Same sex marriages. Your opinion?

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: It's not about actually procreating or even about being unable to because of a crippled reproductive system. Same sex relationships cannot reproduce naturally 100% of the time. Therefore they are not meant to have a sexual relationship.

And how exactly are you going to make sure the millions of homosexuals in the US do not have sexual relationships? Sex police? Mini-cams in everyone bedroom? An inquisition? If this is your idea for the future of the US then be prepared for a revolution. [/QUOTE]More importantly, and a more direct rebuttal -- sterile relationships cannot reproduce naturally 100% of the time. [/QUOTE]Yup, all those guys with vasectomies better stop having sex RIGHT NOW! [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

Maybe we could tatoo a scarlet S (for sterile) on the forehead of every sterile person in the US to stop them from having sex. [/QUOTE]So, homosexuality is purely done for birth control? Boy, did I ever have the wrong impression!

[Yorick]

In any case, I would challenge those statistics Timber. Show me the source and what those statistics are regarding aggregate and average wealth of couples.

Rather than "homosexuals are richer" it may simply be "richer kids are more likely to be homosexual than poorer kids".

In any case, they are a minority, so the benefit of the child is negotiable. Secondly, American education is one of the most elitist systems in the world. Nations like Australia have had government subsidised university education for generations. Egalitarianism, one of the foundations of democracy, though so rare in America, is found in plenty elsewhere.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Yup, all those guys with vasectomies better stop having sex RIGHT NOW! [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] Maybe we could tatoo a scarlet S (for sterile) on the forehead of every sterile person in the US to stop them from having sex.

Rokenn - You are missing the entire point.

Sir Kenyth was rebutting an earlier comment that homosexuality is part of the "natural order" since some animals exhibit this behavior. He correctly pointed out that (especially in animal species), homosexuality is UN-natural since it would eventually cause a species to die out if it were practiced regularly. Yorick also correctly pointed out that animals do not have the intelligence required to control their base instincts and urges. They just act on them. I've seen dogs jump on female dogs, male dogs, and even cats...there is certainly nothing "natural" about that..other than the fact that it is "natural" for a dog to be incapable of controlling it's sex drive.

Fortunately, humans have better control than this (most of the time anyway ). Just because we feel a sexual attraction to someone does not mean we have to act on it. I see many women that I find attractive, and more than a few I wouldn't mind having sex with, but I've made a commitment to one woman to only have that level of intimacy with her.

As Yorick said, "Love does not equal sex, and sex does not equal love".

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: So, homosexuality is purely done for birth control? Boy, did I ever have the wrong impression!

That's not even a very good dodge! Surely you realize this reasoning has a flaw. There may be other arguments out there, but I don't think you can stick to your guns on this one.

If you'll go back and read my page 1-3 posts about this, you'll find that one good argument is that we NEED as many couples as we can get -- homosexual or not -- to adopt children that are in need of a home. As I mentioned in those posts, two fathers is better than none. Procreation brings about a lot of issues. Homosexual couples provide a great social service in that they often adopt -- providing a home for a kid that otherwise would have none.

I think the social/family benefits of homosexual couples outweight the detriments. I mean, these people are going to be couples regardless -- they have already chosen that lifestyle with or without the right to marry. As well, they also currently DO adopt (with only 1 parent being on the paperwork). Recognizing that this is a real and existing form of family unit in the US is a social good -- otherwise you are branding all the kids adopted by gays and making them second-class citizens, no matter how they grow up and whether or not they choose to be gay.

I just don't see the argument based on procreation standing up to reasonable, unbiased scrutiny.

[ 08-08-2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hey, Yorick and Kenneth, howabout you let me marry my male roommate that I love (Platonically) and wish to be with for coupling purposes. We have been best friends for years and want to live together forever. That way, we can enjoy health care benefits, inheritence, etc., while partnering together to "make it" in this world. And, we will both promise to only have sex with women on the side -- outside of our partnership arrangement. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Ummmm, No, that's not a marriage. That's a roommate silly!

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: So, homosexuality is purely done for birth control? Boy, did I ever have the wrong impression!

That's not even a very good dodge! Surely you realize this reasoning has a flaw. There may be other arguments out there, but I don't think you can stick to your guns on this one.

If you'll go back and read my page 1-3 posts about this, you'll find that one good argument is that we NEED as many couples as we can get -- homosexual or not -- to adopt children that are in need of a home. As I mentioned in those posts, two fathers is better than none. Procreation brings about a lot of issues. Homosexual couples provide a great social service in that they often adopt -- providing a home for a kid that otherwise would have none.

I think the social/family benefits of homosexual couples outweight the detriments. I mean, these people are going to be couples regardless -- they have already chosen that lifestyle with or without the right to marry. As well, they also currently DO adopt (with only 1 parent being on the paperwork). Recognizing that this is a real and existing form of family unit in the US is a social good -- otherwise you are branding all the kids adopted by gays and making them second-class citizens, no matter how they grow up and whether or not they choose to be gay.

I just don't see the argument based on procreation standing up to reasonable, unbiased scrutiny. [/QUOTE]Sure I can! For one, homosexuals are not sterile! How's that?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Secondly, American education is one of the most elitist systems in the world. Nations like Australia have had government subsidised university education for generations. Egalitarianism, one of the foundations of democracy, though so rare in America, is found in plenty elsewhere.

Actually, this is changing. In recent years, once-free colleges in Europe have started charging money -- and it is increasing in cost rapidly (in the UK at least). This is because, under the (American) capitalist view, education is WORTH something -- a lot in fact. And, doling it out for free is unfair to those who don't have it.

As for the statistics, I've seen others post them here before, and I simply don't have the inclination to go looking today. If you, living in NYC, can't recognize the obvious validity of the statement that fags/lesbos are richer from your daily experiences, then I guess at some point me or someone else will go do the research for you. Maybe later I'll post something on it.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: [QB] quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: Yup, all those guys with vasectomies better stop having sex RIGHT NOW! [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] Maybe we could tatoo a scarlet S (for sterile) on the forehead of every sterile person in the US to stop them from having sex.

Rokenn - You are missing the entire point.
[/QUOTE]How am I missing the point? According to Yorick the bible states any sex that is not intended to produce offspring within a marriage is wrong. So by that reasoning couples where one of the partners is sertile should never have sex.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Sure I can! For one, homosexuals are not sterile! How's that?

That's a non-sequiter, that's how that is. As rebuttal, I offer evidence that ice cream trucks go slower than other automobiles.

Connect the dots as to how your statement relates.

[Rokenn]

Here is a bone for anti-homosexual marriage folks.

If a law was passed that gave homosexual couples all the rights of a married couple (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc..) but they called it a civil union, since marriage is after all a religous term. Would you be happy to let them live in peace? Or would you still feel compelled to force your morals onto them?