Looks like another shift to the right!

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: The problem here isn't your idea Magik, but you are relating marriage and continuation of the Species too much. You say that only heterosexual unions in marriage will produce children, but producing children is not exclusive to marriage, just as not only heterosexual couples wishing to have children get married. If homosexuals are to be forbidden from marriage because it will not continue the species, it is only one step further in that direction to say that they should not be allowed whatsoever. If it is ok for homosexuals to be couples, why deny them marriage? P.S- Sorry, I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but I seem to remember you saying you weren't one of the strictly anti-homosexual people, but if I'm wrong then this post only applies to such people.

Talthy [img]smile.gif[/img] you are right. I have no grief with gay people any more than I do with anyone not ME

Marriage is just the institution that "Governments" and "religions" set up to control the growth of their population base. At the heart of it all is the greed for power, and wealth. That has pretty much been the driving force behind all leaderships throughout history.

My poisition on Gay Marriages or unions or whatever they will eventually be in legalese...should apply to every person...

if you divest the status of marriage and the nuclear family of any special relevence to the society,

then any two peopl who wish to cohabitate should enjoy the exact same preveledges as todays "married" couples do.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ***Snip lots of stuff about the issue snip***

TL I thought you were the one who was all upset about overpopulation Either we have the problem or not....but be that as it may, I aint advocating anything. Geesh...can't any of you distinguish acknowledgement of historical fact and support for the practice? See my reply to Talthy [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I think the nuclear family is dying, MagiK. I used to find this a bad thing (TM). However, after meeting children raised in a same sex family, it strikes me that just because "mommy and daddy" are "Daddy and daddy" it does not make the family non-nuclear. "Daddy and Daddy" is, IMO, certainly better than just daddy or just mommy, which is waaayyy too common these days, especially considering we now live in a world where you need two jobs (unless one is a top-5% wage job) to support a family at all, especially with kids.

I much prefer to see two parents - no matter their genderr - as opposed to one. More money for the kid(s), more time given to the kid(s).

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: Good statistic there Donut but incomplete... [img]smile.gif[/img] 250 million "straight" people with lesser incomes will balance out 50 million "gay" incomes...and I am being very generous as to the numbers of Gay people there are. AND those gay unions will NOT be increasing the population base nor will they be causing a growing "Voter" base...though they may adopt they usually do not reproduce and multiply (yeah I know there are exceptions to this rule too)

No - you have to compare a gay household with a hetero household. If they are not allowed a gay relationship they will still pay the same tax. And they don't have any kids needing education. Them being gay is saving 'your' tax dollars'.

And if you merely want to increase the population base just let more people into the country!

The money comment was because so many issues seem to come down to 'my tax bucks!' and I'm not singling you out here.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ***Snip lots of stuff about the issue snip***

TL I thought you were the one who was all upset about overpopulation Either we have the problem or not....but be that as it may, I aint advocating anything. Geesh...can't any of you distinguish acknowledgement of historical fact and support for the practice? See my reply to Talthy [img]smile.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]First, congratulations -- that's the best summary of my stance I've ever seen. Second, I *am* against over-population, and nothing I've posted here goes against that. However, for those people that do happen to pop out onto the planet, I'd like to seet them have the best chance for success and happiness that they can.

On that Note..I surrender...just remember...MagiK doesnt hate gay people (any more than he hates anyone else) MagiK doesnt want lesser rights for gays....and MagiK doesnt want "special" rights for gays. Basicly those thoughts go for any sub-group of humans, no matter how you slice them or divide them.

[Timber Loftis]

Let me be really screwy here and post a thought.

When you give benefits to one class of people but not to another, and you base the availability of those benefits on gender and sexuality, you have enacted AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Therefore, giving hetero couples benefits under the law that you do not give to other types of couples is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

Take away all legal benefits of marriage and I won't bitch. But, keep segregating benefits in this way and you are supporting affirmative action.

[Timber Loftis]

Giving up so soon???

MagiK, you should enroll in my on-line School for Devil's Advocacy. The first week's lesson, entitled "Entrenchment is a Must," will help you stick to your guns longer. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Let me be really screwy here and post a thought. When you give benefits to one class of people but not to another, and you base the availability of those benefits on gender and sexuality, you have enacted AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Therefore, giving hetero couples benefits under the law that you do not give to other types of couples is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Take away all legal benefits of marriage and I won't bitch. But, keep segregating benefits in this way and you are supporting affirmative action.

Exactly my point [img]smile.gif[/img] As for entrenchment....sometimes I just get too tired to keep up the devils end [img]smile.gif[/img] in this case..the thread was getting to be more and more about homosexuality and frankly my dear..I don't care about it. I was just trying to expose why things were the way they were and how we got to where we are....not trying to defend or castigate peoples personal sexual proclivities.....feel free to take over the pitchfork and tail TL

[Cerek the Barbaric]

WOW! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] So many different issues - so little time.
Where to start???

First, the "religious" answer:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK also points out that race is different because you are born with it. Actually, I took his side in some rather robust newspaper debates in law school, which put me on many professor's s**t lists (but, they still gave me good grades [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] ). In short, I believe some people *are* born with it, and some choose the gay lifestyle. I believe my cousin and life-long friend when he tells me what it was like to pray every night in grade school that God please take those feelings away. And, also, religion can be chosen, as someone pointed out. The ultimate solution here is that the "innate and immutable characteristic" is only one part of the Constitution's test to determining what is a minority deserving some specific protection under the law. "Traditionally discriminated against" is another big factor -- and gays certainly fall under this rubrik. So, while gays may or may not be born gay, that is only one aspect to consider when determining the legal protections they deserve. I will point out that some disabled folks are born that way, and some become that way through disease or accident.

I personally do not believe anyone is "born gay". My opinion is based on the Bible. God repeatedly calls homosexuality an "abomination" {not much grey area there}. Since I believe God is our Creator, I also believe He would not intentionally give one of His creations these same sexual urges that He considers an abomination.

However, I don't deny these feelings are real to those that have them. Some (like Timber's cousin) try to resist and overcome them. Others do not. That is up to each individual and their beliefs.

Timber - Maybe you know something I don't, but I have to disagree with your assertion that most gays hope it is NOT proven to be "genetically caused". Their rallying cry is that they ARE born gay...and if it is proven to be genetically caused, then that trumps Magik's argument that it is not the same as a person's race.

Now for the "legal" answer:

Originally posted by Timber: MagiK does mention that he does not want to regulated the bedroom activities of consenting adults. This, I agree with. So, he nor I is going to prohibit a lesbian couple from living together for 40 years (yes, it happens). He, however, seems to think there is some justice in not considering them to be "next of kin" when it comes time to sit by the deathbed or make those all-important life decisions, such as pull the plug or not. I, on the other hand, find extreme injustice in this - an injustice that turns a blind eye to reality and says "na na na na" over and over again to ignore an obvious problem.

I will agree with you and Magik that the government has NO BUSINESS regulating what type of activities two {or more } consenting adults do in private. Surprisingly enough, I also agree with YOU, Timber, about allowing life-partners the same rights as spouses. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Marriage is a sacred, and religious, ceremony - that also happens to be legally binding (an odd occurrence of state and church NOT being separate). But I would agree that "civil unions" (I liked that term) should also be allowed and also be legally binding. Like you, I also know some gay couples that have been together for a long time. I agree that the emotional attachment is no less because their genders are the same and denying a life-partner to comfort their loved one as they die is a cruel and heartless act.

I personally know a gay couple (two men) that are the biological father(s) of one child and are "expecting" another within the year (through use of a surrogate mother). I don't agree with their lifestyle and I'm "uncomfortable" with them raising a child together (due to my religious bias). But I cannot deny the love they feel for their little girl and I can honostly say that neither of their children will EVER lack for love OR material things (one of the couple has a VERY lucrative job - which is how they are able to afford the surrogate parenting option).

The men have gotten around the "legal issue" of benefits for the children by donating thier sperm. One of them IS the biological father of the children, so they are able to claim the same rights as any other parent. But if one of them dies, the other would have a very, very difficult time keeping the children - and I agree that truly is an injustice. [img]graemlins/verysad.gif[/img]