Homosexual marriage II

[littleadanel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

This is like the Shakespeare thing: people WON'T let Shakespear be Shakespeare.

A: Shakespeare was a good writer.
B: No, he didn't exist and he didn't write those plays.

A: Shakespeare was a moral man.
B: Shakespeare was gay.


So you say, LittleAdanel, that perhaps that gay person who "went straight" is Bisexual. Does that have to be the case, because people don't lie when they say they are gay?

Some people fool themselves one way, others another.

Rian is exactly right, everyone blabbers about how nobody should pretend to be straight if they're gay, but when the gay guy starts noticing that he isn't gay anymore he's "going back" and somehow being dishonest to himself.

And that is a bunch of rot!

Person: "I'm gay!"
College: "Awesome! That's great!"

Person: "I don't think I was gay afterall"
College: "Don't give in to the hatred man! Be yourself!"

I don't think it's black and white, but I do think it's fairly simple. What gets complicated is exploring the thoughts going on in these people's heads.

*sigh*

Where exactly did you see me say people don't lie? We do, even to ourselves, yes. I just said I don't throw the statement "liar!" around, because of my reasons (maybe foolish, because what would it matter anyway).

And no, bisexuality doesn't have to be the case. But it is possible.

Rian may be right - all I wanted to do to show an exception, ie. myself. Apparently I didn't succeed.

[micomac]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's what we do with homosexual marriage. Give that relationship marriage laws and you declare it to be healthy. You also make marriage definition strictly arbitrary, and it could change to almost anything else in the future and becomes meaningless. You also implement laws which, while they might benefit a handful of homosexual relationships, might be very damaging to the vast majority of them because they aren't designed with that different kind of relationship's biological needs taken into account. That also may harm heterosexuals, who could become entangled in legal problems because of two relationships blindly being made equivalent under law, without any evidence having been produced showing that they are equivalent.

Doing this makes no sense, in my view.

hi there. i am confused, i have been reading through this thread and i think some people are missing the big picture. you say that homosexuality is harmfull, How so???

you have made your opinion about same sex marraige quite clear but(and forgive me if i have missed it) you haven't given any clear example of what dangers are to considered before embarking on a gay relationship. could these unforseen problems not be said of hetrosexual relationships. the biggest point being missed here is that relationships be they homo, hetro, platonic or other wise are so diverse that no two can ever be remotely the same. secondly i read in one of your earlier posts that homosexuals should not be granted equal legal rights until their relationships are studied further. would should be done? homosexuals are not a different species, they are part of every race, every society and care must be taken, because opression in any form is terribly wrong. everyone has the right to persue their own form of happiness. the view of society is a very heavy burden to bear, and most gay men and women bear this burden alone sometimes for their whole life, and often results in emotional and physical destruction.

back to the point of marriage, a lot of people embarking on same sex marriage do it because until now same sex couples couldn't buy a house together, aquire life insurance, qualify for married tax relief and many other rights given freely to hetrosexual couples who have been together 5 minutes, never mind a lifetime. i honestly dont see what serious ramifications same sex marriage has to anybody else apart from the people involved

HUMAN RIGHTS are not subject to approval they exist to accomodate and to protect all human beings not just the majority.

sorry if this sounded like a rant.

yours respectfully micomac

[Jon S.]

Perhaps the gays will teach us straights, with our >50% current U.S. divorce rate, something about commitment.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by micomac

hi there. i am confused, i have been reading through this thread and i think some people are missing the big picture. you say that homosexuality is harmfull, How so???

I am not arguing that it is harmful. Merely that insufficient studies have been done to know whether it is harmful or not, and hence our government should not say it is not harmful until we have done sufficient studies to know. Giving homosexuals marriage rights is saying implicitly that the relationship is not harmful.

Originally Posted by micomac

you have made your opinion about same sex marraige quite clear but(and forgive me if i have missed it) you haven't given any clear example of what dangers are to considered before embarking on a gay relationship. could these unforseen problems not be said of hetrosexual relationships.

We won't know until we commit ourselves to enough studies to find out. And finding out is what I have been advocating. Others here have been simply saying we should change the marriage laws, ASSUMING that the relationship is not harmful, and ASSUMING that the two biologically different kinds of relationships are going to be basically the same. They are making a lot of assumptions, and I'm saying that we should engage in more studies about what is called in psychiatry a relationship that is distinctly "understudied," rather than walking into a possible mess blindly.

Originally Posted by micomac

the biggest point being missed here is that relationships be they homo, hetro, platonic or other wise are so diverse that no two can ever be remotely the same.

There are tendencies that tend to be true for the vast majority from each gender, though, for genetic reasons. Seeing, therefore, as men and women are biologically decidedly different, a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is very, very likely to have major and consistent differences from a heterosexual relationship. These genetic differences between the relationships can and should be taken into account in our laws.

Originally Posted by micomac

secondly i read in one of your earlier posts that homosexuals should not be granted equal legal rights until their relationships are studied further. would should be done? homosexuals are not a different species,

Agreed. In fact, because I view homosexuality as primarily the influence of environmental forces rather than biological, I think I view them as MORE similar to everyone else than do many people here who have been arguing that they are biologically different.

My point is that a homosexual relationship is bound to be different than a heterosexual relationship because men and women are strongly genetically different.

Originally Posted by micomac

they are part of every race, every society and care must be taken, because opression in any form is terribly wrong. everyone has the right to persue their own form of happiness. the view of society is a very heavy burden to bear, and most gay men and women bear this burden alone sometimes for their whole life, and often results in emotional and physical destruction.

I despise the persecution of homosexuals, and I know that some homosexuals have felt it very badly, and even sometimes in horrifically cruel ways. As you say, it can sometimes lead to "emotional and physical destruction."

I don't believe that that is the source of the high suicide rate among homosexuals, though. This is because one of the bisexuals and one of the lesbians I have known have spoken about having come near to suicide, but neither of them mentioned persecution as the cause of it.

Originally Posted by micomac

back to the point of marriage, a lot of people embarking on same sex marriage do it because until now same sex couples couldn't buy a house together, aquire life insurance, qualify for married tax relief and many other rights given freely to hetrosexual couples who have been together 5 minutes, never mind a lifetime.

And after the studies I am recommending have been done on homosexual and heterosexual relationships, if the evidence suggests that laws should be formed to give them equality in this, I'd support it.

Originally Posted by micomac

i honestly dont see what serious ramifications same sex marriage has to anybody else apart from the people involved

Here is one crucial point: The people involved may indeed be harmed. Because we have not done enough studies about this, we don't know. And while I'll accept homosexuals being allowed, under law, to hurt themselves in their own personal relationship (just like I feel smoking in one's private home is okay), if the government extended marriage laws to include this relationship, the government would be implicitly saying that this type of relationship is fine in that act. It would be doing that without knowing that the relationship is actually fine, which is grossly negligent. Hence it could lead more people who have previously held down their homosexual desires to yield to them and follow that course, which, if the relationship is harmful, would very likely lead to further harm for many innocent people.

It also might harm people with heterosexual instincts, though. If two different types of relationships were treated as the same under law, when in fact there are important genetic differences, heterosexuals or homosexuals might come out unfairly treated.

Also, if marriage laws can be changed to apply not only to man and a woman but to other kinds of relationships as well, which they may not be appropriately designed for, the laws might be changed or in the end, done away with altogether because of being found to be inappropriate for the different kinds of unions they are presented with facing.

Originally Posted by micomac

HUMAN RIGHTS are not subject to approval they exist to accomodate and to protect all human beings not just the majority.

Agreed. The extension of marriage laws to homosexuals was never a human liberty under our country's laws, though, so it cannot be called a legal right. You might think of it as a moral right, but I disagree, and I think that applying the same laws to all kinds of relationships may harm many people, both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Whether I'm right on that or not, and even though you think homosexual relationships are not harmful, you should still agree with me that the government shouldn't say that they are fine without knowing that they are.

And supposing the differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships that are bound to exist (because men are genetically different from women) are harmless, you should still agree with me that our laws themselves might be harmful to the individuals involved, if we apply laws designed for heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships, while leaving blinders on (for lack of the studies I've been advocating) as to whether or not those laws really are good for homosexual relationships.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And after the studies I am recommending have been done on homosexual and heterosexual relationships, if the evidence suggests that laws should be formed to give them equality in this, I'd support it.

Lief - I think your post is very interesting because I used to think in the same ways you do. When people asked if I thought gays should be able to adopt children, I used to say that first there should be a study or two to find out whether it is good or bad for the kids to have two parents of the same sex. Later I realised that reasoning like this is ignorant. Because studies are of no use if they don’t formulate their questions correctly.

A study could have the aim to answer the question “are homosexual marriages harmful?”. But there is something inherently wrong with the very formulation of the question. A “yes/no” type of question can’t present reality properly here. See, all marriages are unique. No two marriages are alike. The question doesn’t take this into account and by asking the question ourselves, we create for ourselves an illusion that all gay marriages are either “good” or “bad” when the obvious answer is in fact “they can be both”.

We could construct parameters for what we consider a “harmful marriage” and a “not harmful” marriage. We could then study a large number of straight couples to see into which of these two categories they will fall. Some will have to be considered “harmful”, the rest will belong to the “not harmful” group. Then we could compare with gay couples. If the parameters are designed with a minimum of bias, surely gay marriages would fall into both categories as well. As I see it, the only way a significantly large amount of gay couples (compared to straight ones) could fall into the “harmful” group would be if our definition of “harmful” was prejudiced from the beginning. A parameter like “a marriage in which sexual intercourse takes place between members of the same sex – shall be considered harmful” would immediately make all gay marriages in the study “harmful”.

Anyway, maybe it would be interesting to see whether gay marriages - compared to straight ones - are statistically more or less harmful, happy, healthy, likely to divorce or whatever. But we must not let the statistics blind us. Even if studies were to show that gay marriages are 10, 20 or 50 percent more likely to be harmful, we must not forget that there would still be good gay marriages. Some gay marriages would most likely even score higher on the “not harmful” scale than the average straight marriage. Because in statistics there is a spread.

It would be highly discriminating not to allow gays to marry based on facts about the average gay marriage. We would step on all the persons who would have better and happier marriages, above the average. The average is a fictional construction and does not exist anyway.

Lief, I can only hope that you will take the time re-evaluate your approach to the importance of studies in this matter. If you do, I’ll bake you a cake

[Count Comfect]

Lief, there's something that's been bugging me - exactly what in our marriage laws today do you think is, or should be, specific to a heterosexual marriage besides the words "between a man and a woman"? Sharing property? Visitation rights? Power of attorney? Medical benefits? Not testifying against each other in court?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief, there's something that's been bugging me - exactly what in our marriage laws today do you think is, or should be, specific to a heterosexual marriage besides the words "between a man and a woman"? Sharing property? Visitation rights? Power of attorney? Medical benefits? Not testifying against each other in court?

Here's where I think we need studies. It doesn't matter what I think. People keep asking me what I think, but I'm saying it doesn't matter. The fact is that these are two genetically different kinds of relationships. Not that homosexuals are really different in a major way from heterosexuals, but that their relationships by logical necessity must be, because men are genetically different from women. So there is very good reason to believe that a man-man relationship or a woman-woman relationship will have significant and consistent differences from a man-woman relationship. By doing studies, we can find out what those differences and similarities are and taylor the laws or rights we give homosexuals more appropriately for their kind of relationship, depending on what differences or similarities we find.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

A study could have the aim to answer the question “are homosexual marriages harmful?”. But there is something inherently wrong with the very formulation of the question. A “yes/no” type of question can’t present reality properly here. See, all marriages are unique. No two marriages are alike. The question doesn’t take this into account and by asking the question ourselves, we create for ourselves an illusion that all gay marriages are either “good” or “bad” when the obvious answer is in fact “they can be both”.

Except that the difference between the relationships is going to be founded in the different genetics of men and women. If the issue was all socialization, I'd agree with you.

If the studies find that homosexual relationships tend to be very often harmful because of the different genetics involved, then that's an intrinsic problem in the relationship rather than a difference between individual couples. So then, because the difference between relationships genetic and not just socialization, it would be the government's duty to warn the public.

My premise is that men and women are genetically different, and that these differences encompass many different parts of their behavior. We're discussing this premise in depth on the "Gender Issues" thread.

Men and women have different kinds of brains, and many of the observed differences in their behavior stem from their having different genes. So by necessity, because of the gender difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, they are going to be different kinds of relationships. These differences in the relationships come from genetics, not that homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, but that because men and women are different from one another, a relationship between a man and a woman will be different from the relationships between people of the same gender.

So seeing as these are going to be different kinds of relationships due to genetics, because of women and men being different, you may expect to see the differences between the relationships reflected in a significant and consistant way in the statistics. And this isn't just a problem for individual couples, but for the vast majority of all homosexual relationships because the problem would be founded in a genetic problem involving relationship itself, rather than in individual couples' problems.

Now, whether homosexuality is harmful or not is simply something we should know before our government says it's fine by giving it the same laws as marriage laws. But whether they're harmful or not, they very likely will be at least different from heterosexual relationships, again, because of the different genetics. If the relationship is judged to be not harmful, based upon the results, the studies could at least enable us better to taylor our laws for homosexuals to better suit their different kind of relationship, depending on the differences we find between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

If homosexuality and heterosexuality are shown, by the studies, to have no significant difference between them at all that comes from the genetic difference, then we'll at least know that it's appropriate to give them the same legal guarantees as marriages have.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Except that the difference between the relationships is going to be founded in the different genetics of men and women. If the issue was all socialization, I'd agree with you.

If the studies find that homosexual relationships tend to be very often harmful because of the different genetics involved, then that's an intrinsic problem in the relationship rather than a difference between individual couples. So then, because the difference between relationships genetic and not just socialization, it would be the government's duty to warn the public.

My premise is that men and women are genetically different, and that these differences encompass many different parts of their behavior. We're discussing this premise in depth on the "Gender Issues" thread.

Marriage and our whole society is about socialisation, not genetics. It’s our phenotype that matters Lief, not our genotype. Genetics affect our social behaviour, as do other factors like your appearance, how your parents raised you, your environment or any disabilities you might have. But these are still only factors – how we live our social lives is the main thing, the big picture. We pay little heed to whether e.g. the marriage of two blind people could be harmful in any way. Sure, their genetics may be very normal but their phenotypes differ from those of a normal (seeing) couple. Just like a gay couple would differ from a normal couple.

Which is why I think it’s discriminating to say we should study gay marriage to see if it's harmful. In a gay couple, the combined genotype differs from the standard straight couple (a gay couple would have one Y chromosome too many or too little). But when it comes to behaviour and social life, genotype must always be translated into phenotype. And there are so many different kinds of marriage with special “phenotypes” and deviant behaviours (blind couples, deaf couples, mute couples etc.) which we apparently don’t feel the same need to study. For some reason we aren’t afraid that these marriages will be harmful. But gays marriage? Gay marriage and its genetics are subjected to major discrimination.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Marriage and our whole society is about socialisation, not genetics. It’s our phenotype that matters Lief, not our genotype.

Genotypes, to a large extent, determine people's phenotypes.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Genetics affect our social behaviour, as do other factors like your appearance, how your parents raised you, your environment or any disabilities you might have. But these are still only factors – how we live our social lives is the main thing, the big picture. We pay little heed to whether e.g. the marriage of two blind people could be harmful in any way. Sure, their genetics may be very normal but their phenotypes differ from those of a normal (seeing) couple. Just like a gay couple would differ from a normal couple.

The phenotype of one blind person might be different from that of another blind person. How one person behaves may differ from how another person behaves. But genetics don't change, and there are consistent, genetics-caused gender differences between the vast majority of men and women that will be intrinsic to the relationship itself and not to individuals. That's why your claim that the relationship might be fine for one couple but not for another is flawed. Because I'm pointing out that this has to do with intrinsically different genetics in the relationship, not between people. This is about the unchangable genetics of the relationship itself.

People's phenotypes are going to be strongly influenced by their gender. Phenotypes are heavily influenced by genotypes. The differing genotypes of men and women have a big impact on the phenotypes of the individuals. But there are consistent similarities among the vast majority of men because of the genetic gender difference. And the same with women. And they are consistently significantly different, with few exceptions. This has a major role in the type of relationship.

I'm looking at the genetics of the types of relationships themselves. You're looking more at how everybody's different. But my point is that even though everybody's different, the phenotypes of men have broad, similar characteristics that differ from those of women, and men have broad, similar characteristics that differ from those of men. And hence the heterosexual and homosexual relationships are bound, by logical necessity, to be different, and giving the laws for heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships is hence potentially very irresponsible.

So I'm talking about the type of relationship itself.

It may take a lot to change many people's views on various political, religious or other matters, but it happens. There are many examples of this. Cultural differences can be overcome or worked around, though that can be very hard. Genetic differences are encoded in us and hence won't change. They also, to a very large extent, determine the nature of the relationships we're discussing.

Yes, environment is a major influence on how people will behave. But genetics in people is both a major influence and an unchanging one. The different genotypes of men and women influence their phenotypes involved in a highly constant, consistent and very important way.

[Lief Erikson]

*Comes back a while later.*

You know, Jonathan, before reading and thinking about your two most recent posts and talking about them with God, I never really realized why so many Christians link these arguments for homosexual marriage with the potential future legalization of pedophelia.

In the past, I always read Insidious Rex's response to those claimed links, his arguments such as, "children are not mature enough to decide whether they'll be in a relationship at that age," and things like, "that relationship is known to be often harmful," and they made sense to me.

Homosexual marriage is not known to be harmful- it is understudied. And at least the vast majority of children aren't mature enough to make a decision about entering into such a relationship at that age. Homosexuality involves mature adults. Insidious is quite right about those points.

But your arguments undermine his points.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Marriage and our whole society is about socialisation, not genetics. It’s our phenotype that matters Lief, not our genotype. Genetics affect our social behaviour, as do other factors like your appearance, how your parents raised you, your environment or any disabilities you might have. But these are still only factors – how we live our social lives is the main thing, the big picture.

The argument about children not being mature enough to be involved in relationships with adults is based upon genetics as well as experience. Children are not physically, mentally prepared for that kind of relationship. Neither are they prepared in terms of experience. Without experience and age to develop their physical minds and their quantity of knowledge, their phenotypes are not sufficiently prepared, in our opinion. That is based in large part on the genotypes of children, and in part on environment as well. But you're saying that all these things- environment, how your parents raised you, and genetics- all of these things are "only factors." "How we live our social lives is the main thing, the big picture."

This should go for children too. Environment and genetics are just factors. How children live their lives is the "main thing."

Judging based on whether or not partners have reached adulthood, the culmination of both environmental influence and genetic development, is still judging relationships based on environment and genetics. You aren't willing to judge homosexual relationships based on environment or genetics, though. But you are (currently) willing to legally block pedophelia on those grounds. That's a double standard that a later generation may very well recognize. If we aren't to judge homosexual relationships based on environment or genetics, then this argument against pedophelia, which is based on environment and genetics, is nullified.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Even if studies were to show that gay marriages are 10, 20 or 50 percent more likely to be harmful, we must not forget that there would still be good gay marriages. Some gay marriages would most likely even score higher on the “not harmful” scale than the average straight marriage. Because in statistics there is a spread.

This goes for children too. Some children have matured very rapidly because of their environmental circumstances. Some children who have been, because of their environment, given experiences at very great speed, might even possibly be mentally prepared to make a decision about marriage at a young age. The vast majority of children won't be prepared, though.

You point out that statistics are likely to show a spread. So even, going by the reasoning in your argument, if 50% of child-adult pedophile relationships are shown to be harmful, the fact that there may be some good ones justifies opening the door to the potential large number of harmful ones.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

But when it comes to behaviour and social life, genotype must always be translated into phenotype. And there are so many different kinds of marriage with special “phenotypes” and deviant behaviours (blind couples, deaf couples, mute couples etc.) which we apparently don’t feel the same need to study. For some reason we aren’t afraid that these marriages will be harmful. But gays marriage? Gay marriage and its genetics are subjected to major discrimination.

Pedophile relationships in this country are subject to major discrimination. They aren't allowed, period. Homosexuality is allowed. This may very well be perceived to be a double standard by a future generation, considering how the arguments for homosexual marriage could just as easily be used supporting the legalization of pedophelia.

[Rána Eressëa]

Since I'm a little late into the discussion and these posts are too long for me to read right now, what's a summary of the current debate over this?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[BeardofPants]

Lemme sum up fer ya:

Religious Camp: "Homosexuality is wrong"
non-Religious Camp: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is, the bible says so nyah nyah."
nR-C: "Shuddap dumbass."
RC: "No you shuddap!"
nR-C: "I said shuddap first!"
RC: "Are you saying that it's ok for Hitler to kill jews?!"
nR-C: "WTF?"

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I view homosexuality as primarily the influence of environmental forces rather than biological.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Genotypes, to a large extent, determine people's phenotypes.

[Lief Erikson]

The only way you can see a contradiction between those two sentences, Gaffer, is by replacing the words "to a large extent" with the word "alone."

I'm not saying that homosexuals themselves are different in any huge way from heterosexuals. I'm not saying "homosexuals and heterosexuals are very different because of environment." No, I'm saying that "heterosexual and homosexual relationships are very likely very different because of the genetics." I'm not arguing that homosexuals and heterosexuals are very different from one another at all. It's the relationship that very likely will be very different from heterosexual relationships because the genders involved are different.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Lemme sum up fer ya:

Religious Camp: "Homosexuality is wrong"
non-Religious Camp: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is, the bible says so nyah nyah."
nR-C: "Shuddap dumbass."
RC: "No you shuddap!"
nR-C: "I said shuddap first!"
RC: "Are you saying that it's ok for Hitler to kill jews?!"
nR-C: "WTF?"

Lol!

A very neat, concise summary, BoP .

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Lemme sum up fer ya:

Religious Camp: "Homosexuality is wrong"
non-Religious Camp: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is"
nR-C: "No it's not"
RC: "Yes it is, the bible says so nyah nyah."
nR-C: "Shuddap dumbass."
RC: "No you shuddap!"
nR-C: "I said shuddap first!"
RC: "Are you saying that it's ok for Hitler to kill jews?!"
nR-C: "WTF?"

LOL!

Ah, BoP . . . oh, how I love you and your mind.

I'll have to join the non-religious camp on this one, my friends.

[Tessar]

Oh Anna! *hug* You really do know how to summarize things up neatly.

Pretty accurate, too, although I felt your leaving the 'undecideds' out really weakened the plot, near the end, but I guess the dialog in the closing debate helped make up for it, and I can understand the need for brevity given the budget and time constraints you were under.

All in all, I give it 4 1/2 stars.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So there is very good reason to believe that a man-man relationship or a woman-woman relationship will have significant and consistent differences from a man-woman relationship. By doing studies, we can find out what those differences and similarities are and taylor the laws or rights we give homosexuals more appropriately for their kind of relationship, depending on what differences or similarities we find.

There have been man-man and woman-woman relationships for YEARS. We know what they're like. There is ample evidence; and the evidence seems to show that there is no statistically significant difference.

Regardless, what are you worried about? You still won't answer... what part of marriage do you think we should be studying? I can't tell what part of marriage law could be harmful to anyone who wants to marry another human being they feel committed to and who feels committed to them. Where is the harm in what marriage brings?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There have been man-man and woman-woman relationships for YEARS. We know what they're like. There is ample evidence; and the evidence seems to show that there is no statistically significant difference.

Not according to the psychiatric branch. According to the psychiatric branch, homosexual relationships are "understudied."

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Regardless, what are you worried about? You still won't answer... what part of marriage do you think we should be studying?

We should study homosexual relationships, comparing them to heterosexual relationships. I'm not saying we should be studying the current laws we have for marriage, but rather the nature of homosexual relationships, to form an educated view on whether or not the laws will be good for or bad for those relationships.

These relationships are viewed in the psychiatric branch as "understudied." They shouldn't any longer be "understudied," when we make such a big move as extending marriage laws to include them, or we risk endangering our society by acting blindly.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I can't tell what part of marriage law could be harmful to anyone who wants to marry another human being they feel committed to and who feels committed to them. Where is the harm in what marriage brings?

We need to make studies to discover whether or not these relationships will be harmed. I'm not assuming that they will be harmed. Neither am I assuming that they are harmful. It is the people I am arguing against who assume in their arguments that homosexual relationships are not harmful and are not different from heterosexual relationships in a very significant way. Those are big assumptions, and I'm not willing to make them.

These are genetically different types of relationships. There is thus a high probability that there will be differences. One question is whether or not the differences are big enough to warrant changes in the laws. We don't know the answer to that question. We don't know if we should taylor our laws in specific ways to take into account the genetic differences. Neither do we have enough information to know whether or not homosexual relationships are harmful. So we shouldn't as a society be saying they're fine, at this point.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There have been man-man and woman-woman relationships for YEARS.

Try millenia.

Anyone seen History of the World, with the First Homo Sapiens Marriage, followed shortly by the First Homosexual Marriage?

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not according to the psychiatric branch. According to the psychiatric branch, homosexual relationships are "understudied."

Oh? And yet:
"In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the
American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of
same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities
conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same
rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

Seems like they think there's enough data. And the American Psychological Association feels the same way. Indeed, they'd say "research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples (Kurdek, 2001, 2004)"

Also Lief, you still miss what I'm asking: I'm saying that there is nothing in our current laws that seems to have anything to do with the genders of the participants in terms of the benefits provided or the requirements, save for the explicit requirement that they be of other genders. I'm asking what in there there is even the slightest chance of being bad for gay people. How could it be bad for them to be able to see each other on their deathbeds, to have tax deductions, to get healthcare?

Oh, and Gwai, I know... but millennia are just lots and lots of years put together