.

Interesting, but still equally as useless to this conversation. Are we talking about polygamy? Polyandry? No, we're not, we're talking about homosexual relationships. There is no logical prerequisite to extend homosexual relationships to every other possible relationship a human being could have. There is no reason that accommodating homosexual relationships necessarily means accommodating polygamy, polyandry, or anything else. I personally believe that a relationship with three or four or however many partners has the potential of being just as healthy as any traditional one, and there is "evidence" to support me. But that's not the point, because that's not what we're talking about here, is it?

Sirian wrote:(Conveniently, these throwaway men can be taught to go on suicide missions, to spend their lives on the promise that any death earned in the name of their god will win them lavish numbers of virgins in the next life. Why not rush to that sexual paradise, when surely here on earth they would be relegated to a sexless life of misery and privation, because there aren't enough women to go around?)

Simply absurd. This has no direct correlation with relationships at all.

Sirian wrote:Let's compare again. Suppose we have two very wealthy families. On the one side, we have a heterosexual married couple. On the other, we have the Free Love Communion, composed of four women and seventeen men, all mutually committed to their relationship, including living together, sleeping together, sexual intimacy, raising children, etc.

Are these relationships of equal value to society?

And why not? What does the sexuality of adults have to do with the love and nurturing a child receives? Is this "are these relationships equal to society" supposed to be obvious and rhetorical?

Sirian wrote:Now let me extend the logic one more step. Suppose we have a heterosexual marriage on one hand, and we have a bestial relationship on the other. Jim and Jill are married human beings. Larry is a human being and his wife Fluffy is a sheep. (Can you say ewe? )

All other things being equal in these households, are these relationships of equal value to society?

How does this example have anything to do with the issue at hand? Are we talking about beastiality? This is a pointless and, to be frank, degrading example. There is no connection between the issue of functional homosexuality in society and what is so obviously severe mental illness. Next please.

Sirian wrote:Suppose we have two married couples. One is a standard marriage, the other is a marriage between biological parent and child. All other things being equal, are these relationships of equal value to society? What if we replace parent and child with two siblings? What then?

Yet again, irrelevant. Incest is not comparable to homosexuality. Incest has been proven to contribute to the possibility of severe biological defects in the offspring of incestual relationships. Homosexuals, on the other hand, cannot mate. Is that so bad "for society?" I would argue that it isn't. There are so many children out there that need loving homes; adoption is a good program to support. With the overpopulation of the world, anything that promotes a reduction in birth rates should be viewed as a blessing to the global community.

Sirian wrote:Let's move on even further. Let's take sex out of the picture for our comparison relationship. Suppose we have a married heterosexual couple on the one hand, and on the other hand we have a man and a woman who have pledged to live together for life and not take on any sexual partners. They are not married, but other than not being married and not having sex, they are in every way identical to the married couple. Is this relationship of equal value to society? What if the second couple are father and daughter, or mother and son, or siblings? What if they aren't? What difference does that make?

Laughable. What does this mean? There are millions of relationships like that. We all have them. Do you think in terms of "hmm, what's the value to society of my relationship with my roommate Al" and if you do, why? Why should relationships necessarily be quantified in terms of "value" to the society at large? Is this a communist country we're living in? I don't think so. Individual liberty, without the expense of another's individual liberty, is the cornerstone of this nation, correct?

Sirian wrote:Should we let any group of living beings of any relationship to one another claim equality with a married couple? Heck, why limit it to living beings. Suppose Bill wants to marry his vacuum cleaner. Who are you to deny him his happiness? Let's hold a ceremony in the church, and let's make sure Sally the Hoover Upright is plugged in, so that "she" may roar her approval, proving that yes, "Bill turns me on."

This is hyperbole. Intolerance. A "funny joke" in which it's roots lie in the bigotry and narrowness of earlier American societies. There is no relationship between the gay rights issue and polygamy, bestiality, incest, or sex with appliances. You know, back in the day, when we were debating whether or not interracial marriages were "good for society," some of the more crude "scholars" suggesting that allowing interracial marriage was similar to, or would lead to, the requirement of allowing bestiality. Seems absurd today right? Same thing applies here. There is NO connection between the gay rights issue and any of these insulting absurdities you so verbosely illustrate.

Sirian wrote:Is homosexuality the moral equivalence of unmarried heterosexuality? Opinions and beliefs differ. Some believe that a committed monogamous homosexual domestic partnership, otherwise indistinguishable from a successful marriage, is SUPERIOR to an unmarried heterosexual couple, in terms of the value of the relationship to society. Some believe otherwise. The issue is debatable.

How do you quantify these relationships? What's the equation? Is it X + Y + my own intolerance - the Constitution = "The Truth"?

Sirian wrote:Is homosexuality the moral equivalence of polygamy? Of polyandry? Of pedophilia? Of incest? There is no objective standard. The answer depends on the values of the person you ask. Yet society's answer is clear: on the whole, these relationships do not produce stable families in which to raise children. History has shown that marriage is the best relationship for the children, and children are the survival of our race. If even one generation of parents fails to nurture its children sufficiently, all that we have built and struggled for through the eons could be lost almost overnight.

Again, this is ridiculous. These issues are not related to the issue of homosexuality. Oh, yah, we embrace homosexuals and that means that all of a sudden, "eons" of our diligent work goes down the tubes. I'm laughing right now, seriously.

Sirian wrote:Let's talk Darwin. Survival of the fittest. Only those societies who have valued marriage above all other relationships have survived. Why is that?

First of all, is that true? You better do some research. Second of all, in the cases where a society that happens to have different conceptions of "marriage" has perished, is it wise to ascribe in haste just one reason for their demise? What about colonialism, oppression, evolution, globalization, immigration, environmental catastrophe, etc?

Sirian wrote:Is an unmarried relationship worth a married one? Is a polygamy or polyandry worth a committed one to one marriage? Is a boy and girl dating in junior high worth a marriage? The answer to these is no, no and no.

This question of worth is absurd. YOUR logical flaw is lies not only in your comparisons, which have no direct relationship to the homosexual issue, but also in your implied ability to quantify the "value" of these relationships to society. What currency do you use, and why are you the only one that thinks they can objectively calculate some kind of value into a relationship?

Sirian wrote:YOUR FALLACY is that you want to extend the value judgment on relationship OVER ON TO the individuals involved. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. That is a fundamental logical flaw. The civil rights movement was about the worth of individuals. The marriage issue is about the worth of relationships.

It's a clever and slimy tactic of the skeptical to dehumanize this issue. It isn't JUST about the worth of relationships to society (which is an impossible thing to measure anyway). This is about the people IN those relationships, their CIVIL rights. It's a joke to suggest anything otherwise.

Sirian wrote:Yet my questions prove that even when all other things are equal, even one difference between a traditional marriage and another relationship can be enough to establish inequality. The homosexuals want to get in to the "marriage club" without also letting all the others in, including casual-sex heterosexuals, polygamists, incestuous, pedophiles, bestial persons, and object fetishists. If you can, please make your case for why homosexual relationships deserve validation while all of these others do not.

Homosexual relationships (the issue we're discussing) deserve validation because they are:

• Consensual
• Between two human beings
• Between two adults
• Healthy and functional

kufyit wrote:Individual liberty, without the expense of another's individual liberty, is the cornerstone of this nation, correct?

The real question is, would you support giving relgious insitutions exceptions so they would not have to be forced by the state to violate their own beliefs?