Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 299
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    In the process of asking the question you made an assumption of fact that there is a "high number of homosexual" animals. That is what I don't believe to be true. There is a high number of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior but that's not the same as saying there is a high number of homosexual animals... A single, or even multiple instances of same sex relations does not make an animal "gay". By all accounts, that same animal also has multiple instances of hetero relations as well.
    I can understand that you don't feel comfortable about the results of biological research in animal behaviour, but what you don't believe to be true is in fact well documented. It seems you have not read the sources I quoted, e.g. this one with a nice table on homo/bi/heterosexual percentages in various species.
    --aside from the fact that animals by nature can't be "homo" anything since they are not homosapiens.
    You are mixing up the greek "homo" (equal) in homosexual with the Latin "homo" (man, human) in Homo sapiens.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  2.    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    So, in conclusion, we must outlaw Religion so the rest of us can get along. Problem solved.
    Except freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. Homosexual marriage is not.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    As soon as I meet someone who actually follows every word, law, and regulation set forth in the Bible (let alone "believe" in it), then I'll begin seriously considering those opinions.

    Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. Not beating up, harrasing, or denying rights to individuals is a choice. That's pretty clear, I think.
    I stated in the other thread, but will here also. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a born trait. This argument will go on until there is some proof. This argument is very much like someone who argues for creation, those who do not accept creation will say show me proof, and don't tell me you know because of a feeling, now those same individuals for the most part, are saying we do not need scientific proof to say homosexuality is a born trait, they know they are gay because that is how the feel.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Anyway, I never did get to the bottom of straight people's objection to gay marriage in America. Americans dont like mayonnaise on their chips, yet they dont outlaw that.

    Surur
    Nor do they have a law saying that you must provide mayonaise for those of us who have lived in Europe for several years and would like that option. See, it is all about choice.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  5. #85  
    Getting back to earlier in the thread, the decline of marriage has resulted in many financial incentives normally given to married people passing on to parents of children. In UK for example they have a child's tax credit, which you get as a parent. You dont need to be married to get it. Also many rules which previously depended on marriage, especially those pertaining to divorce and financial matters, are now available just to people who co-habitate long term eg. the right to property and income after a divorce, or access to the pension of the husband after a divorce.

    There are of course two ways one can look at this. 1) because you dont have to be married to get the rights, why do you insist on marriage or 2) obviously marriage is not valued by many, so if you really want to marry feel free.

    It should be noted that UK has civil union since 2005

    Gay Civil Unions Bill Approved in UK
    LONDON, February 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Britain approved a new civil unions bill Monday for same-sex couples, granting them all the privileges of marriage and giving a powerful seal of approval to homosexual relations.

    The Civil Partnerships Bill, passed through parliament last year, will mean same-sex couples will be entitled to civil unions by December. Included is access to spousal-like benefits such as pensions, next-of-kin status, and an exemption on paying inheritance tax.

    Also included in the bill is the same alimony and child support responsibilities in the event of separation.

    Also on Monday, the UK military announced that same-sex couples, while they are couples, would be granted access to family quarters. The prohibition against homosexuals in the military was dropped in 2000 after a European court ruled against the country.

    “We will be complying with the law,” Royal Navy spokesman Anton Hanney said, as reported by the Washington Times. “We are obliged to give equal treatment to gay and lesbian partnerships”

    The Royal Navy also announced yesterday a drive to recruit persons who identify themselves as homosexual, entering into a partnership with the homosexual activist group Stonewall, including advertisements in homosexual newspapers.

    See related coverage:
    British Navy Seeks Gay Sailors
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...87-1491764%2C0...

    See LifeSiteNews.com’s page on Same-Sex Unions
    http://www.lifesite.net/features/mar...nce/civilunion...
    We are now no more morally degenerate than before

    Surur
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I stated in the other thread, but will here also. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a born trait. This argument will go on until there is some proof. This argument is very much like someone who argues for creation, those who do not accept creation will say show me proof, and don't tell me you know because of a feeling, now those same individuals for the most part, are saying we do not need scientific proof to say homosexuality is a born trait, they know they are gay because that is how the feel.
    I understand what you're saying about proof. However, what's your reaction to this:

    Go out and have sex with another man tonight.

    I doubt that you're thinking "Oh, OK. I could do that." (assuming you are a man, I can't tell from the avatar). The feeling of being gay is just as strong and prevalent as the feeling of being straight. So whatever the genetic source is for sexual orientation, neither has been proved.

    And, I would add that sexual orientation is fluid. I know people who've switched back and forth throughout their lives, but don't consider themselves "bi". I know straight men who periodically engage in gay sex, but don't identify as gay or as bi.

    Trying to classify sexuality is like trying to hold water in a sieve. You just have to accept that it is.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  7.    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The issue of gay marriage first arose in the context of government discrimination. The states, the federal government, and even the private sector grants and withholds benefits and privileges to citizens based upon marital status. This is a form of discrimination in which benefits and privileges are available to one class of citizen that are denied to another on the basis of status in the absence of any demonstrable interest in doing so.
    That's a big leap to say there is no demonstratable interest. There is actually a raging debate over this right now. To say there is an absence of interest ignores half of the debate.

    The question is whether or not this kind of discrimination is good public policy. We have pretty much concluded that we do not want government to be able to discriminate between citizens based upon nothing more than status, e.g., age, race, gender, ethnicity, previous condition of servitiude, or sexual preference.
    Woah. Since when did "sexual preference" become included in this list? It's not in the constitution.

    The federal government does not generally legislate marriage, polygamous, gay, incestuous or otherwise.
    Wrong. The federal government became quite vicious in stamping out polygamy in the past. Polygamy became illegal from the Edmonds Act in US territories. Later, the Morrill Act went further and precluded polygamists from voting or holding any public office. They were also denied the right to sit on grand juries. I haven't seen any such federal laws as applied to gays.

    Most states do not specifically outlaw polygamy, only bigamy; Utah and some other western states do. My reading of the history is that Utah did so to ease its admission into the Union.
    Right. It was actually a precondition of Utah being granted statehood. There was a long battle over the feds vs. the Mormons over polygamy in Utah. The feds finally one after passage of the Edmonds and Morrill Acts, disqualifying polygamists from voting, holding office, or sitting on the grand juries. Only then did the feds wrest control of Utah politics away from the Mormons (who changed the barren deserts of the west into livable communities looking for freedom of religion) and gave control of the government to east coast political appointees.

    With all due respect to ugly discrimination against gays by society, there is no comparison to the battle that was waged, and lost, by the Mormons in the 1800's. In Missouri, it was lawful to shoot a Mormon on sight. The Missouri law made it legal to kill anyone who belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state of Missouri, until it was repealed in 1976. At least 60 Mormons were killed and dozens of women and girls raped, and countless others died from exposure in 1838 under the executive order and resulting forced evacuation from the state. (See the Wikipedia article on the Extermination Order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order )
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I can understand that you don't feel comfortable about the results of biological research in animal behaviour, but what you don't believe to be true is in fact well documented. It seems you have not read the sources I quoted, e.g. this one with a nice table on homo/bi/heterosexual percentages in various species.
    You are mixing up the greek "homo" (equal) in homosexual with the Latin "homo" (man, human) in Homo sapiens.
    Ah, yes. Thanks for the correction to a silly mistake on my part. As far as your studies go, I can't really comment since I haven't read the study, only this clearly biased interpretation of the studies.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman

    Wrong. The federal government became quite vicious in stamping out polygamy in the past. Polygamy became illegal from the Edmonds Act in US territories. Later, the Morrill Act went further and precluded polygamists from voting or holding any public office. They were also denied the right to sit on grand juries. I haven't seen any such federal laws as applied to gays.

    Right. It was actually a precondition of Utah being granted statehood. There was a long battle over the feds vs. the Mormons over polygamy in Utah. The feds finally one after passage of the Edmonds and Morrill Acts, disqualifying polygamists from voting, holding office, or sitting on the grand juries. Only then did the feds wrest control of Utah politics away from the Mormons (who changed the barren deserts of the west into livable communities looking for freedom of religion) and gave control of the government to east coast political appointees.

    With all due respect to ugly discrimination against gays by society, there is no comparison to the battle that was waged, and lost, by the Mormons in the 1800's. In Missouri, it was lawful to shoot a Mormon on sight. The Missouri law made it legal to kill anyone who belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state of Missouri, until it was repealed in 1976. At least 60 Mormons were killed and dozens of women and girls raped, and countless others died from exposure in 1838 under the executive order and resulting forced evacuation from the state. (See the Wikipedia article on the Extermination Order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order )
    Wow! So much for freedom of religion! History like this needs to be taught. See how easy it is to pervert democracy for example, and even the justice system.

    Surur
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Except freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. Homosexual marriage is not.
    Which is why polygamists actually have a better legal case.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Which is why polygamists actually have a better legal case.
    Thats a very good point. If one argues on first principles (ignoring the special case laws added later) marriage is a religious institution, and freedom to practice that religious institution as one sees fit should have been protected.

    Surur
  12. #92  
    Actually, marriage is a civil institution, which is why you can get married at City Hall.

    A marriage ceremony or sacrament is a religious rite and is purely optional.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Actually, marriage is a civil institution, which is why you can get married at City Hall.

    A marriage ceremony or sacrament is a religious rite and is purely optional.
    It is now, but thats not how it started.

    Surur
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The issue of gay marriage first arose in the context of government discrimination. The states, the federal government, and even the private sector grants and withholds benefits and privileges to citizens based upon marital status. This is a form of discrimination in which benefits and privileges are available to one class of citizen that are denied to another on the basis of status in the absence of any demonstrable interest in doing so. ...
    I'm not sure there is "no demonstrable interest" in granting (and by nature withholding) benefits and privileges based upon marital status.

    I think a case can be made that both the government and private sectors have (or at least at one point had) a demonstrable interest in promoting marriage, most notably being the creation of additional productive citizens.

    For the record, I think a case can also be made that couples have not always been good stewards of that interest.

    I also think it is reasonable to assess whether that is still an interest and/or if the current construct is the best means of achieving that interest.

    Bottom line, there is/was a demonstrable interest in promoting marriage.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    ...The problem arises when one is certain that his identity is so obviously superior to that of others that he should be permittted to use the coercive power of the state to enforce it on others or to withhold the benefits of citizenship from those who are not like him.
    Is this not human nature?

    I think we agree that we are all entitled to believe and behave as we wish, to the extent that it does not infringe on others' ability to do so. That belief/behavior combination is closely akin to our identity.

    We all consider our beliefs superior--otherwise we would not hold to them. Likewise, we all use whatever power, ability, influence and resources we have to make our environment "safer" for ourselves, which means we try to make the environment function in accordance with our beliefs.

    Citizenship takes us from the realm of the individual into group dynamics. Citizenship means being a component of a larger group. The peaceful co-existence of the citizens within a group depends on coming to equilibrium on the effect of each of the individuals trying to create his/her "safe" environment.

    But here is the key, any rights and privileges afforded the components are both defined by and granted by the lawful rulers of the group via laws, including any qualifications of eligibility (i.e. status). So, unlike the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i.e. we can believe and behave as we wish, rights of citizenship are conditional.

    This is not a problem until we have need to co-exist with people who hold mutually exclusive beliefs. At that point, the equilibrium achieved through the group's agreed upon legislative mechanism, trumps the individual's beliefs.

    With that backdrop, maybe it is easier to see why I've stated before, laws are discriminatory by design. Their sole purpose is to establish expecations (set the behavioral standard) and enable evaluation (state consequences for violations). But, unless the citizens are a homogeneous bunch, someone will experience infringement of his/her belief system.

    That is to day, no matter how much an individual derives happiness from 'X', if the individual is a citizen of a larger group that does not endorse 'X' s/he is not entitled to it in the context of the group. If s/he strongly desires 'X' the options are:

    1. Leave the group
    2. Seek to change the group's law
    3. Endure the consequences
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Except freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. Homosexual marriage is not.
    I smell ammendment
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I think we agree that we are all entitled to believe and behave as we wish, to the extent that it does not infringe on others' ability to do so. That belief/behavior combination is closely akin to our identity.
    So you're ok with straight marriage as long as it does not infringe on others' ability to do so. That would include gays. Good to see you come around
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    I was most surprised with the lack of any meaningful argument explaining how the government should allow gay marriage but deny polygamists the same marriage right.
    I could be missing something, but I doubt it.
    To the OP, you asked for a valid argument. I can't help but notice you didn't respond to my comment (#16 above). I thought I made a valid point. (maybe that's why you ignored it).
    Last edited by southbound747; 07/13/2006 at 10:05 AM.
    Sprint Treo 700p, Sony UX/TX, u720,
    Edirol R-09, Mitsu PK 20, Mimio
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by southbound747
    I can't help but notice you didn't respond to my comment (#16 above).
    I thought I made a valid point.
    You might want to dregde that quote up for all of us see. It makes it easier.
    Last edited by NRG; 07/13/2006 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Damn spacebar
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You might want to dregde that quote up for all of us see. It makes it easier.
    I am not sure what you mean "dregde"...i tired to cut and paste my original text but it wouldn't let me. Anyway, my point was the OP, Heberman, asked for a valid difference between gay and plural marriage. I gave him one and he didn't respond to it.
    Sprint Treo 700p, Sony UX/TX, u720,
    Edirol R-09, Mitsu PK 20, Mimio
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions