[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Being that marriage is changing with our modern day, which you congratulate, I’ve heard about ceremonies where animals get married too. It sounds ludicrous doesn’t it? Maybe in 50 years I can marry a cat, you know, for the emotional support and the “love”.
[/quote]
Sure, it sounds goofy. But so long as you don’t plan on sexually assaulting (or otherwise harming) the cat, I have no problem with it 
That’s my whole point.
-Glee
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Glee,
I enjoyed our discussion on the Bruce Lee thread and I think you are a very intelligent person.
Since you have pretty much told me your belief up front we don’t really have much to discuss. Polar opposites and all.
We could end up shouting back and forth, niether really hearing the other but I’m just not interested in that. (Don’t get me wrong, catch me on the right day and I might be in the mood
Gleemonex wrote:(If you think) that the real world is composed of absolutes in material, intellect and moral values. In which case:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… hahahaha… hahaha… heheh… phew!
Take care, and all the best.
Zeb[/quote]
Thank you kindly. I’m glad you’re able to take my (admittedly sarcastic) jibes in stride, and I enjoy our debates as well =)
I don’t have much to add here either, without diverging even further from the original topic, of course 
-Glee
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
You’re missing the point. If you define promiscuity as “Sex outside of marriage”, and you make it impossible for gays to marry, you are creating a semantic trap.
But of course you have to remember that the history of marriage only includes one man and one woman. Therefore, it’s not like someone included such a thing and then suddenly exempted it.
If it was never there and never accepted then any sex between two people of the same sex, or for that matter two people who are unmarried would be, and always would have been considedered sin according to the Bible.
So don’t recongize it in the religious sense. Legal recongnition of unions are created and defined by man-both the rules and benefits that accrue with it. There is no authority besides our own that says it must be between a man a woman. Leave religion out of it. Let the participants worry about their relationship with God and how their lifestyle will be judged.
[/quote]
We have sort of had this conversation.
I now say “Where does it stop?”
And you type something back to me sending it all around again…
[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re talking about the definition of promiscuous, not the definition of marriage. The definition I shared (from dictionary.com) says nothing about sex outside of marriage. Promiscuity is having frequent, indiscriminate sex with multiple partners. If a gay couple is monogamous, they are by definition not promiscuous.[/quote]
Yes, I understand.
No that’s not the term that I meant to use. This is a discussion that we can have on many different levels.
[quote]forlife wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
on the marriage issue, whats the point for gays to marry. marriage has always been a religious union, since gays marrying is against real religions that have stood the test of time, it now comes down to a monitary gain to get married, so if your in it for that marry a woman and be with you you want sexually.
Call it a civil union then. Gay couples pay taxes just like straight couples do. Gay couples love one another just like straight couples do. They should be entitled to social security benefits. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital. They should enjoy the same CIVIL benefits that straight couples enjoy.[/quote]
Dare I say it?
It’s about da $
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
on the marriage issue, whats the point for gays to marry. marriage has always been a religious union, since gays marrying is against real religions that have stood the test of time, it now comes down to a monitary gain to get married, so if your in it for that marry a woman and be with you you want sexually.
Call it a civil union then. Gay couples pay taxes just like straight couples do. Gay couples love one another just like straight couples do. They should be entitled to social security benefits. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital. They should enjoy the same CIVIL benefits that straight couples enjoy.
Dare I say it?
It’s about da $
[/quote]
No more so than a straight couple in a committed relationship. It’s not about the money, but they should still be entitled to the benefits that accompany such a state. So should the gays. More than anything, I suspect it’s about the state acknowledging that two people who consider themselves married and committed each other should be viewed as such by others. Ridiculous for outsiders to the relationship to tell them that they’re not.
You’re only partially correct. Yes, it is about receiving the same financial benefits that straight couples receive, given that you pay the same taxes.
But it is MUCH more than that. There are many rights given to straight couples, like the right to visit a loved one in the hospital, which are denied gay couples.
Furthermore, a civil union, officially recognized by one’s government, with a prescribed cost for dissolution, represents a higher level of mutual love and commitment. It is MORE likely to produce long-term gay relationships than not having such a mechanism for expressing commitment. Without marriage, I don’t doubt that even fewer straight couples would stay together than is currently the case.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
on the marriage issue, whats the point for gays to marry. marriage has always been a religious union, since gays marrying is against real religions that have stood the test of time, it now comes down to a monitary gain to get married, so if your in it for that marry a woman and be with you you want sexually.
Call it a civil union then. Gay couples pay taxes just like straight couples do. Gay couples love one another just like straight couples do. They should be entitled to social security benefits. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital. They should enjoy the same CIVIL benefits that straight couples enjoy.
Dare I say it?
It’s about da $
No more so than a straight couple in a committed relationship. It’s not about the money, but they should still be entitled to the benefits that accompany such a state. [/quote]
Why should they be entitled to it?
And why shouldn’t other less traditional couples and groups of people be “entitled to it?”
(Yes we will do this same debate forever…)
[quote]forlife wrote:
There are many rights given to straight couples, like the right to visit a loved one in the hospital, which are denied gay couples.[/quote]
I am for any close friend or relative being able to have visitation rights. Including live in’s.
Let’s first really figure out why people are gay. All political and religious beliefs aside…We just don’t know yet. And we don’t know the impact on young impressionable kids/teens if society actually embraces this.
Actually, marriage is quite healthy. The divorce rate is only about 30%, if you remove all of the two three and four time “losers” who drive the total percentage rate up.
Don’t look now, but this kind of thinking leads us into the realm of the “thought police”.
I cannot believe what people are willing to rationalize in order to support their conclusions.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I am for any close friend or relative being able to have visitation rights. Including live in’s.[/quote]
But that’s not how the law currently works. Married couples have special privileges, such as visitation rights, which unmarried couples do not. If you’re going to remedy that by extending those rights to all “close friends or relatives”, that’s fine…but meantime gays have loved ones dying in the hospital and are unable to visit them (yes, there are true stories in this regard).
This doesn’t address the point that civil unions represent a higher level of mutual commitment, and are more likely to keep gay couples together. Also, while you are really trying to “figure out why people are gay”, there are millions of real people trying to live their real lives. The question of why people are gay is irrelevant; what matters is that sexual orientation cannot generally be changed, and that gays have the same right to happiness in a relationship that heterosexuals have.
[quote]Actually, marriage is quite healthy. The divorce rate is only about 30%, if you remove all of the two three and four time “losers” who drive the total percentage rate up.
[/quote]
You’re only supporting my point. If marriage is so effective in reducing the breaking up of couples, why not extend the same mechanism (or something similar, like civil unions) to gays?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
on the marriage issue, whats the point for gays to marry. marriage has always been a religious union, since gays marrying is against real religions that have stood the test of time, it now comes down to a monitary gain to get married, so if your in it for that marry a woman and be with you you want sexually.
Call it a civil union then. Gay couples pay taxes just like straight couples do. Gay couples love one another just like straight couples do. They should be entitled to social security benefits. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital. They should enjoy the same CIVIL benefits that straight couples enjoy.
Dare I say it?
It’s about da $
No more so than a straight couple in a committed relationship. It’s not about the money, but they should still be entitled to the benefits that accompany such a state.
Why should they be entitled to it?
And why shouldn’t other less traditional couples and groups of people be “entitled to it?”
(Yes we will do this same debate forever…)
[/quote]
Are you really talking about these hypothetical polygamous and incestual couples? If there were really a big push coming from it from them, maybe they should be entitled to it so long as they are not hurting anyone. But such a push does not exist and is irrelvant. Let me ask you this. Why should their be any legal recongition of your marriage to your wife?
Let it be recognize under God as the bible says with zero rights accorded under the laws of this nation. Why should you receive any rights in this country because of it? Or rather, why shouldn’t anyone who asserts they are in a committed relationship? What makes your relationship any more legitimate than a gay couple who is in a committed relationship and seeks to have it legally and socially recognized?
For Life is arguing better than I ever could. It is nice to see someone with a vested interest in this issue actually weigh in.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I am for any close friend or relative being able to have visitation rights. Including live in’s.
But that’s not how the law currently works.[/quote]
I know I’m agreeing with you.
When the sale is made you have to learn to shut up. 
[quote]Let’s first really figure out why people are gay. All political and religious beliefs aside…We just don’t know yet. And we don’t know the impact on young impressionable kids/teens if society actually embraces this.
This doesn’t address the point that civil unions represent a higher level of mutual commitment, and are more likely to keep gay couples together. Also, while you are really trying to “figure out why people are gay”, there are millions of real people trying to live their real lives. The question of why people are gay is irrelevant;[/quote]
No, I think it’s quite relevant as we are talking about children being adopted (more so than currently) into households that are gay.
Remember that long, long list of studies, surveys etc that I posted three times?
They say that people can change if they are highly motivated.
And many with same sex attraction have changed. I know you don’t think they have but they say they have. I have to listen to them.
But I know it’s not easy.
[quote]You’re only supporting my point. If marriage is so effective in reducing the breaking up of couples, why not extend the same mechanism (or something similar, like civil unions) to gays?
[/quote]
Becuase we don’t know the impact on children as I stated.
I want to know how people become gay. And I think once we know this we will have our answer relative to any sort of gay unions.
I am very serious in stating that if some people really are born that way, and there is real proof, I would change my postion!
But it they are not and it is indeed some sort of trauma that happens in their childhood (distant father, molested etc.) then that’s another story.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, I think it’s quite relevant as we are talking about children being adopted (more so than currently) into households that are gay.
[/quote]
Would you be for the resolution in the Ohio House that would forbid gay couples or transgender people from adopting children? Would it be worse to believe that you are unwanted and have no parents or to have gay ones?
I posted a study before (not in this thread) that showed children of gay couples are no more likely than “normal” to become gay. The had the same rates of drug use, crime, etc. as “normal” kids as well.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No, I think it’s quite relevant as we are talking about children being adopted (more so than currently) into households that are gay.[/quote]
If you look at the research that has been conducted on gay parents, you will see that their children are just as healthy as those from straight parents. In addition, they are no more likely to be gay than children raised by straight parents. Yes, I can provide references if necessary.
I addressed this earlier, and you ignored me. I’ll try again. Please show me where the research you provided demonstrated that ALL people can change their orientation, if they are highly motivated.
What about the possibility that people are at various points on the sexual orientation scale?
What about multiple etiologies for homosexuality?
What about all of those people in the studies YOU cite who don’t change? Where is the evidence that these people didn’t change because of lack of MOTIVATION?
Not only are you ignoring the conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization, but you are misrepresenting the claims of the handpicked studies that you cite.
[quote]I am very serious in stating that if some people really are born that way, and there is real proof, I would change my postion!
But it they are not and it is indeed some sort of trauma that happens in their childhood (distant father, molested etc.) then that’s another story.
[/quote]
Again, you’re missing the point. The causes for homosexuality are IRRELEVANT. What matters is whether or not people can CHANGE their orientation, and whether or not that applies to EVERYONE. You have admitted, both here and in private messages to me, that not everyone can change. So if that is true, how is that any different from being born gay?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I am very serious in stating that if some people really are born that way, and there is real proof, I would change my postion!
But it they are not and it is indeed some sort of trauma that happens in their childhood (distant father, molested etc.) then that’s another story.
[/quote]
What would you consider “real proof”? I’m seriously curious, that’s all.
In the interest of balance, I’m going to provide a small sample of studies that have shown a clear genetic link for homosexuality (there are many more available). If Zeb is sincere in his statement about a genetic cause for homosexuality, maybe he will read these with an open mind.
My current opinion is that both genetics and environment come into play in the expression of homosexual orientation, just as they affect the expression of heterosexual orientation.
Regardless, I will say yet again that the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. What matters is whether or not sexual orientation can generally be changed. Every major medical and mental health organization has conclusively determined that it cannot generally be changed, and in fact attempting to do so can be damaging to the person trying to change.
Gay genes - possible genetic basis for homosexuality - Sex - 1992
Studies of identical twins vs fraternal twins and adoptive siblings seemed to indicate a genetic basis for homosexuality. These results suggest the evolutionary …
Discover, 1/1/93
X marks the spot - possible genetic link to homosexuality found on the X chromosome - 1993 - The Year in Science
Molecular biologist Dean Hamer found a region of the X chromosome that gay men in the same family shared, suggesting a genetic factor of homosexuality passed by the mother. Though more research is nee
Discover, 1/1/94
Sexuality At Hand - research links homosexuality to left-handedness - Brief Article
Is sexual orientation in the genes? Yet another indication might be at hand. According to Kenneth Zucker, Ph.D., a researcher at the University of …
Psychology Today, 11/1/00
Genetic clue to male homosexuality emerges
National Cancer Institute geneticists have located a portion of the X chromosome that they believe contains a gene that predisposes some individuals to …
Science News, 7/17/93
Portrait of a gene guy - genetic researcher Dean Hamer
National Institutes of Health researcher Dean Hamer has been studying the link between genetics and human behavior for several years. He conducted studies …
Discover, 10/1/97
X chromosome again linked to homosexuality
The results of genetic analyses on homosexual brothers provide evidence supporting that a gene or genes in the X chromosome plays a role in male homosexuality.
Science News, 11/4/95
Gays given wrong spin on genetics - scientific discovery of genetic predisposition to homosexuality - Column
Scientific research is uncovering data that shows biological imprint in gay behavior. This sets the tone for preventing laws against homosexuals because …
Insight on the News, 8/30/93
What is normal? - heredity and homosexuality
Researchers Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard have come up with evidence that supports the hereditary component in homosexuality. Their assumption that …
National Review, 2/3/92
Sex and the brain - neurobiologist Simon LeVay found a link between brain structure and homosexuality
LeVay’s discovery of a difference in a part of the hypothalamus between gay and heterosexual men has spurred research on genetic causes of homosexuality …
Discover, 3/1/94
Genetic clues to female homosexuality - research from female twins and adoptive sisters
Research suggests that genes may influence the development of lesbianism among women. Twin and adoptive sisters were studied in the project. Some studies …
Science News, 8/22/92
Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in a National Probability Sample
The relations between birth order and sexual orientation in both men and women were examined in a national probability sample of the United States (Laumann, …
Journal of Sex Research, 11/1/00
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Are you really talking about these hypothetical polygamous and incestual couples?
[/quote]
Hypothetical?
I think Polygamy has been around (and more accepted around the world) longer than two people of the same sex.
What makes you think there will not be a strong push for it if gay marriage were ever enacted.
(Wow I just had daJavu. Didn’t we did do this maybe 73 times in the past? I have an idea can I argue your side and you argue mine for a while? It might be less mind numbing. No really can we?)
ALTERNATE UNIVERSE
jsbrook ,
You don’t understand, what gives you the right to deny people the happiness that they so richly deserve based upon some religious dogma that many find offensive anyway.
I am not talking about Church weddings, the church will have nothing to do with it. This is about GOVERNMENT sanctioning.
What harm would that be?
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
I posted a study before (not in this thread) that showed children of gay couples are no more likely than “normal” to become gay. The had the same rates of drug use, crime, etc. as “normal” kids as well.
[/quote]
LOL…oh stop it!
We don’t respect any sort of studies on this thread.
STUDIES MEAN NOTHING!
Surveys?
THEY MEAN NOTHING!
Statistics?
THEY MEAN EVEN LESS!
Polls done by well respected institutions?
HA! THEY MATTER NOT!
Then what does matter?
Um…not hurting anyones feelings seems to be important.
And you hurt my feelings with that silly study of yours. Therefore, I don’t accept it.
LOL (shakes head) studies…