Originally Posted by ClassyElf
Being gay is mostly geneticly related. If a man is gay enough to not be able to get an erection around a woman, then he is unable to reproduce even if he tried, thus the medical definition of infertile "the inability to conceive and have offspring" fits the gay man.
Whoa wait. You just crossed from biology to psychology. Two different things in the eyes of the law.
Originally Posted by Rakjavik
Bcomp, thankyou for expressing your views in a kind manner even though you know you are outnumbered.
Ah thanks man.
Originally Posted by Rakjavik
Which brings the question, do you believe it's a choice?
Hmmm... sort of agnostic on that one. But that's part of my point, that if we don't really know, we shouldn't legislate on it.
Originally Posted by Rakjavik
The amount of unparented children in this country is astounding. When the reproductive couples copulate and don't want their children, where do they go? Possibly the married gay couples can make up for this travesty. We cannot reproduce, so we can take in these children who have no families, no mom or dad, and make them part of something. I find it hard to believe that the amount of gay marriages will outnumber the amount of children in orphanages.
As far as I know, anyone can adopt a child, even single people. Marriage really doesn't have to do with that...
Originally Posted by Rakjavik
You talk about the word marriage being a traditional value and part of our history that has stemmed from a long time ago. Putting the fact aside that it was invented by the pagans, isn't tradition made to be destroyed? People change with the moral zeitgeist of our time. It was tradition to own slaves, it was tradition to stone whores. This changes over time. Gay marriage is nothing but a new issue of our time. It is not destructive or impeding on anyone. It is all about acceptance of a different lifestyle of two adults.
Hmmm... see... I'm all about crashing through the boundaries drawn by previous eras and all, but I feel this is almost separate from that. In the same way that a rock is called "rock" and someone from Africa is an "African," I feel the word marriage has always referred to a man and a woman mating.
Honestly, I think it would be so much more empowering if the gay community united and formed a new sort of union with a new name.
A few years ago, I had a very confusing time with my own sexual identity - shifting back and forth between various levels of bisexuality - and I remember thinking during that time: if I did end up gay, would I want to be "married?" I sort of felt like I'd be forcing my way into somewhere I didn't belong somehow, like being gay should be different than being straight.
I ended up discovering I was straight and I'm at peace with it, but I still feel a deep empathy with any gay friends.
Well. Take it as you will, I suppose.
Originally Posted by marcc
I don't even see why the state can control people's relationships.
Prop 8 doesn't control relationships... just a title.
Originally Posted by Sandform
Yes, religion is meant to have no place in politics, but it can't be helped. I think when voting it is very appropriate to ask that you check your religion at the door...but for a person who is religious they will disagree.
Well, that's to be argued. I'm hardly religious, but I feel that a person's moral sense, which is often drawn from religion, must play a part in their decision-making processes in office. Thus, it is impossible to divide the two without removing the entire concept of morality from government, which is dangerous.
Yes, American laws are frequently based on Judeo-Christian values, but you have to remember, America was founded on Christian beliefs. In the same way that I would expect an Islam-oriented country like Saudi Arabia to form laws based on the tenants of Islam, so one must expect America to legislate similarly.
Really though, uncorrupted Christianity is a pretty fair moral system, from what I've read. Though I will admit, if people slant, misunderstand, or misuse the scriptures, the effects can be pretty damn disagreeable.
That's why we strive to choose good leaders: men who have the ability to govern fairly and not use religion as a tool to rule with an iron fist.
Originally Posted by ClassyElf
I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but the "marry animals" argument is absurd. Animals can't even sign the marriage form and if they could by dipping their paws into ink or something they still wouldn't understand the significance of it.
Maybe not, but if marriage becomes a legal term based on "love," then what's to stop a man from marrying three women he loves? Or a girl from marrying her cousin? Or her father?
If you make an exception for one group, you have to make it for all of them.
|
|
Bookmarks