Homosexual marriage II

[brownjenkins]

Littleadanel sums it up pretty well. I think homosexuals deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's not like we can't change the laws back if it simply doesn't work out.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an
Both: I have a CHOICE what I do with my BIOLOGICAL heterosexual urges (some of which are not legal). *shrug*

My point is that, as far as homosexuality and marriage are concerned, nature vs. nuture is irrelavant. A man could choose to grow his hair long and wear a dress and he would not be denied the priviledge of a heterosexual marriage. It would be discrimination to make a law that said "cross-dressers can't marry", eventhough cross-dressing is 100% choice.

And arguments that it is "really bad" don't fly either, even if they are true.

If homosexuality was "really bad", the act itself would be illegal. Or, at the very least, it would be considered a sickness that had to be treated. It is not. You can't be institutionalized for being homosexual. In fact, most if not all who have ever posted in these threads have supported the idea of civil unions at some point in time, and I don't think anyone has ever argued that homosexuality should be illegal or even grounds for institutionalization.

On the flip side of heterosexual marriage, murders can get married, pedofiles can get married, Catholic Priests can get married (though they would probably lose their status with the church). If there is absolutely no requirement for obviously bad heterosexual marriages, how can we impose one on homosexual marriages?

Originally Posted by Lief:
Marriage loses its meaning.

Marriage has never had meaning in the legal realm. There are zero requirements other than the will of two people to marry. Two evil people can marry just as easily as two good people. Where is the meaning in that?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Marriage has never had meaning in the legal realm. There are zero requirements other than the will of two people to marry. Two evil people can marry just as easily as two good people. Where is the meaning in that?

I'm not talking about requirements of married couples. It does have meaning in the legal realm, though. Under law, married couples are treated as one person, their assets are fused; their status under law changes with their marriage.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

We've been round this topic many times before, but it's worth saying that homosexuality is NOT harmful. That is the view of the vast majority of independent health professionals and clinical evidence.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Despite the emollience of attitudes towards homosexuality and acceptance of it in some societies, in psychology it is considered an 'understudied relationship'. In his book Understudied Relationships, social psychologist S.W. Duck found that most mainstream research is predisposed towards studying only heterosexuality, in terms of relationships in contemporary Western cultures, implying that same-sex relationships are neglected and ignored by the majority of psychologists. More research since the 1990s has focused on homosexual relationships. [citation needed]

In the Psychiatric Association, when it was voted that homosexuality be accepted, those who voted against the motion said that it had been a political decision not based upon further evidence.

I've all along been arguing that more studies have to be done on homosexuality. I know that various medical organizations have said things about homosexuality not being "immoral," though that seems to me to be mere personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Religious Tolerance

The ability of therapists to delude themselves is immense. Study results too often reflect the researcher's beliefs rather than any cold reality. Probably the only studies of homosexuality that have a chance of being reliable would be those in which the researchers hold diverse opinions on the nature of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, such studies have never been made.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm
The medical profession doesn't know very well yet whether homosexuality is harmful or not, and meaningful studies have not been thoroughly engaged in.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Eating your babies occurs in nature (and is therefore NATURAL) too.

Perhaps but eating your babies was NOT being decried by conservatives as not being natural. Where as homosexuality was. So take it up with your fellow anti-gay marriage folk who are now saying it is natural. My only point was their tune has changed now in their desperate arms race against gay marriage at all costs. Ive always felt there was a biological aspect to homosexuality so this “finding� doesn’t effect my opinions whatsoever.

And anyway as some here have already mentioned (on many occasions) the choice/nature aspect of homosexuality is pretty much irrelevant to the point of whether gay marriage should be allowed or not so its yet another red herring used by the anti-gay marriage crowd to cloud the issue.


And Lief, again with the same tired previously countered arguments? America is not endorsing “immorality� by allowing gays to marry any more then it is when it allows Britney Spears to marry. And clearly Britney Spears marriage was harmful to all parties involved. Why weren’t you out picketing against it the whole time? You simply cant ban certain people from doing something based on the fact that its “harmful� for them to do it when you have no evidence to support that and outrageous examples of harmful HETEROSEXUAL marriage exist strutting in the media in front of our children each and every day. Who do you think does more damage to marriage in our society? The Britney Spear crowd or two loving anonymous gay people who you will never see in the press and who spend the next 50 years happily married to each other?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And Lief, again with the same tired previously countered arguments?

I feel the same way when reading your response.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

America is not endorsing “immorality� by allowing gays to marry any more then it is when it allows Britney Spears to marry. And clearly Britney Spears marriage was harmful to all parties involved. Why weren’t you out picketing against it the whole time?

Britney Spears is just harmful, period .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You simply cant ban certain people from doing something based on the fact that its “harmful� for them to do it when you have no evidence to support that and outrageous examples of harmful HETEROSEXUAL marriage exist strutting in the media in front of our children each and every day. Who do you think does more damage to marriage in our society? The Britney Spear crowd or two loving anonymous gay people who you will never see in the press and who spend the next 50 years happily married to each other?

Look, of course some individuals will do better with their marriages than others. That's only natural. However, there are general differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships due to the gender differences that exist between the two different kinds of relationships. Men and women are genetically different. The genders matter. They make a big difference as to what a relationship is like in practice. So although of course there will be differences between this couple and that couple, and this couple will do better than that couple, those things aren't the government's job. Large-scale, general biological differences can and should be taken into account by our laws, because the two types of relationships are intrinsically and by logical necessity different.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Britney Spears is just harmful, period .

LOL! Good one!

re Britney: as one of my favorite Switchfoot songs says, "the shadow proves the sunshine". The fact that BS made a joke of her marriage and that people realized it just shows that marriage is a good thing. Just because a stupid person does something stupid with a good thing doesn't make the thing bad.

Originally Posted by IRex

Perhaps but eating your babies was NOT being decried by conservatives as not being natural. Where as homosexuality was. So take it up with your fellow anti-gay marriage folk who are now saying it is natural. My only point was their tune has changed now in their desperate arms race against gay marriage at all costs. Ive always felt there was a biological aspect to homosexuality so this “finding� doesn’t effect my opinions whatsoever.

Eh, I don't have a horse in that race (the "natural", i.e., "found in nature" thing). I've always felt that it's pretty much irrelevant. And I'm not a "fellow" with many in the anti-gay-marriage crowd, either.

The only reason that I commented was because it seemed like it was being implied that since something was found in nature, that it's therefore "natural" and "right/good", so I just pointed out that not everything that we see in nature is usually considered "right/good" for humans, even if it IS natural in other species.

Originally Posted by Gaffer

We've been round this topic many times before, but it's worth saying that homosexuality is NOT harmful. That is the view of the vast majority of independent health professionals and clinical evidence.

sentence 1 - your opinion, and many other nice and intelligent people like you have different opinions.

sentence 2 - Since you say "vast majority", then there is obviously a minority that disagrees, so how can you make your sentence 1 statement? I think a more accurate sentence would be "... most people feel that homosexuality is not harmful, although many disagree." I'm not even sure that "most" is accurate, though, if you consider the whole world's opinions instead of just Western-type-civilization opinion ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Marriage has never had meaning in the legal realm. There are zero requirements other than the will of two people to marry. Two evil people can marry just as easily as two good people. Where is the meaning in that?

Marriage certainly does have meaning in the legal realm - if I try to marry our gardener, the state would have a legal objection because I'm already married!

"zero requirements other than the will of two people to marry"?!?! That's certainly not true - there certainly ARE requirements beyond that! That's why I can't marry my first cousin, or my dad, or my next-door-neighbor's 2-yr-old son, or my next-door-neighbor's husband.

If homosexuality was "really bad", the act itself would be illegal.

There's lots of bad acts that aren't illegal *shrug*. The government has to pick and choose what they feel they CAN enforce and what they feel they SHOULD enforce.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by littleadanel

And it goes the same way with homosexuality, I think. I can only think because I am hopelessly straight ( )... but still. You have a choice what to do with what you feel... you can deny it to yourself and/or others, or you can recognize it as a part of who you are, and act upon it or not... to each his/her own... but you can't just wipe it out. Just as I can't wipe out my own heterosexuality. You can't help who you love... something clicks in your mind and heart, or not, just not.

But you can choose what to do with your love. Like if I loved my brother-in-law and wanted to marry him, I could decide to "deny myself" and not act on that love because of the harm it would do to his wife and kids. Life is full of hard choices and pain, as well as great wonder and joy and fulfillment. And if, for whatever reason, a person feels that a particular urge/desire is wrong, then I say good for them if they choose to not act on it, even if it's very difficult.

Say, if I lived in a community where, for whatever reasons, homo- and/or bisexuality is not only accepted but strongly preferred and encouraged... well, I could live according to those standards if I wanted to be a 'good' member of the community... I might as well find a gal I enjoy being with, living with, even enjoy having sex with; for whom I care with all my heart; but with all this, there still would be a part of me deep inside longing for something else. A part feeling denied. I can't help myself being attracted to men; I know that for sure. And then, it would be up to me to deny it, saying things are good enough as they are, what more could I want; or gathering the courage to go my own way trying to find a way out of my confusion, to discover what is the best for me, and, no doubt, hurting many people who are important for me, and as if it wasn't enough, even going against my community's norms.

Basically, I think everyone should do what they think is right, regardless of what others think.

Er, that last part sounded pretty selfish... but... well, it's not that 'I want that cookie'-selfishness, if you see what I'm trying to say... it's a helluva lot more complicated. Self-denial like this can cause very, very deep hurts in one's soul and health of mind...

It is indeed very, very complicated, and touches deep places in our souls, but again, I think that if a person thinks that a particular urge is wrong, that it is GOOD to "deny" it, although it's certainly difficult and painful.

Well... that's what I think. *ducks the flying stones*

There's typically not any flying stones in here, addy. The vast majority of the posters here are very, very thoughtful and considerate (also very opinionated, but that's another story! )

And if stones DO start to show up, then they'll get reported, because I'm sick of flying stones appearing during a discussion that has been considerate and thoughtful.

Originally Posted by Lief

Well, once recently I responded to something a person had directed at RÃ*an, but I asked her first if she didn't mind. She told me not to accuse her of being a post-Nazi and made clear to me that she had no problem with it, so I take it that she doesn't mind. Unless you think I should view her as a liar too

I think that was when someone asked me a question and you answered it with what your own thoughts were on the question (which is CERTAINLY fine, as this is an open forum, and anyone can voice their thoughts on any post, even if it's not directed to them), as opposed to you saying what you think I meant. I don't have any problem with either one, though.

Now I would have a problem with you claiming to speak directly FOR me, but I certainly don't mind if you say what you THINK I meant when it looks to you like someone misunderstood me. I think that's just trying to be helpful.

I only get ticked off if someone says "RÃ*an THINKS such-and-such", like they can read my mind , or "RÃ*an SAID such-and-such" and they don't provide a quote (usually because it's non-existent and I never said that).

WELL - lots of people quoted me and I got some responses out, but three posts in a row (I tried to make them reasonably-sized posts) is enough for now More after dinner, maybe.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not talking about requirements of married couples. It does have meaning in the legal realm, though. Under law, married couples are treated as one person, their assets are fused; their status under law changes with their marriage.

But it doesn't have any meaning in a moral sense and never has, except in certain societies where the church controls who does and does not get married. Two completely immoral heterosexuals are allowed to marry one another. They could even be pedofiles and get married.

That's why nature vs. nurture is irrelavant, as are any arguments that homosexuality is "bad". The only arguments of that vein that make sense are the one's involving minors. It is illegal to marry a minor because sex with a minor (unlike sex with an adult of the same sex) is illegal.

[Rían]

why is sex with a minor illegal, though? Because people think it's bad?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Marriage certainly does have meaning in the legal realm - if I try to marry our gardener, the state would have a legal objection because I'm already married!

"zero requirements other than the will of two people to marry"?!?! That's certainly not true - there certainly ARE requirements beyond that! That's why I can't marry my first cousin, or my dad, or my next-door-neighbor's 2-yr-old son, or my next-door-neighbor's husband.

Zero moral requirements, except in the case (maybe) of polygamy.

Minors I covered with my response to Lief. It's illegal because sex with minors is illegal. That said, there are people of certain cultures in the US that pledge children for marriage at a very young age, and that informal contract is not illegal as far as I know.

Denying marriage to blood relations mostly stems from the physical risks of birth defects. And, once again, the act of incest (unlike the act of homosexuality) is illegal.

Polygamy is tougher. It is not illegal for anyone to cohabitate or even have children at the same time with multiple mates, even if they are married to one of them. It is only illegal to marry more than one of them. So, on those grounds, polygamy among consenting adults should also be allowed. One could even argue that making it legal would bring out of the closet something that happens anyway and thus put more scrutiny on times when it is abused (like when it involves minors or incest).

But, while homosexual marriage might have anywhere from 25-50% support among the general public, I'd have to guess that polygamy is probably around 1-5%, so it's kind of a moot point.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There's lots of bad acts that aren't illegal *shrug*. The government has to pick and choose what they feel they CAN enforce and what they feel they SHOULD enforce.

Do you think the act of homosexuality should be illegal? Or maybe treated as a mental disease of a sort that would have the state require treatment of some kind?

It's something I don't understand really.

When we talk about pedofila, it makes sense: 1) pedophila is bad, 2) pedophila is illegal, 3) marrying minors is illegal

When we talk about homosexuality: 1) homosexuality is bad, 2) homosexuality is legal (maybe even civil unions), 3) homosexual marriage is illegal.

It seems to me that if you can't make any kind of case for legal ways of curbing homosexuality other than denying legal marriage, you're standing on very weak ground.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

why is sex with a minor illegal, though? Because people think it's bad?

For the same reasons minors can't get a mortgage, open a bank account (without a co-signing adult) or a hundred other things. Because children aren't fully developed enough to make those kind of judgements.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But it doesn't have any meaning in a moral sense

My point was about legality, not morality. The laws of the land treat people who are married differently than they treat people who are single. So we're just making the laws that apply to heterosexual relationships apply equally to homosexual relationships, just assuming blindly that the two genetically different kinds of matches are essentially the same. Thus we run a big risk of doing a disservice to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, by setting up laws for homosexuals that are potentially inappropriate to their different kind of relationship.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and never has, except in certain societies where the church controls who does and does not get married.

Well, I think actually you'll find that your exception includes most of the societies that have existed. Most societies have viewed homosexuality as immoral or for other reasons distasteful, and have prevented homosexuals from marrying or even coming out in the open about their relationships. That includes Islam, Judaism, and I expect many polytheistic religions. So outside of your exception, there are very few societies that fit the qualifications in your statement. It's obvious that you won't have homosexuality attacked on moral grounds when the country refuses to acknowledge morality, and by excluding all religious societies that disagree with your point, you exclude almost all societies that have acknowledged morality. Throughout history, virtually every society that acknowledged a form of morality has said, "this is the state religion, and you're with it or against us."

Besides, even outside of the religious context, homosexuality was fiercely opposed on the grounds that it was disgusting or in other ways degrading throughout the Communist states. In China, Cuba, and throughout the USSR, there was persecution of homosexuals under Communist, atheist rulership. So your statement is flawed on many levels.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Two completely immoral heterosexuals are allowed to marry one another. They could even be pedofiles and get married.

Right. And I have no problem with their getting married. I do have a problem with our changing the nature of marriage from between a man and a woman, though, for the reasons that I have stated. This is genetically a different kind of relationship, because the male and female genders are genetically different and relationships between them must by necessity be different. So blindly applying the same laws to both could be very harmful to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Studies have to be conducted first to ensure that this course of action is both safe and appropriate.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That's why nature vs. nurture is irrelavant, as are any arguments that homosexuality is "bad".

You guys keep putting this argument in my mouth when I've never spoken it! I'm not arguing that homosexuality is morally bad.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The only arguments of that vein that make sense are the one's involving minors. It is illegal to marry a minor because sex with a minor (unlike sex with an adult of the same sex) is illegal.

In some parts of the US, bestiality is legal. So shouldn't people be able to also marry animals in places like that, since they can legally have sex with them? And then there's the whole issue of whether or not those "marriages" would be legal across state boundaries.

The ability to legally have sex with someone or something is not reason enough for marriage laws to be extended to the people or person and animal at hand. A legal sex life has never been the basis for marriage, under law.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Do you think the act of homosexuality should be illegal? Or maybe treated as a mental disease of a sort that would have the state require treatment of some kind?

It's something I don't understand really.

When we talk about pedofila, it makes sense: 1) pedophila is bad, 2) pedophila is illegal, 3) marrying minors is illegal

When we talk about homosexuality: 1) homosexuality is bad, 2) homosexuality is legal (maybe even civil unions), 3) homosexual marriage is illegal.

It seems to me that if you can't make any kind of case for legal ways of curbing homosexuality other than denying legal marriage, you're standing on very weak ground.

Your statements about homosexuality here break down on more than one level. You seem to be assuming that everything that's legal is good .

1) Cigarettes are bad, 2) cigarettes are legal, 3) publicizing that cigarettes are good for your health is illegal.

Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it's good.

If the United States government said homosexuals should be allowed to marry, by giving them equal benefits with heterosexuals in the marriage institution, we would be saying that homosexuality is fine or good.

1) Homosexuality is bad, 2) homosexuality is legal, 3) the government saying that homosexuality is good (which happens when they give them the right to marry) should not be legal.

This is obviously all based on the premise that homosexuality is bad, and I'm not talking about in some abstract moral sense but in a down-to-earth, hurt-your-life kind of way. Some former homosexuals have said that homosexuality hurt them, and there are other reasons too to believe it does. Knowing homosexuals and observing their lifestyle can give insights. There are a few reasons, and these are some, that I think that homosexuality is harmful.

But in the psychiatric profession, it is broadly acknowledged that very little is known about homosexual relationships. In my view, our society doesn't know enough about homosexuality to be justified in extending marriage laws to include it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

LOL! Good one!

re Britney: as one of my favorite Switchfoot songs says, "the shadow proves the sunshine". The fact that BS made a joke of her marriage and that people realized it just shows that marriage is a good thing. Just because a stupid person does something stupid with a good thing doesn't make the thing bad.

Good point. I think so too.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

sentence 1 - your opinion, and many other nice and intelligent people like you have different opinions.

sentence 2 - Since you say "vast majority", then there is obviously a minority that disagrees, so how can you make your sentence 1 statement? I think a more accurate sentence would be "... most people feel that homosexuality is not harmful, although many disagree." I'm not even sure that "most" is accurate, though, if you consider the whole world's opinions instead of just Western-type-civilization opinion ...

I think that that's another good point. I hadn't thought about it from that angle before.

It is also worth noting that even the Western medical professionals who say homosexuality is fine admit that they don't know a whole lot about homosexuality, because insufficient reliable data has been brought up. They're just being politically correct, in my opinion. And that's what the minority of the American Psychiatric Association said, when they changed their policy to say that homosexuality is fine. The minority said that those they were arguing with had changed the judgment of the Association on the matter without any new evidence about it.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now I would have a problem with you claiming to speak directly FOR me, but I certainly don't mind if you say what you THINK I meant when it looks to you like someone misunderstood me. I think that's just trying to be helpful.

I only get ticked off if someone says "RÃ*an THINKS such-and-such", like they can read my mind , or "RÃ*an SAID such-and-such" and they don't provide a quote (usually because it's non-existent and I never said that).

Ah. Well, I suspect that I was crossing the line in post 92 then. I was very sure that I understood what you meant.

[littleadanel]

Originally Posted by me

You have a choice what to do with what you feel...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But you can choose what to do with your love.

It seems we're saying the same thing, hm?

All I was trying to say that absolutely denying a feeling/orientation/etc. in you, denying a part of you as if it was nonexistent, that is definitely not good for you. You can't just wipe it out. As for acting upon it, if it's good or acceptable or not, well we obviously disagree. But then again, it's not us who are in such a situation.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Basically, I think everyone should do what they think is right, regardless of what others think.

Again the same here. But, the 'regardless of others' part is real hard. Others do influence us. And when the influence is that they should hide their orientation because it's 'bad' - it's hard to find their own way when they're heavily pressed towards something to be accepted. Of course there's the other side too; but I think it's extremely rare to happen that way... "Son, we're so happy that you've been honest to yourself and us and told us you're homosexual. We love you the way you are! Feel free to find a nice guy to live with!" - "But I don't want to!"

So I'd add: I'll respect their decision, even if they don't agree with me. Can you say the same?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If the United States government said homosexuals should be allowed to marry, by giving them equal benefits with heterosexuals in the marriage institution, we would be saying that homosexuality is fine or good.

Or: it IS a way of life for quite a big minority, recognized by law, even if I personally don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by Lief

But in the psychiatric profession, it is broadly acknowledged that very little is known about homosexual relationships. In my view, our society doesn't know enough about homosexuality to be justified in extending marriage laws to include it.

So we obviously have to start somewhere. Wouldn't the legally recognized civil unions be a good first step to "observe"?

Originally Posted by Lief

I think you're a very sweet person, littleadanel. Just thought I'd let you know .

Heh, thanks.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by littleadanel

Or: it IS a way of life for quite a big minority, recognized by law, even if I personally don't agree with it.

I haven't got any problem with homosexuals getting laws made concerning their relationships. I just don't think that we should throw marriage laws onto their relationships when we don't know that those laws are appropriate for that kind of biologically different relationship. If we did know that homosexual relationships are not harmful to either party (contrary to observable evidence today), and we had a wealth of reliable studies to confirm that homosexual relationships are essentially the same as heterosexual ones, and hence need no difference in the laws between the two different kinds of relationships, then I would support civil unions.

Originally Posted by littleadanel

So we obviously have to start somewhere. Wouldn't the legally recognized civil unions be a good first step to "observe"?

I don't think so. I think that that would be rather like just randomly throwing somebody off a boat into a river in order to find out whether or not they can swim. Civil unions, from what I've heard, give people essentially the same rights as marriage only without the name "marriage." Doing that does knock away one of my objections, but not the others. It's still, without tests or studies, throwing laws onto people without knowing whether or not they're workable, just or at all appropriate to deal with the special problems or quirks a genetically different kind of relationship might produce.

We don't know whether those laws we're setting up in civil unions are appropriate for homosexual relationships, but we'd be just throwing them on anyway and thus potentially hurting all our homosexual guinea pigs, as well as heterosexuals who might become involved in the legal tangle.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by littleadanel

It seems we're saying the same thing, hm?

All I was trying to say that absolutely denying a feeling/orientation/etc. in you, denying a part of you as if it was nonexistent, that is definitely not good for you. You can't just wipe it out. As for acting upon it, if it's good or acceptable or not, well we obviously disagree. But then again, it's not us who are in such a situation.

Yes, I think we're saying the same thing (your last paragraph just cleared up my one question). At first, I thought by "denying" that you meant just not acting on something. But now I see that you mean that it's not good to pretend that it doesn't exist, and acting on it or not is another thing. So I think we are in complete agreement here - yay!

So I'd add: I'll respect their decision, even if they don't agree with me. Can you say the same?

Absolutely. I've said over and over that I think everyone should do what they, personally, think is right. I won't say that I think something is right if I don't think it's right, but I certainly think adults should make their own decisions based on what they think is right.

Originally Posted by Lief

Ah. Well, I suspect that I was crossing the line in post 92 then. I was very sure that I understood what you meant.

No, you didn't cross the line - I know you well enough to know that your intent was to clear up a misconception of something that I wrote. I'd prefer if you said "I think Rian means this", but that's because I'm so super-sensitive on the whole issue of people being able to speak for themselves. And you were quite right - YOU understood me correctly; Lotesse didn't, and so you tried to be helpful and clear it up, which is a nice thing to do, in my book.

Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it's good.

True.

Originally Posted by brownie

For the same reasons minors can't get a mortgage, open a bank account (without a co-signing adult) or a hundred other things. Because children aren't fully developed enough to make those kind of judgements.

So is it a bad thing to let them make decisions without being fully developed because it might harm them? Come on, use the "B" word! You keep dancing around it

Originally Posted by brownie

Zero moral requirements ...

I agree there, but "moral" wasn't in your original statement; that's why I challenged it. Maybe you thought it was clear in the context, but I didn't think it was.

Originally Posted by brownie

Do you think the act of homosexuality should be illegal?

No - I don't think it's practical to enforce, and I don't think everything I think is wrong should be put into law - I think it's a complicated balance with a lot of factors.

Or maybe treated as a mental disease of a sort that would have the state require treatment of some kind?

No.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Everything is natural when you really think about it.

Yes, in the sense of "if it happens in nature, it's natural." In the other sense of the word, though, there are things that are unnatural because they're so far out of what typically happens in nature.

The question is what is acceptable, and that's relative.

The question is, are my relatives acceptable?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

So Rian, you're equivocating eating babies with same sex couples getting legally married?

Of course not! Yucky!!!!! What I was doing was addressing the whole "it's natural" thing.

I often hear from some of the pro-same-sex-marriage people that homosexuality is in nature, and is therefore "natural", and is therefore good/right. The last bit ("is therefore good/right") was the part I didn't think was necessarily a valid conclusion, which I illustrated by pointing out ANOTHER thing that occurs in nature and is therefore "natural" and that most people do NOT think is good/right.

And, and you happen to have a biological urge to eat your son with ketchup, yet, thanks to God and to your decision to resist your biological urges, you - will NOT eat your son? Yikes. And, woah.

Uh, what?!

Here I thought I was making a really good funny!!!

The biological urge part was not only in an entirely different section than the ketchup joke, it was in an entirely different POST from the eating my son with ketchup joke. And you didn't even quote me right - I wrote "biological heterosexual urges", not merely biological urges. The biological heterosexual urges part was referring to some sexual urges that I had that I choose to not act on.

No, I do NOT have an urge to eat my son with ketchup. I thought that it was so hugely obvious that it was a joke that I only put an "eek" smilie there. I guess next time I'll put a joke smilie there, too. If you truly thought that I had an urge to eat my son with ketchup ... well, I guess that explains a lot of things! Please quote me correctly! "Biological heterosexual urges"!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

And yet, how can you say with any true confidance that you know for a fact that your freinds you mentioned did not, in fact, still retain their instincts, and had not outwardly "changed" in order to conform to be something, someone that they are not, in order to feel included in on a christian dogma that they've, yes, chosen to become a member-of-the-club with, for whatever reasons?

And how can you say with any true confidence that homosexuals you know are not faking their homosexuality for any of many good reasons and their true instincts are heterosexual and they're denying this? How can we know what ANYONE says is true? I think it's an exercise in futility to go down this route.

If you can choose to deny your true unique workings, you can choose to be or become or be a part of anything, icluding a religion, or anything at all.

Yes! You can even deny your true unique workings and become an atheist!

Who is anyone among us to determine the "right" or "wrong" of any one human being's choice on how their private life ought to be led?

All voting adults do this to a certain extent, including you (if you vote).

Well, I'm caught up with the thread now! Better scurry off and do some errands - gotta go to the dreaded DMV and turn in my lovely California license plates