Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Let's keep in mind there are two events, two "marriages," in a marriage: religious ceremony and legal ceremony.
Religious: if your church will marry same-sex couples, good for it, if not, so be it. See the religious tolerance thread.
Legal: Call it marriage, a PAC, a civil union (VT and France seem to have VERY similar systems, btw), covorting concubines, or "Bob" for all I care, but give nontraditional couples the same legal rights of inheritance, medical benefits, tax benefits, next-of-kin status, etc as traditional couples.
I remember hearing testimony in legislative committees on these issues. The lesbian who died alone because hospital personnel refused to let her partner into the ward to be with her. The lesbian who lost her child (of 10 years) when her partner who had adopted the child (absent a civil union, 2 people cannot cojointly adopt) died and the long-estranged parents came and "saved" the child from such an abomination as growing up with a loving lesbian mother. However much you hate gays, you are one cold SOB if you can't hear these stories and not think something needs to be done.
Genetics of homosexuality? Up in the air. Scientists believe they have found the gay gene. All species of mammals exhibit homosexual tendancies. Whether it's nature, nurture, or (most likely) a mix, you cannot look at a male dog trying to mount another male dog and call it simply choice. Choice may be part of the factor, but it isn't all of it.
In a world of increased divorce and increasing freedom to make our homes as we see fit, denying that these relationships are in fact "families" ultimately has a bad effect on the kids -- exactly the opposite of the assertion that recognizing gay relationships erode family values, I see such recognition as supporting family values. However you partner with others and make your home, please be responsible parents, and you deserve the social benefits of chosing to partner with someone and raise kids. Please, gay folks, adopt all you want -- lord knows there are plenty of children needing homes. Being raised by two fathers is better than being raised by none. More and more, families today don't look like Ward and June Cleaver's -- not recognizing that is hurting society. You can close your eyes, hold your ears, and scream "Nanananana" all you want, but when you stop, gays will still be here, as will stepparents, as will single parents, and as will children needing loving homes.
|
Quote:
Chief Crusty Old Coot John D. "New Grandpa" Harris wrote:
TL, I'd say "I'd kiss you"...
But on this thread that might not be wise, so good post
On the dogs: it is a dominance thing not a sex or reproduction thing, goes back to the wolf packs Only the Alpha male and female got to mate. So if dog "A" Mounts dog "B" then Dog "A" is higher in the pack then dog "B". We got 3 female dogs the newest will try to mount the old matiarch, and get her but whipped, but she's trying to move up in the pecking order.
Besides that how can you equate a dogs's or any animals reasoning with a humans? Opps scratch that you do run around with lawyers
Nature or nurture from the religious (Christain) point of view it matters not. The Bible is clear that there are certain action/activities that those who practice in such shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. It does not say that only people who participate in these actions/activities because of nurture shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. The problem in the Christain world is that there are some who wish to say: Well this action/activity applies to all who do it, but this action/activity only applies to those who by nurture do it. That point of view usally miss quotes the "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone". Taking it completly out of contex, not reconizing that the woman caught in adulty was brought to Christ IN ORDER to trick Him. The adulty was the excuse not the reason she was brought to Christ.
|
Okay, a gauntlet was tossed. Shame on you, Crusty Old Coot, for calling me out on a weekend, when you should know I am usually absent. [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] But, kudos to you for admitting when you are *Itching for a Scrap*
Look, I agree that the bible is clear that nature/nurture matters not -- so I will not go there. Remember, I may muse and opine about the bible, but it is not a text that directs my philosophical answers any more than any other text. Plato, Hegel, Nietszche, Robert Bork, and Kevin Eubank's philosophies probably carry more meaning of "truth" for me.
About the "nature" of dogs and why they like to hump various things, I do not doubt that the "alpha male" bit plays some role. I also think, though, that in most animals -- especially in the adolescent phases -- we see a lot of what's called "playing at sex" as they are maturing. And, I think that animals (including humans) during these times are by nature confused by new feelings and urges they only vaguely comprehend (haven't we all been there -- confused I mean, not necessarily homo-erotic).
As for whether marriage means "man and woman" and whether it relates to procreation, I think I explained myself perfectly well in the thread you wanted to smooooch me for posting. (Hey, big boy
). I think religious marriage has its meaning -- but I think religious marriage is different than legal "marriage" which as I said is a set of benefits granted by the government to those who partner in family units. Now, yes traditionally family units looked like Ward and Beaver Cleaver's. However, the family unit's structure has changed in the last 50 years -- a trend that began with women's rights which led to an increase in divorce rates and a trend which continued to advancement of the rights of others living "alternative lifestyles."
Now, whether this is a good thing is debatable, but in a free country, we have already set the stage for allowing people these freedoms -- if it *is* a bad thing, it is one that results from our fundamental idea of freedom -- so it is a bad thing we must accept, lest we rend apart the fabric of what makes America America.
Now, accepting these "alternative" lifestyles and partnerships as allowable -- i.e. we will not punish you for them -- we are left with devising a way to bring them into the fold -- to nevertheless encourage responsible parenting and child-rearing, whether it be by the traditional man/woman couple or whether it be by non-traditional single parents or man/man man/woman or man/shman couple. Denying legal benefits to these different lifestyle practitioners drives them to the fringes of society, makes them second-class citizens, bastardizes any children they rear, and is irresponsible on our part, I believe.
So, in the purely LEGAL sense, what was once called "marriage" should be redifined to be an understood set of benefits accruing to partners who couple together for (ostensibly and hopefully) life in an effort to be a family unit and, if theyplease, raise responsible children. NOw, the "pure" way to do this with eyes wide open is to nix the notion of "marriage" in the legal sense and simply call it "accrued partnership benefits" or "civil union" or whatever.
Politically, however, this does not play. So, in order to effect this needed change -- AND have it approved by the masses -- we can accomplish what is *substantively* the same thing by keeping "marriage" for men and women and forming a new notion, a "civil union" (which LEGALLY will be EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF BENEFITS), for those with alternative lifestyles to use. Yes, it is simply calling a to-may-to and to-mah-to, but if we need to have two kinds of tomatoes in order to cater to the conservative masses, then so be it. Yes, it may offend homosexuals and other alternative lifestyle people, who WANT to be so fully recognized that they not only have the benefits of a to-may-to but they are also *called* to-may-to as well.
Well, if they can't accept a simple nomenclature and semantic difference on their road to getting benefits that they legally need, then they have cut their noses off to spite their faces and I have no sympathy for them.
Again, all good social change has always happened in small steps.
Hope I answered you fully. SOrry I don't see opposite to you enough to outright argue against you.
My final point: I reiterate that legal "marriage" (i.e. partnership benefits which could be otherwise created by contracts/estates/trusts) is a DIFFERENT THING than religious marriage (which carries the meaning assigned to it by the particular church).
[ 08-09-2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]