Just hit me. Abortion (combined with genetic screening) could theoretically end all of this talk about gay marriage, and gay marriage (if it becomes popular enough) might rid us of the need to debate abortion. Utopia one way or the other!
mertawg:
It is the right of every citizen to pursue happiness. That’s what the document says, right? Honestly, matters not to me if two men want to have sex together. It’s their right. When they want to effect others by their decision then it becomes everyones “right” to question it. Before I agree to change a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population, they better come up with some facts and figures as to why this has to happen. The most important being an overlooked but most important part of the equation: children!
I am very concerned with children and how they are brought up. There are plenty of things that children today must deal with (sadly) relative to their parents. Divorce, alcohol and drug abuse, infidelity, etc. Why place a child in an environment where they must get used to one more “oddity?” Are two homosexuals going to supply a good enviornment for that child? Do we know the answer to this? Should we just gamble a generation or two and find out? I don’t think so.
If you are going to roll the dice, roll it a few more times! Would you be in favor of group (several men and several women) marriage? If so can the “group” adopt? Would you be in favor of a human marrying an animal? If so can they adopt a child? Are you in favor of one individual marrying several people of the same or opposite sex? If so can they adopt?
I want to know exactly where you would like to draw the line? If it’s a man made institution then why can’t we make this thing over…and over…and over to suit everyones needs and desires? Why be intolerant of all of the above? How many T-Men would like more than one wife right now? Be honest. Why deny them?
We as a society can make any law that the people desire. Why not make every last person happy? What would be the harm? The argument from your side is this: Does it really matter as long as we are not directly effected?
I think what all of the free thinkers are forgetting about is the children! At what point do they matter to you?
hspdr,
“Again, my problem is not with the concept of marriage, but with the word and the religious charge it contains, which polarizes people.”
Marriage, as a concept, polarizes people?
Huh?
No one has been offended by the concept of marriage until the recent fringe of folks that somehow have determined that heterosexual marriage is denying them of some right they should enjoy or oppressing them, both of which are fabrications.
[quote]ZEB wrote:I am very concerned with children and how they are brought up. There are plenty of things that children today must deal with (sadly) relative to their parents. Divorce, alcohol and drug abuse, infidelity, etc. Why place a child in an environment where they must get used to one more “oddity?” Are two homosexuals going to supply a good enviornment for that child? Do we know the answer to this? Should we just gamble a generation or two and find out? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
I am concerned about children. I know many kids who are being raised by a homosexual couple now in which one “partner” a biological parent. I’m not saying I like it, but if homosexuality had been more accepted, these situations probably wouldn’t have occured in the first place, and as it becomes more accepted, these kids are considered less of a oddity and adjust better in school. Homosexuals can and do adopt and serve as foster parents.
All of the “forms” of marriage you mentioned are allowed today as religious marriages. That is protected by religious freedom. Tax breaks are given as a matter of social engineering. If giving an individual or group a tax break has pragmatic
advantages (Congress has to decide) and you accept the concept of tax breaks then OK. Personally, I don’t think a married couple should get a tax break. Tax breaks are a liberal invention, and conservatives are hypocritical when they fight for tax breaks for any group. As far as adoption, that is an issue, but the fact is, there aren’t nearly enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt to take on all the kids who need a family. If a heterosexual single man or woman wants to adopt should they be allowed to? If so, then there’s nothing in the law preventing a homosexual individual from doing the same. However, I don’t know if in an ideal situation (enough families willing to adopt) I would like to see kids adopted by gays. I’ll think about that issue.
[quote]I want to know exactly where you would like to draw the line? If it’s a man made institution then why can’t we make this thing over…and over…and over to suit everyones needs and desires? Why be intolerant of all of the above? How many T-Men would like more than one wife right now? Be honest. Why deny them?
[/quote]
I’m not for any type of marriage other than 1 man 1 woman. That would be a religious matter. I’m not for the government defining civil unions. We live in a world and under a government in which we have to face the fact that there will be some degree of liberalism. Again, all of the advantages of a civil union arise from a liberal view of taxes and economics (aside from possibly the adoption issue). As far as the children, within 20 years max, two homosexual men or women will be able to produce a child with their combined genetic material. Within 100 years, the human race may be sexually impotent and reproduce exclusively by laboratory means, or not at all. Hey, in 100 years we might not be able to tell the difference between men and women.
I hope I’m clear. I am for straight monogamous marriage but nothing can or does prevent all kinds of abhorant marriage.
I am not for any type of civil union because I am a conservative and see tax breaks etc. as a liberal invention, but as such they are strictly pragmatic. A conservative who argues about the way a liberal invention is instituted is a hypocrite. Again, I’ll give the adoption issue furthur consideration.
The fact is, the whole idea of relative law in America emerged out of the extreme fractioning and relativism of 10,000 protestant denomonations and the concept of one’s own personal Jesus.
And ZEB,
I should have asked how many kids you’ve adopted.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Marriage, as a concept, polarizes people?
Huh?
[/quote]
That’s not what I meant. I was talking about the whole sleuth of things people attach to the word.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood us - what I was saying - and I believe mertdawg was saying too - is that there would be Civil Unions, which are contracts, which can have contractual obligations and exit clauses…[/quote]
You’re right. I misunderstood you. Sorry.
So basically you’re saying call all marriages (gay or otherwise) civil unions in the eyes of the law. Okay. But we still have the whole “a rose by any other name” thing here. If it’s a marriage, call it one. Like I said before, this is a name thing. Most people (I say most due to the recent election results) are incapable of saying that a gay marriage has merit in comparison to a hetero one.
The less than 1% increase to the amount of married people we would see in this country by adopting gay/lesbian marriage is a negligible load to bear in terms of taxation, so this is not about money… it’s about intolerance and disgust. Things are not going to change until most folks understand that faggotry is just something that happens to some people, and is not a threat to them or their own way of life.
I think that basically we are agreeing here on this issue, just in different ways.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
A fetus is not a parasite by ANY scientific definition. A parasite is an organism that damages the ability of another organism to (ultimately) reproduce. Thats the eco-biological end. Don’t mix scientific and social definitions please. If a fetus is harmful to the mother, than anyone walking by a pregnant woman should be morally bound to try to save her from this parasite. If she doesn’t want to have a parasite removed from her, she’s crazy and you owe it to her to help her anyway. Also, if a person intentionally kills a fetus inside another person, what are they guilty of? Nothing according to you-they helped her. She might not even win a civil suit. By definition, a doctor who performs an abortion is a parasite. He/she benifits from preventing another from passing on their genetic material. How is a 2 year old different? Can they take care of themselves? Do they parasitize based on your definition? [/quote]
Sorry I just saw this post from before… I don’t know how I missed it earlier, but I knew that somebody (not necessarily you) would try to bust me on this.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=parasite
As you can see, this has nothing to do with reproduction. The fetus is (partly at least) foreign material… a living, seperate animal, much like a tapeworm. And this organism attaches itself to the human host body and leeches nourishment from its host without providing any biological benefit (except for bigger boobies as the hormone response kicks in), so yes… actually a fetus is parasitic. I know it’s weird to think about it like that, but it’s true.
As to “saving” a young mother-to-be from her parasite… well, I’ve seen plenty of young ladies (ahem) here in my ER that had ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING BUSINESS being a parent, but dammit there are laws that prevent me from doing the right thing. I’ve even written to my congressman, but he doesn’t do shit for me.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=parasite
As you can see, this has nothing to do with reproduction. The fetus is (partly at least) foreign material… a living, seperate animal, much like a tapeworm. And this organism attaches itself to the human host body and leeches nourishment from its host without providing any biological benefit (except for bigger boobies as the hormone response kicks in), so yes… actually a fetus is parasitic. I know it’s weird to think about it like that, but it’s true.
[/quote]
Yes, but very clearly in biology and ecology we refer to parasitic “species” and host “species.”
When we say an animal or plant (or other) we mean a species of animals or plants. The word parasite is an ecological term and ecology is not the study of individual organisms but populations, species, chains and webs. In other words a Tapeworm is an organism. “Harm” in ecology is a measure of the degree to which an population of organisms, or subset of a population has its replacement rate and viability diminished. Resources are evaluated in terms of how they improve an populations replacement rate or offspring viability.
All you had to do is say that the fetus impacts the future reproductive rate, and viability of offspring of a population, or subset, but this mixes biological and social terms. Find a biology source anywhere that says that members of one species can be defined as parasites of other members of a species. THATS CALLED COMPETITION!
Yay! ZEB’s in this thread! What’s up dude? Anyway, spoken like a true conservative, my friend. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. And I’m going to agree with you that the burden of proof is on the queers to present their case. They did. Gay marriage will not destroy society. Remember our other thread about this? You’re still spouting that “5000 year old institution of marriage will be destroyed” stuff, huh? It won’t be destroyed, man. It’s just going to change… AGAIN. Just like it has a bunch of other times. When a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, is the caterpillar killed? No.
Good Lord, you are hung up on this. Homorepugnance is just another name for “ewwww… gross!” Yeah. I’m not going to go kissing some other guy either. Here’s your answer as to whether or not two homos will supply a good environment for a child:
http://www.bloomberg.com/...F0P5w&refer=us
I posted this link in one of our other discussions about this. While you may think that a couple of fags can’t raise kids, the kids would beg to differ. Does the fact that a child has queer parents (adoptive or hemi-biological) matter in how they are perceived by their peers? Yes. Will it hurt the child in the long (or even short) run? No. My lesbian friend here at work has been raising a child for eight years now. She has a more stable relationship with her partner (I wish I could say wife) than 99% of the non-gay couples I know. Their daughter is doing great.
I’m seeing this in action, ZEB. It’s working… why don’t we just call a duck a duck and let them get married for cryin’ out loud?
I don’t know, pal. Let’s go ask some mormons or some muslims how their multiple wives are doing? I would think that having more than one wife would put me in an early grave! Anyway, this is no different than having a group marriage, except for your hang-up that one of the wives might be a man. Society, as you can see, has not been obliterated by group marriage. WHat I mean by this is I seriously doubt that the non-existent bisexual mormons and muslims will pose a threat to your way of life.
Honestly, ZEB. Fucking someone of the same sex is NOT like fucking a sheep. I’m Scottish, buddy, trust me. The sheep is WAY better. You do realize how goofy you sound when you post something like this in support of your primary beef in this issue, right? The only way I can think that you don’t sound like a retard after this is if you were kidding about it. I, however, am not. Sheep sex rules.
[quote] Are you in favor of one individual marrying several people of the same or opposite sex? If so can they adopt?[/quote] See above. I think you repeated yourself here on accident. I do it all the time.
Dude. This is SO easy to answer. More than one wife is hell on earth. That’s twice the bitching, twice the nagging, twice the divorce money – you catch my drift, I’m sure. That’s why you have a wife and multiple girlfriends. Now THAT’S an institution older than even 5000 years that ain’t never gonna change, buddy!
[quote]We as a society can make any law that the people desire. Why not make every last person happy? What would be the harm? The argument from your side is this: Does it really matter as long as we are not directly effected?
I think what all of the free thinkers are forgetting about is the children! At what point do they matter to you?
[/quote]
Overall, I’d say that your post sums up the majority of the fears which possess the American public concerning this issue. It’s a good post, man. But if you can open your mind (not your ass) just a teeny little bit, can’t you see what you are afraid of just isn’t going to happen? There’s no slippery slope to societal oblivion.
Yeah, it’s gross for some people to see two guys kissing. Did your parents suck on each other and make out like “9 1/2 Weeks” in front of you when you were a kid? Of course not. It’s not gay porn in the homes of the gay/lesbian parent homes, either. Relax.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Yes, but very clearly in biology and ecology we refer to parasitic “species” and host “species.”
When we say an animal or plant (or other) we mean a species of animals or plants. The word parasite is an ecological term and ecology is not the study of individual organisms but populations, species, chains and webs. In other words a Tapeworm is an organism. “Harm” in ecology is a measure of the degree to which an population of organisms, or subset of a population has its replacement rate and viability diminished. Resources are evaluated in terms of how they improve an populations replacement rate or offspring viability.
All you had to do is say that the fetus impacts the future reproductive rate, and viability of offspring of a population, or subset, but this mixes biological and social terms. Find a biology source anywhere that says that members of one species can be defined as parasites of other members of a species. THATS CALLED COMPETITION!
[/quote]
Glad you’re up this late, mert. Anyway, I can see your point, but aren’t we splitting hairs here? I mean when you have to go bring in ecological vs. biological definitions, and whatnot… come on. The fetus (same species or not) drains the resources of whatever uterus it’s attached to, and offers nothing in benefit. That’s a parasite, plain and simple. BTW, want to read some weird shit?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919631036.Dv.r.html
As you can see, interspecies implantation of feti is possible, but doesn’t yield viable offspring except in special rare cases. Sorry to get off topic for a second, but… isn’t this creepy/cool?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
BTW, want to read some weird shit?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919631036.Dv.r.html
As you can see, interspecies implantation of feti is possible, but doesn’t yield viable offspring except in special rare cases. Sorry to get off topic for a second, but… isn’t this creepy/cool?[/quote]
There are plans IN THE WORKS to take dna from a frozen wooly mammoth carcass and use an elephant egg to implant the DNA into. By the way, they haven’t realized an important fact. Dolly the sheep, and the potential wooly mammoth describe above would not be complete genetic clones because the Mitochondrial DNA would be from the host egg. Although the mt DNA of an elephant and a Mammoth would be very similar anyway, and mt DNA has very little know effect on the traits of an organism, there should be some primary effect and some gene interaction. Anyone want a PhD dissertation topic?
Cool! Jurassic Park is real! I can’t wait to go on a Triceratops ride. 
lothario. I think you might be losing it, or you were just up to late. Either way when you come to your senses, you can try again to answer my previous post. Next time put away all of your sterotypes.
ZEB: I did answer your thread. You have said repeatedly in other threads that you are “homorepugnant”. You have heckled me with the “boy comes home to see his two fathers kissing” scenario as if this would matter. The post you made on this thread is no different. You have hangups. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m not exactly a gay myself, but that’s no reason for me to be repulsed by my “different” friends. To each their own, right?
Anyway, it’s just fun to heckle you. Have you seen how often you appeared in the “imitate T-members” thread? You’re famous, buddy!
P.S. I’m always up late.
Bigot or not. Rule of the majority with respect for the minority.
A landlside of states support sanctity of marriage. (38 of them) From this we can deduce that the people of these states like the word marriage for what it is. Since they took the time to pass the laws. Now when I see the word respect. I see letting them have any other word they want. Let two dudes getting hitched called “disgusting” and you’ll be fine.
It’d be fun to hear comments by Bruce: “You know Bob and I are digusting now?”
But seriously. The majority feels rather strongly about this issue and it is a law. I really don’t feel ass pounders should try to make the country ruled by minority with respect for the majority. That would be truly silly.
I think the thing that should stand as a positive out of the option of putting the word marriage exclusively under the umbrella of religion, and letting the government deal with a secular pragmatic definition is that two guys like hpder and I with almost diametrically opposed religious views and different opinions about pragmatics and laws existing by the will of a higher power can actually agree in this country on a solution to a tough issue. Its called comprimise. I do not hate gays, I think there is a strong biological element to homosexuality, I think I WOULD consider it to be a genetic defect and something to pity. I’m not going to join a FLAG group, but I am a friend of every gay boy and girl I have met as a teacher. There are more heterosexual perverts by far (based on molestation statistics) than homosexual perverts, probably 15 to 1. Pure morality for its sake can not be forced by any law and even if you don’t favor gay unions on moral basis, the evidence that it is harmfull is non-existent. It is symbolic only, and symbolic only laws are destined by the very nature of the justice system to disappear. We have to face that fact.
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
Bigot or not. Rule of the majority with respect for the minority.
A landlside of states support sanctity of marriage. (38 of them) From this we can deduce that the people of these states like the word marriage for what it is. Since they took the time to pass the laws. Now when I see the word respect. I see letting them have any other word they want. Let two dudes getting hitched called “disgusting” and you’ll be fine.
It’d be fun to hear comments by Bruce: “You know Bob and I are digusting now?”[/quote]
Hehe
I don’t think ass-pounders are trying to take over America on account of this issue, do you? I will definitely agree that the VAST majority in this country is unable to see the value in gay marriage, and it may be a very, very long time before this changes.
One interesting thing I thought of regarding this: what if we as a country pass a bunch of “sanctity of life” laws to make abortion of any kind illegal? Do we really want our morality legislated for us? What happens, guys, when all of a sudden you discover that the policies being passed to make us a more sanctimonious nation are not in line with your beliefs?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
…Pure morality for its sake can not be forced by any law and even if you don’t favor gay unions on moral basis, the evidence that it is harmfull is non-existent. It is symbolic only, and symbolic only laws are destined by the very nature of the justice system to disappear. We have to face that fact. [/quote]
Excellent post, mert. I just wanted to repeat the above passage because it’s too damn true.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
…Pure morality for its sake can not be forced by any law and even if you don’t favor gay unions on moral basis, the evidence that it is harmfull is non-existent. It is symbolic only, and symbolic only laws are destined by the very nature of the justice system to disappear. We have to face that fact.
Excellent post, mert. I just wanted to repeat the above passage because it’s too damn true.
[/quote]
I also want to clarify something I said here. On re-reading, my words were a little confusing. I actually meant even if you don’t favor gay unions and your reasons are NOT based on it being a sin, but rather on the pragmatic social implications, the evidence that it would be harmful is non-existent.
When I said “it is a symbolic law” I meant laws that use the term “marriage” instead of another word like “unions” simply for the symbolic sake of using the word marriage.