Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

So Nurvi, what do you think about my response to your post?

[Nurvingiel]

We cross-posted. To unbury, I think this:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree RÃ*an but I can't really respond further because I didn't originally say that we weren't animals. I do agree with everything else Jonathan said in his last post though.

Interesting JD. If someone believes that homosexuality is natural, they're more inclined to be okay with gay marriage. They won't necessarily agree, but they are more likely than someone who doesn't think it's natural. We do have the GLB thread for that train of thought though.

I do think that humans are animals.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurv

Interesting JD. If someone believes that homosexuality is natural, they're more inclined to be okay with gay marriage. They won't necessarily agree, but they are more likely than someone who doesn't think it's natural. We do have the GLB thread for that train of thought though.

Also, if someone believes homosexuality is something you're born with, they're more likely to accept gay marriage and gay rights. As I said before I don't think it really matters if it's natural or not. It's love between two adults nevertheless. There are so many other unnatural things about us humans. Animals adapt to nature, we adapt nature to us.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But Jonathan (and I say this with respect, and this is a serious question), if you believe evolution is true, how are we NOT animals?
[...]
...and then turn around and contradict themselves and say we're NOT animals on other threads when it suits their purpose?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I've never said I think we're animals . This doesn't belong in this thread at all, but I don't have to believe we're animals just because I believe evolution to be true. It's a matter of individual interpretation of the word 'animal'. There are bacteria, there are plants, there are animals - and then humans. One could say that technically we're animals, but I think JD pointed it out very well - we have such a big brain capacity that I think we could separate us from them. Also, like I said above, we differ from animals since we change the environment to fit us instead of adapting to it like animals do. [/OFF TOPIC!!]

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

most states allow civil unions

I'm pretty sure only Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts offer civil unions in any form to homosexual couples. I'd be delighted to know otherwise, if you know of any.

RÃ*an: my point about lizards, apes, etc is not that we're "different" from animals in any evolutionary sense. What I mean is that they are not of our species, so we are not going to be marrying them as they aren't citizens. It says nothing of our superiority, inferiority, or anything else other than that we DO NOT SHARE THEIR SPECIES.

As for polygamy, yes, there are court challenges to it coming through on the heels of Lawrence v. Texas. But there is also a precedent (as I mentioned) of the state having compelling interest in preventing polygamy dating back to the 1800s, so I doubt the success of the court challenges. Because unlike homosexual marriage, polygamy is not a 1-1 bond (which I believe is the reason for the precedent against it).

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Please don't put words in my mouth, I've never said I think we're animals . This doesn't belong in this thread at all, but I don't have to believe we're animals just because I believe evolution to be true. It's a matter of individual interpretation of the word 'animal'. There are bacteria, there are plants, there are animals - and then humans. One could say that technically we're animals, but I think JD pointed it out very well - we have such a big brain capacity that I think we could separate us from them. Also, like I said above, we differ from animals since we change the environment to fit us instead of adapting to it like animals do. [/OFF TOPIC!!]

Another point, I should think, is that 'animal' is a term invented by humans to describe some living beings not human.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Another point, I should think, is that 'animal' is a term invented by humans to describe some living beings not human.

Bingo.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I'm pretty sure only Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts offer civil unions in any form to homosexual couples. I'd be delighted to know otherwise, if you know of any.

Well NJ has gay civil unions. NY accepts gay marriages from other states.. I've posted a list before and currently I don't have time to go looking for all the facts at this moment. Here however is an article about NJ (which I have posted a TON of things about)...

N.J. to register gay couples in new law

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Hundreds of same-sex couples gathered to register domestic partnerships on Saturday, the first day of a new law in New Jersey that gives gay partners some of the same rights as married couples.

More than 200 people attended a morning ceremony marking the law going into effect. Many arrived hours early, sitting on the municipal building's steps or on lawn chairs while filling out domestic partnership applications.

"This is a very great day in New Jersey's civil rights history," said Mayor Fred Profeta. "The civil rights achieved today are very important — don't anyone doubt that."

Some 40 applications, which attest to the signers being domestic partners, had been handed out as of 9:30 a.m. After completing the paperwork, couples planned to draw numbers to determine their place in a line to receive notarization.

Cathy Schenone arrived at 7:30 a.m. with her partner, Michele Tollefson, 46.

"It kind of validates that we've been together 10 years and deserve the same rights as everyone else," said Schenone, 40, of Wanaque.

The domestic partnership law, passed in January, grants some legal rights to registered couples, including the ability to make medical decisions for each other.

It allows partners to have some joint rights in filing state taxes, to be exempt from state inheritance taxes in the case of a partner's death and to extend the benefits given to state employees to cover domestic partners.

The law also covers unmarried heterosexual couples ages 62 and older. It does not legalize gay marriage and offers far fewer rights than those given to heterosexual married couples.

Many attending the ceremony wore buttons reading "The next step: marriage equality."

Schenone said she was pleased with the new law because she can be added to her partner's health insurance policy.

"There really are some great benefits to it," Schenone said. "Hopefully it will lead to marriage."

New Jersey is the fifth state in the nation to officially recognize same-sex coupling. In April, Maine's governor signed a bill creating domestic partnerships there.

Domestic partner benefits have been granted in California and Hawaii. Vermont has approved civil unions and Massachusetts recently legalized same-sex marriage.

Catholic and conservative groups have raised objections to the New Jersey law, but so far no lawsuits have been filed to block it, said Patrick DeAlmeida, a deputy state Attorney General.

Maplewood was one of several municipalities with large gay populations that planned to open offices this weekend; most other towns didn't plan to start registering couples until Monday.

The South Orange clerk's office was opening at 12:01 a.m. Saturday to register couples.

"We know it's an important event and something crucial in the history of the country and we wanted to add our blessings to it," said South Orange Mayor William Calabrese.

Couples must bring government-issued identification and show proof of shared financial assets to a municipal registrar's office. There is no waiting period.

This was back in July 2004 and I think NY and PA has since done some things to have Civil Unions also - "New Jersey is the fifth state in the nation to officially recognize same-sex coupling. In April, Maine's governor signed a bill creating domestic partnerships there."

[Count Comfect]

Excellent always glad to have more up-to-date info. Those 5 would be NJ, ME, MA, VT and HI, then?

It turns out NY's Supreme Court ruled last month that it will have to join the throng as well. Making 6 (according to my most recent Google search )

CA's court challenge got tossed out (they have a limited registration, as the article points out, but it does not have even close to the same rights), and WA's is still in the courts. That's the other 2 I know of.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Also, like I said above, we differ from animals since we change the environment to fit us instead of adapting to it like animals do. [/OFF TOPIC!!]

Jonathan theres plenty of examples of other animals changing their immediate environment to help them survive. We are certainly not unique in that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Please don't put words in my mouth, I've never said I think we're animals .

No, you misunderstood me - I was asking you if you thought we were the same, since you believe evolution to be true (from what I understand). You quoted me correctly - please re-read it and see I wasn't saying you said we were animals, but instead I was asking you if you believe in evolution, how could you NOT believe we're animals? I was asking you to explain your thoughts; I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

The second part you quoted is true - if you find that thread you'll see people saying that. I didn't say YOU said it, though. I was merely pointing out that other people HAVE said it, and justify certain behaviors because "other animals do it", then they do NOT like other animal behaviors, and that seems logically inconsistent to me.

[Lief Erikson]

I made the time to come online today. The subjects have me too involved.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I see what you mean but I disagree. All people are unique. All fathers do not fill their influential role (a role that society has agreed is the norm, it seems) in a family. This doesn't have anything to do with disturbances at all.

I suppose when you say "all fathers" you mean "some fathers." Just a little grammar remark .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Of course parents fill "a vital and extremely important place in your life". But do you think less of families where maybe the mother is the husband and the father is the wife?

Do you mean where the woman fulfills the more traditional masculine role? No, I don't think less of them. I believe that these are usually exceptions, also. Women tend to be more feminine and men more masculine. It's a gender difference inherent between the different sexes. There are exceptions, of course. Like Nurvi pointed out in the Theology thread, men and women all have in them the masculine and feminine to varying degrees. I do think though that it's fairly obvious what the tendencies are between the sexes. Also these are not just society and culture, in my view. I used my parents as a personal example before (I think actually particularly in the Theology thread) to show the complementary differences between males and females. I now will use my younger sister as another example. And I'll come up with more family members to fill whatever other examples I need >-D . Just kidding .

We definitely have not been brought up where one kind of behavior is encouraged for girls and another for boys. We aren't brought up in the public school system, which means there have been no society pressures on us to conform. Nevertheless, both of my sisters chose rapidly to abandon the tussles my brothers and I got into. My younger sister hates the leadership type decisions, but like my mother, has great compassion and love. To me, she fits the feminine role quite well, and went there without any pressure on her to become that way. With my older sister it's a little tough to see. She certainly abandoned the games us boys were involved in quite early. I can't see very clearly into her though. I don't know how masculine or femine she is. She's a very lovable sphinx .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

What about families where the kids have several father figures, such as their father and uncle?

So long as they're not lacking the feminine role model also, there's no problem. There's no problem with having a strong masculine side in your upbringing. The problem is if you don't receive the feminine role model. The side that in my opinion, it's very, very rare for men to be able to fill as well as women. Now of course, having just any woman or man filling that role for a child isn't going to necessarily work that well. Adoption is obviously often a much tougher process then natural parenthood, because the parents are so similar to their offspring.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

My answer to your question, if a mother could fill a father's role and vice versa - maybe she could, maybe she couldn't. That depends on the persons. Your argument that research needs to be done is poor IMO. Look at how diverse and special every family is today. The world hasn't gone under because of families that differ a bit from society's standards.

The research should show whether these new "families" belong in the same category. It must be known that they are the same as heterosexual marriages before laws concerning heterosexual relationships are expanded to fill this circumstance as well. If the relationships show up as no different, then fine. There's a good argument for allowing marriage laws or civil union laws to be put into place.

If we say that a preponderence of evidence against marriages or civil unions is necessary for us to have first, we are putting ourselves in jeopardy by expanding laws to include things we know nothing about. It could be good and fine, or it could be disaster. We just wouldn't know. We don't know either what would happen if we thrust this new factor (homosexual marriage) into society. What kind of effects would there be? What kinds of changes in society? Your belief is none, or few. Not worth considering. But your very statement "not worth considering through research data," (I'm paraphrasing, based on the impression I'm getting from your posts) is a simple belief, based on an opinion. An opinion, and that's all. Not that that means your opinion is incorrect. It's just that your opinion, "there need be no research," is based on your belief that such research would yield no unbiased negative information about homosexual relationships. Forget "negative information." No different information, or at least not importantly different.

Because of this, your statement, "your argument that research needs to be done is poor IMO," seems to me internally flawed. :/ Anyway, just my view.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
After you respond to that, I'd like one more response. Do you agree with me that there are definite differences between the natures of the two different genders, male and female?

There are differences of course. There are differences between white people, blacks and Asians too.

Come on, Jon. Pigmentation is something utterly different from gender. A "horse of a different color", if you know what I mean .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

There are cultural differences between other countries and communities. In some places women have this and this role in a family, in other places men and women are more equal. This goes for Christian societies as well (in case one thinks a Christian family is the typical example of how a family should be). In Italy for instance, it's common that kids grow up not only with their mothers and fathers, but with their uncles, aunts, cousins, grandmothers and grandfathers - you name it. Italian kids can have multiple persons who help with the upbringing, you can say they have several parents.

In my opinion, being brought up surrounded by your relatives is the absolute best. I sometimes look on those Italian families with slight envy, because I live in a different state from all of my relatives except my grandmother.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Before the Civil War, Afro-Americans could not marry. I suppose Afro-American marriages and families were different than American ones, due to another cultural heritage. However that is not a valid reason for why they shouldn't be able to marry.
Before the 60s, interracial marriages were forbidden in the US. I guess people thought mixed race families could have their differences too, when compared to "normal" American families. Still, that's not a good reason for prohibiting marriage for them.

Culture differences are not the same as gender differences though. Not unless your view is that all gender differences are really cultural differences, that men and women are not different sexes from one another in anything aside from having different kinds of physical bodies.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This talk about how we must take a really careful look at how kids are affected by gay parents, it's not too different from the examples above. People most likely thought that interracial marriage was something unnatural, just like people who oppose same sex marriage think it is unnatural.
So what? Are we to blindly follow nature? We're not animals for heaven's sake, we do what we want

Blindly follow nature? NO! What I've been arguing for all this time is that we NOT blindly walk into something that we haven't researched and no very little about! Indeed, the "love is love," argument seems to me to have blinders on it, believe it or not. Serious blinders. This is because it looks at a relationship between members of the same gender and says it's the same as the relationship between members of different genders (I firmly believe that there are definite differences between men and women's natures that are not pushed on them by culture), without any evidence that this is true, and with outright rejection of the idea that we should look for evidence to see whether it is true or not. It's saying, "I believe it's true. Therefore we should push it through, without looking at any evidence." Now I know that not all proponents of the homosexual agenda feel this way. Some really do think that evidence on the matter is important.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I believe when people say "oh, we must look at what's best for the kids!", they're really saying that they don't trust homosexuals with children. As if homosexuality is something utterly abnormal that children must be protected from. It's not unusual that children lack a mother figure or father figure but they do well anyway.

Children who miss out on the experience of knowing either parent always know that they're missing out. They always feel that loss. It is real to them. Many of them feel yearning when in contact with other people's parents of that gender, and some children actually latch on to that male or female they don't have in their own life, and make a surrogate parent out of him or her. They do need that role and miss it. "Do well," is a very inadequate way of expressing what they do, in my opinion. "Manage," might be a better way of putting it. They live their lives. People that only have one arm live their lives too.

[Nurvingiel]

Why is research necessary to allow gay marriage? We haven't done any research on any other kinds of marriage before allowing them. What type of research would you propose?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Culture differences are not the same as gender differences though. Not unless your view is that all gender differences are really cultural differences, that men and women are not different sexes from one another in anything aside from having different kinds of physical bodies.

Actually, I do think this. Aside from physical and hormonal differences, the differences between men and women are cultural and societal. These differences are not significant enough to determine a law.
My boyfriend (and future husband) and I have much more in common than Britteny Spears and I. Are you suggesting that I marry Britteny Spears instead? She'd dump me after 24 hours...

[Count Comfect]

Lief:
I disagree about the degree to which the differences between men and women are social rather than innate. I think a large fraction of them are socially created or constructed, rather than inborn. I could pull examples about, say, my cousins (homosexual) who wanted to get married in California. They definitely cover both stereotypically "masculine" and "feminine" roles.

Also, homosexual couples can already adopt children pretty much everywhere in the US, so the homosexual marriage issue (at least here) is not about whether children grow up better with parents of the different genders, because allowing homosexuals to marry would not change their ability to adopt. So the issue is whether it would cause any harm to society, and I personally would view it that, in light of the fact that homosexual couples already live together OUT of wedlock and this doesn't seem to have done anything particularly harmful, it can't be a major problem to allow them the right to actually marry and thereby have a legal relationship that binds them together.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

in light of the fact that homosexual couples already live together OUT of wedlock and this doesn't seem to have done anything particularly harmful, it can't be a major problem to allow them the right to actually marry and thereby have a legal relationship that binds them together.

And thats the bottom line to this really. Why is it those who are against gay marriage insist that we need to PROVE that gay marriage is not harmful before we can consider having such a thing? You cant prove a negative (gay marriage isnt harmful). And cant you restrict one group from doing something another group can do based on such a thing ESPECIALLY when no one had to prove that heterosexual marriage is not harmful. I can show you cases where heterosexual marriage has proven very harmful. What does this ultimately prove? Not a whole lot. Should we ban all marriage because of this?

[jerseydevil]

I don't think gay marriage would be harmful to society. I just see no need to change the definition of marriage which has been around for centuries. Even in times when homosexuality was VERY accepted like Roman times - homosexual marriage was not allowed. It was also more bi-sexuality that was accepted - and less homosexuality from my understanding. They expected you after a certain time to settle down with a wife.

The biggest thing seems to actually be the economic factors of homosexual marriage more than anything. The joint tax returns, the insurance benefits and all that. I have no problem with the vitiatiojns, the odption, the life and death decision parts - but what is the overall economic factor involved.

[Nurvingiel]

Why should gay couples not get the same economic benefits as straight couples? Or are you saying that they should?

I agree with you completely that gay marriage would not harm society. However, in this case, why not change the definition of marriage? This is an institution which continuously grows and changes.

Also, "vitiatiojns"? I know you don't have time for pesky spelling but I just can't decipher this one.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why should gay couples not get the same economic benefits as straight couples? Or are you saying that they should?

I'm saying we should look at the economic impact. It is a real factor in the decision.

I agree with you completely that gay marriage would not harm society. However, in this case, why not change the definition of marriage? This is an institution which continuously grows and changes.

In what respect has it continually grown and changed? 99% of the time it has remained - one woman - one man throughout history, regardless of society. As I pointed out - even homosexual friendly societies such as Roman - didn't allow homosexual marriage.

Also, "vitiatiojns"? I know you don't have time for pesky spelling but I just can't decipher this one.

Visitation rights - like if they get seperated and they have a child or visitation in the hospital.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by JD

Even in times when homosexuality was VERY accepted like Roman times - homosexual marriage was not allowed

actually, nero, for instance, married two different men, as well as four women, and many other men legally married men, and women married women

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

actually, nero, for instance, married two different men, as well as four women, and many other men legally married men, and women married women

I hadn't heard of that. From my understanding - it was felt you had homosexual relations - bugt you married a woman and that was expected. I'll have to look up Nero.