|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 149 of 293:
| 
Dec 12 20:23 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:145: Even a casual reading of the Bible suggests that "one man,
one woman" has been the exception, rather than the rule, for much of
human history. Maybe you should be specific about what parts of human
history you're counting, and what parts you're editing out.
A lot of conservatives seem to feel that the 1950's were the American
utopia. They take the norms of that time -- nuclear families, the man
going out and earning money, the woman staying home and raising quiet,
respecful kids, etc. -- and try to filter the rest of history to make it
seem like things were always and should always be that way.
|
keesan
|
|
response 150 of 293:
|
Dec 12 20:41 UTC 2003 |
During periods of warfare there is a man shortage, which is why people are
adaptable to various forms of family structure, otherwise the population would
decrease among any group that could not adapt. Was there anything resembling
formal marriage in hunter-gatherer societies, or is it more like the situation
now, where people couple for a while and then drift apart?
|
bru
|
|
response 151 of 293:
|
Dec 12 23:59 UTC 2003 |
edina, when do you think humanity learned sex led to babies? Had to be at
the point they started domestication of animals. Right?
100,000 years ago?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 152 of 293:
|
Dec 13 00:37 UTC 2003 |
uhhh... I'm not sure how much I believe this, but it has been said
that certain islanders of the South Pacific had NOT put it together by
the time European ethnographers visited them in the nineteenth or ealy
twentieth century.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 153 of 293:
|
Dec 13 03:08 UTC 2003 |
i think polygamy is just fine for some women, but they should be
able to treat all of their husbands EQUALLY.
re151: prove it, officer stink-o.
|
lk
|
|
response 154 of 293:
|
Dec 13 08:27 UTC 2003 |
Drew, re #147 regarding #140: Please see #141.
Bruce, re #145:
> Muslims worship the same God jews and Christians do. It just that they have
> teh "particulars" wrong.
Perhaps, but the devil is in the details. Many Christians still believe that
Muslims and Jews are going to Hell. I think Muslims return the favor. Can
these hell-bound infidel marriages truly be on par with that of the True
believers? When these infidels marry, getting the particulars wrong, doesn't
that offend God? Doesn't that weaken real marriage?
Why is getting some particulars wrong better or worse than getting other
particulars wrong?
> But the majority of human societies have
believed that the Earth was flat.
> Nature built us that way
Nature (or God) made some people gay.
Also other mamals.
(Whether through genetics or environmental factors or a combination is not
relevant here.)
So why shouldn't gays be allowed to have the same one on one relationships
that you claim the majority of human societies have?
Flat out, that's discrimination!!
|
bru
|
|
response 155 of 293:
|
Dec 13 14:32 UTC 2003 |
and down the slippery slope we go...
We discriminate against immoral and illegal activities all the time.
Thats why theft, murder, prostitution, drug use, rape, adn child molestation
are all illegal. WE discriminate against them. Lets just make them all
legal.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 156 of 293:
|
Dec 13 14:57 UTC 2003 |
Sure, we discriminate against immoral folks all the time, but not
everyone agrees that homosexuality is immoral, while darn near everybody
view things like rape and murder as immoral.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 157 of 293:
|
Dec 13 15:13 UTC 2003 |
NPR has been running a series over the last week or two on the history
of Brown v Board of Education. It's quite interesting how much the
arguments against school desegregation parallel the arguments against
gay marriage. There was the "the bible sez it's wrong" argument, the
"we've always done it this way, and if it was good for the cavemen it's
good for us" argument, the "end of society as we know it" argument, even
the "this is a bad thing to bring up during an election year" argument.
The only anti-desegregation argument I hadn't heard applied to gay
marriage was the "I'm not a bigot--we do it this way because it's
*better* for blacks." Hadn't heard that one until yesterday, that is.
Some (Republican) legislator on the news was denying that he had
anything against homosexuals or gay marriage--he was just afraid that
allowing gay marriage would create a backlash against gays from his
less-enlightened fellow citizens, so he wanted to hold off for the good
of the homosexual community. Right....
|
keesan
|
|
response 158 of 293:
|
Dec 13 15:30 UTC 2003 |
Drinking coffee must be immoral. The Muslims drink it anyway. They think
wine is immoral, but they are at least willing to tolerate other religions.
Instead of demolishing Hagia Sofia they whitewashed over the frescoes.
I have never known any gays who were unwilling to tolerate heterosexuals or
deny them any rights.
|
lk
|
|
response 159 of 293:
|
Dec 13 15:47 UTC 2003 |
In fact, the Muslim Turks introduced the Europeans to coffee.
As I said, infidels!!
I don't think we outlaw theft, rape and murder because they are "immoral".
I think we consider them immoral and outlaw them because these HARM another.
Being gay and gay marriage harms no one.
What compelling state interest is at state for The People?
So far the only one presented is that gay marriage will "weaken" the
nstitution of marriage. Really? Isn't it time someone explained how
and why this would happen or withdraw what appears to be the only
non-religious argument against gay marriage?
Bruce, as you yourself argued, "one on one relationships" go back a long
way. Why not recognize these same relationships amongst gays and lesbians?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 160 of 293:
|
Dec 13 18:28 UTC 2003 |
I was about to say wehat lk just said: "immorality" lies in doing harm
to others and, to some extent, to oneself (harming yourself in many ways
does harm to others).
I also see no ways in which homosexuality or gay marriage harms anyone
so long as it is mutually desired without intended fraud. Also, neither
harms anything that anyone else likes to do, such as heterosexual
marriage.
|
gull
|
|
response 161 of 293:
|
Dec 13 19:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
drew
|
|
response 162 of 293:
|
Dec 13 20:14 UTC 2003 |
Re #154:
Actually I was hoping for a chapter and verse to look up for this specific
fact.
|
jep
|
|
response 163 of 293:
|
Dec 14 04:01 UTC 2003 |
re resp:159: It bugs me to see you stating that anyone who disagrees
with you must not have any basis for their opinion at all. The other
side does the same thing, you know.
I don't agree with anti-gay marriage people, but I understand them to
some extent. There are plenty of reasons why they feel that gay
marriage would weaken heterosexual marriage. I'll explain some of
it. Please understand that I don't agree with a lot of it.
Government's interest in marriage and need to control it is partly due
to concerns for children. Who takes care of the kids? This is
important, but pretty much only for heterosexual marriages.
There are employment benefits for married people. These benefits are
getting quickly weaker, even now. If you don't think it would hurt
married couples to have a lot of what are currently known as "domestic
partnerships" declared "marriages", you just simply aren't paying
attention to what the insurance companies are doing now.
It is very important to a lot of people to oppose homosexuality in any
way possible. Some people have religious reasons, some are just
disinclined to accept things that are new to them or which they were
told in childhood were wrong. During my time in the National Guard in
the Upper Peninsula, I observed a great intolerance for ethnic
minorities, but it was literally *nothing* compared to the intolerance
for homosexuality. There was *hatred* for homosexuality among very
much mainstream people in that area. The UP is not that much
different from other rural areas. The issue is an emotional one for a
lot of people there and in a lot of America.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 164 of 293:
|
Dec 14 06:48 UTC 2003 |
There will be many fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual couples - the
whole issue of additonal benefit costs - at most a percent or two - is
a red herring.
I do know there is opposition to homosexuality among the great busy-body
masses. It is certainly a problem, but not something to value and make
an effort to preserve. As has been pointed out, it is just like intolerance
of any minority and we have partially surmounted a lot of that.
|
lk
|
|
response 165 of 293:
|
Dec 14 07:49 UTC 2003 |
Jep, re#163, I appreciate our comments, but:
I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me "must not have any basis for
their opinion at all". What I said is that no one had presented such a
basis -- which is why you posted what you did, despite not fully agreeing
with it. And the 3 reasons you conjure aren't very compelling:
> children
Many gay relationships involve children. Moreso amongst women than men, but
this could change were gay marriage an option.
> employment benefits
As a small business owner, trust me when I say I know what "insurance
companies are doing now". [Ouch!] Yet this argument fails on two levels.
First, isn't this argument saying that we should discriminate against someone
because it would cost too much not to do so? Wasn't this argument used to
argue for slavery? Second, according to a study conducted by Lotus before
they began offering benefits to gay domestic partners, the costs were
relatively insignificant -- especially compared to the talent one might
lose by not offering such benefits.
Now here is where I think you are on to something:
> It is very important to a lot of people to oppose homosexuality in any
> way possible. Some people have religious reasons, some are just
> disinclined to accept things that are new....
> There was *hatred* for homosexuality....
Exacty. The driving reason is often "homophobia", either for religous reasons
or due to personal discomfort. The excuses ("weakens marriage", "costs too
much", "children") are rationalizations attempting to justify the irrational.
They fail.
As Rane said, this intolerance & hate is not unlike those of other minorities
which predate it and which are in the process of being surmounted.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 166 of 293:
|
Dec 14 15:05 UTC 2003 |
Marriage does not equal children. Couples who are too old to have children
marry. Infertile people marry. Couples who don't ever want to have kids
marry. So what?
The financial issue exists, but based on what I saw when it came up at UM,
it's really used as a proxy by people who simply hate gays, or at least hate
homosexuality itself.
And hatred should NEVER be used as a basis for public policy.
|
twenex
|
|
response 167 of 293:
|
Dec 14 15:14 UTC 2003 |
So Muslims and Jews have the "particulars" wrong?
I suppose you mean th practitioners of neither religion follow their
holy book to the letter, or the spirit, depending on which you think
is more important?
Oh, wait...! I am sure you mean that because their world view does not
agree with yours, they therefore are manifestly and demonstrably
wrong.
You are SO lucky I am not 1. Unstable; 2. Convinced of my own
righteousness; 3. In favour of gun ownership; 4. In America.
However, I *am* both disgusted and amazed that you could disgust me
any further than you already had.
|
gull
|
|
response 168 of 293:
|
Dec 14 16:14 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:163:
> Government's interest in marriage and need to control it is partly
> due to concerns for children. Who takes care of the kids? This
> is important, but pretty much only for heterosexual marriages.
But we don't limit heterosexual marriage to people who are fertile.
> There are employment benefits for married people. These benefits
> are getting quickly weaker, even now. If you don't think it
> would hurt married couples to have a lot of what are currently
> known as "domestic partnerships" declared "marriages", you just
> simply aren't paying attention to what the insurance companies
> are doing now.
So basically, you're justifying discrimination as a way to artificially
limit the demand for insurance? Besides, I'm not convinced the impact
would be that great -- I suspect the majority of homosexual partnerships
are two-income households, and the number of partnerships nationwide is
pretty small compared to the overall population.
|
keesan
|
|
response 169 of 293:
|
Dec 14 19:21 UTC 2003 |
My two neighbors who just bought a house together have a child with two
mothers. More homosexual couples might have children if they were given the
legal rights to be coparents of children born to them or adopted together.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 170 of 293:
|
Dec 14 19:21 UTC 2003 |
What happened at UM when they proposed benefits for same-sex domestic partners
is that two of the most conservative Regents (the university's elected
governing body) opposed it on economic grounds, saying it would cost the
university tons of money and threaten the employee benefit system. It passed
anyway, and something like 50 couples (out of some 30,000 employees) have
actually made use of it.
Basically, that argument is spurious, and it's usually used by people like
those two Regents who demonstrably hate gays as a cover for their real reasons
to oppose gay rights. One of the two went on to oppose the existence of an
office here to provide counseling for gay students, on the grounds that it
would be used to brainwash students into homsexuality. No bias there.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 171 of 293:
|
Dec 14 19:22 UTC 2003 |
169 slipped. And she's right. But marriage is NOT linked to rugrats, and
should NOT be.
|
jep
|
|
response 172 of 293:
|
Dec 15 02:15 UTC 2003 |
One thing on which I do agree with the anti-gay crowd on is the
word "homophobia". I don't think there's any way to promote
understanding and tolerance by the use of such labels. I find it
offensive and I am not really one of the ones being targeted by it.
|
jep
|
|
response 173 of 293:
|
Dec 15 02:26 UTC 2003 |
re resp:168: I am not justifying anything. I'm not anti-gay.
re resp:166, 170: Joe, I had not heard any such statistics, and find
them very interesting. Have any more information like that about
other places which give benefits to those who are not in a
heterosexual marriage?
Also: Are you sure that information isn't propaganda? (There is
certainly a lot of spinning of facts around these days.)
|