[gattsuru]

Psudo

Psudo wrote:

I suspect it to be #2. Evolution has a very strong scientific backing, and it seems pretty resonable to say homosexuals have a decreased interest in procreative sex.

If homosexual attraction is, in fact, not a genetically hereditary trait, what is it? A psychological trait? A spiritual trait?

Which side of the argument is religious now?

I think the issue is that you're confusing homosexual disposition with homosexual-only action. Despite the arguments of the gay rights movement, bisexuality or homosexually disposed individuals with straight attributes are not exactly unheard of. In the past, particularly pre-Christian Rome and pre-modern Japan, individuals were expected to reproduce even if they preferred homosexual actions. That's not as difficult to think about as you'd expect : from a Skinner viewpoint, sexual behavior of any kind is the simplest to introduce, as it's even more self-reinforcing than retreat behavior. It's removing any version of it that's difficult if not impossible.

Physiologically, homosexual disposition is nothing more than an atypical neurological foundation, nothing particularly impressive - it's in fact small sections (such as the INAH-3 cluster) are similar to typical (straight) female brain formation as far as we know today. The genetic basis could also be simply recessive, that is only appearing as predominately homosexual in individuals with a rarer combination of genes, while individual genes hold an evolutionary advantage. And, of course, while twin studies have shown a correlation with homosexuality much, much higher than the rate that would be expected if we were merely discussing random comparisons, there are differences in the rates, suggesting a significant change coming from environmental events. There is evidence suggesting prenatal hormone levels play a role (the fourth child from an individual woman is more likely to homosexual than the first).

Antropos:

Quote:

I'll continue to argue that all opposition to SSM draws from either fascism or religious extremism until you prove me wrong - something you failed to do.

Okay, let's get this over with.

I'm not religious - I haven't stepped into a religious building in years, and it's been even longer since I've done so on friendly terms. I'm not homophobic - bisexuality tends to get the fear of gay cooties out of you. I even have been diagnosed with Asperger's, making it very unlikely that I picked up the normal cultural associations of specific mentalities with homosexual or heterosexual behavior or predisposition.

But I strongly oppose homosexual marriage. Not because of a big guy on a cloud, or some other bullhockey. It's simply a poor tactical choice, and the basic reasons the gay rights movement are after this goal make it even more problematic a target.

The classic, meaningful pragmatic arguments - the contested will, the immigration difficulty, the hospital visit - are meaningless. The gay rights movement could (and should) fight these all on their own, and would have had them shot down in days before this mess flashed up with the SCo Massachusetts mess. If that was all, there were a thousand ways to do this with less political capital, and with less mess.

Instead, we're seeing bans on anything that could ever be close to gay marriage. Even if the gay rights movement succeeds, those individual cases of discrimination can still easily be enshrined in law or a private company's policy - after all, even Lawrence v Texas didn't get any attention regarding individual equality under the protection of law.

It's obvious why the gay rights movement is attempting this : there's the distinct urge to appear 'normal', expressed several times by multiple different people even in this very thread. Gay marriage, obviously, won't do that - you'll find yourself getting just as many stares if you kiss your partner in public as before. But that urge to appear normal really seems to be detrimental to the movement as a whole.

I'm a strong proponent of the right to self-defense, but I would consider it judicial activism for the courts to invalidate the thousands of gun control laws on the books today. Even worse would be the resulting backlash repealing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Same goes here: I don't like risking all this to gain so little. Previous civil rights movements succeeded by taking small steps that no one noticed. The gay rights movement is going to fail by doing the opposite, and it will fail spectacularly due to this.

Finally, for the article of same sex marriage itself, I've got a few minor issues. First, I don't think the government should be licensing or recognizing anything it doesn't absolutely need to be. Big government is notoriously nasty and inefficient. Homosexual marriage provides no vast societal benefit to make up for the resulting paperwork, unlike heterosexual marriage which (in theory) discourages one-parent families which are known to produce children with a higher propensity for crime. Many though not all proponents of gay marriage have, as a matter of course, considered all opponents to be rednecked religious hicks using homophobia to veil their inadequacies or repressed sexuality. Allowing this sort of argument to be rewarded, from a Skinner viewpoint, will only encourage the same, far from a method likely to elevate the discourse. The arguments for gay marriage itself - not against individual cases of discrimination - are systemically weak, arguing only with some strange requirement of 'equality' among groups that are physiologically and psychologically different, asking for different results. And the urge to somehow make gay normal just won't work, not this way.

Kjorteo

Quote:

I will, however, ask you this: the argument you seem to be making is that homosexuality itself is not immoral (thought crimes, etc.) but homosexual acts are. Why? What's so bad about consenting adults of the same sex getting together and doing...well...anything? It is entirely possible to separate heterosexual attraction with actual heterosexual acts, yet you haven't made the claim that actual heterosexual sex is wrong. Why the double standard?

Propagation of the species?

As to two adults doing anything, I can count dozens if not hundreds of things that remain illegal even with consent, and most people still consider consenting homicide to still be murder.

Heck, if we want to be crude, you could consider an animal initiating intercourse with a human to be between consenting adults, but I'd personally consider it wrong (and given that you can legally butcher and consume an animal as long as it is done 'humanely', the only real argument against this I can think of is simply that it 'feels wrong').

Swarm

Quote:

But isn't it possible for negative influences to block our predispositions to whatever example you like? In theory, with the right enviromental conditions, you could raise people who are attracted to sea iguanas. I say in theory because strangely enough no one has ever tried.

Basically, it's not absolute, is it? Predisposition can be overriden with other forms of control.

In theory, yes. In reality, no. The issue isn't making people like sea iguanas - we can make a pigeon bowl with a ping-pong ball and small pins, sexual attraction is not that much stranger.

The issue is removing existing preferences that may override any behavior we can instill. For example, two of Skinner's students were attempting to get a pig to pick up an item in the pig's mouth, and place it on the table. A simple task compared to ping-pong bowling, one might think. But it was effectively impossible to instill, because the pig's instinct when faced with an item of this shape was to root around against the ground with it. It could never be trained out of this preexisting behavior.

Is this mind control? Probably. I'd find it very hard to walk off a rooftop intentionally, or to hold my hand against a lit oven. It doesn't negate free will - for example, the human can force him or herself off an edge or against a fire - but it does make certain events more difficult.

As to the animal sex thing... it was actually fairly common in some cultures, disturbingly enough, most notably in Africa.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

I will, however, ask you this: the argument you seem to be making is that homosexuality itself is not immoral (thought crimes, etc.) but homosexual acts are. Why? What's so bad about consenting adults of the same sex getting together and doing...well...anything?

I'm arguing the the position of lack of evidence. I don't see how consent proves the morality of an action, so I require some additional argument defending homosexual acts (and various other libertarian issue positions) as moral.

Giving to the poor is moral not merely because it's consensual but because the poor benefit. Stopping a murder is moral though it goes against the murderer's consent because protects a life, demonstrates courage, and shows rational judgment between innocence and guilt. Consent is not a perfect indicator of morality, and I haven't heard an additional argument for homosexual behavior. Maybe there is one and homosexuality is fine. If so, what's the additional argument?

[Kjorteo]

Your examples of the morality of consent are flawed. Allowing a murder would be immoral, because the victim didn't consent to it. (If he or she did, that would be euthanasia, which I personally am for.) Thus, stopping a murder doesn't disprove the value of consent, even if the murderer didn't consent to be stopped. As the saying goes, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Anyway, not everything humanity does has to have a moral justification; it just has to not be specifically immoral. I went to bed early last night, because I was more tired than usual. This did not benefit society in any way. In fact, it could be argued that, had I forced myself to stay up and do more work before going to bed, it would have had more of a benefit, and thus, my going to bed early was a detriment. A microscopic detriment, yes, but bear with me here. Would you imply that I shouldn't be allowed to do that, just for sheer lack of justification? I can't defend it, other than by saying I really was quite tired.

If you want grander examples of immoral decisions that are still allowed, look at the rich and powerful CEOs and businessman types. Some of them have yachts. Do they need yachts? No. In fact, the money put towards those yachts (which are really quite expensive) could have fed a lot of poor people, or even paid for the construction of a new homeless shelter. Instead, a yacht only serves to help one person and his immediate family and friends relax when they're not busy conquering the world. Clearly, this alternative is much more detrimental to society. It could be argued that such irresponsibility and immorality should not be allowed, compared to the more altruistic alternative. In fact, that has been argued, and some countries have even followed through on it. It's called Communism. Last time I checked, it historically hasn't worked very well.

As was stated by others earlier, people do not exist just to benefit society. Society should exist to benefit its people. If two people of the same sex truly love each other, and wish to express this love the same way two people of the opposite sex can, why not? I would argue that condemning one while condoning the other is what's immoral about this whole scenario. After all, not only does that leave homosexuals out in the cold, it also gets the government in the business of picking and choosing which family values it likes, which is never a good. Not that I'm implying the alternative is to force the government to bend over backwards to condone and pay for (at taxpayer expense) every zany arrangement some citizen comes up with, but even the most stone-hearted libertarian should see such a blatant double standard as what we have now as a bad thing.

Specifically asking why homosexuality should be allowed to exist (other than it makes them happy and doesn't hurt anyone, so why not) is backwards, and unnervingly authoritarian, due to the arguments I just stated. However, if you really want to, try this: Homosexual couples are just as capable of romantic feelings and love. Male couples would be just as capable of raising children if the government didn't specifically ban gay adoption, and female couples are just as capable anyway due to tricks like in vitro fertilization. They are just as capable of forming what would otherwise be a loving, supportive, Leave it to Beaver-esque nuclear family. Yes, they are capable of debauchery and terrible parenthood, but I dare you to claim that heterosexual parents aren't. In short, homosexual couples are just as equally matched in capability as heterosexual couples, except in areas in which the law specifically handicaps them, and often capable of rising above that and being just as capable anyway. If you don't think that's enough moral justification to allow them to exist, I suggest you take a closer look at why you allow heterosexual couples to exist while you're at it.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

Anyway, not everything humanity does has to have a moral justification; it just has to not be specifically immoral.

For actions individuals are allowed to do, you are correct. For actions the government specifically approves and licenses, however, there should be some moral benefit.

One is free to embrace homosexual relationships with or without gay marriage; that is not at stake. What is at stake is specific government sanction of homosexual relationships. Thus, there exists a burden on the homosexual community to prove moral content to their actions, not merely disprove claims if immorality.

Kjorteo wrote:

If you want grander examples of immoral decisions that are still allowed, look at the rich and powerful CEOs and businessman types. Some of them have yachts. Do they need yachts? No. In fact, the money put towards those yachts (which are really quite expensive) could have fed a lot of poor people, or even paid for the construction of a new homeless shelter.

The yachts and other perks of wealth are the incentive that drives individuals to participate in industry and create objects and perform services of use to mankind. It is inherent to gain value through work, and work-for-pay is valuable both to the individual and to society. The fact that the work only benefits many people rather than everyone is not a measure of immorality.

Taking this analogy back to the issue of homosexuality, the benefit of homosexuality to the individuals involved or to greater society remain unproven. While it's immorality remains unproven government should not criminalize it; while it's morality remains unproven government should not promote it.

Kjorteo wrote:

As was stated by others earlier, people do not exist just to benefit society. Society should exist to benefit its people.

A society is justified in using incentives (or disincentives) so long as members of the society generally approve. Society is not justified in imposing moral incentives (or disincentives) against the prevailing morality of it's people. Most in the USA do not believe homosexual individuals deserve criminal punishment, so homosexuality is not criminally punished. Similarly, most in the USA do not believe homosexuality benefits society, so they do not support government licensing of gay couples. The society is the servant of the people, just as it should be.

It is the minds of the people I wish to change, not the governmental system. I oppose libertarianism just as much as I do communism. Both oppose morality, the former by removing social responsibility and the latter by removing individual responsibility. The ideal is to benefit the self and society simultaneously and voluntarily.

[XianLewis]

It is to my great pleasure to see that several persons spoke up in support, and that a real debate has ensued that has transcended the usual low-brow namecalling. There have been some excellent points made by both sides, though personally my favorites are the fountain and milk examples that were painstakingly deconstructed. I would like to point out for clarity that while lactose intolerance is a natural condition whereby the human metabolism no longer possesses the bacteria to break down lactose, homosexuals still maintain the parts necessary for heterosexual sex, and in fact sometimes revert back to hetersexuality. I think the latter point is paramount in the discussion.

To JJ I must say the following: my friends in the AHA (Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics) Club back in college would have disagreed with you enthusiastically. From their point of view, homosexuals are simply evolutionary backwash - nonproductive units of the species whose greatest potentiality only means greater tragedy. That is, my atheist friends believe that even if these people do have a talent or an ability to add to the world, it is tragic that their gene pool is shunted and they will not contribute to the next generation. Furthermore, many atheists who participate in marriage to any degree, and who give a damn about the convention, see marriage to be for procreative purposes and to promote the nuclear family.

Regardless, pure secularism, without any regard for religion, often advocates a lesser degree of valuation of life. You have seen here several secularists advocate bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, incest, etc. There is a quote that I find most cogent to the moment: "All things are permissable, but not all things are beneficial." There is no progressive purpose to homosexual marriage. If we make special rules for every tiny percent of the population's preference, we might as well legalize robbery. I am certain a decent case could be made for robbers that they were underprivileged and deserved the loot they stole from the "oppressive proprietor."

I think it is interesting that Japan and other cultures that included homosexual sex as a major part of their culture did not consider homosexual marriage. This perhaps should be the philosophy we should take: while homosexual activity will continue to be allowed in America without redress, there is no point in calling it marriage. Why cannot homosexuals "be partners," and make contracts and maybe - if they later choose to become hetersexual and settle down like many homosexuals have done - get married one day?

[Les-R]

Ho-boy, here I go. -.-


So the basic argument I keep hearing goes, "Current US marital laws are fair and un-biased toward homosexuals because homosexuals are just as free to engage in opposite-sex marital institutions as heterosexual people are, they just don't wanna. Allowing same-sex marital institutions however gives homosexuals a special privalage not available to heterosexuals because heterosexuals don't wanna engage in same-sex marital institutions."

I find myself somehow to see the above argument as anything but unfair and prejudiced against homosexuals, and am amazed that anyone could present such as a valid argument against gay marriage.



Marriage is a Religious Institition...

Well, ALL Churches have had, currently have, and always will have the right to refuse to perform marriages to Anyone who comes to them asking for one. This right is so rarely exercised however that some appear to forget it exists and assume the gay marriage 'agenda' is to compel religious institutions with moral reservations against homosexuality to perform gay marriages. No, the point of Gay Marriage is that if you should find an agreeable church, a justice of the peace, a captain of a ship at sea or an Elvis impersonator at a minute-chapel in Vegas and he does the whole 'I pronounce you Spouse and Spouse' thing for you it should legally mean the same for a homosexual couple as for a heterosexual couple.



Is homosexuality inborn or is it something learned? Who cares? It's irrelevant to this debate. The only relevance arguing where homosexuality comes from is an argment over justification, and since when do two consenting adults behind closed doors need to justify Anything to Anyone?



But this is neither here nor there. The pro-side will continue to screech and the anti-side will continue to howl both while skirting around the REAL Question. What is Marriage?

Is it a legal arraingment between two parties?

Is it a social institution with no other purpose than to produce and/or rear children?

Or is it two people who love each other vowing...
...to honor and to cherish,
...to have and to hold,
...in sickness and in health,
...till death do they part?


Answer this question and all arguments become moot.

[USCAdad]

Psudo wrote:

Here's a new secular argument regarding homosexuality that you may not have heard before.

For homosexuality to have survived countless generations of human history into the modern era, one of the three following statements must be false:
1) Homosexuality reduces reproductive likelihood.
2) Homosexual attraction is a genetically hereditary trait.
3) Evolution accurately describes how genetic traits develop.

If all three statements are true, the reduced prevalence of homosexual genes in further generations would gradually reduce the frequency of homosexual individuals until the number reached zero. Obviously this has not happened, so one of the above statements must logically be false.

I suspect it to be #2. Evolution has a very strong scientific backing, and it seems pretty resonable to say homosexuals have a decreased interest in procreative sex.

If homosexual attraction is, in fact, not a genetically hereditary trait, what is it? A psychological trait? A spiritual trait?

Which side of the argument is religious now?

Your three premises aren't necessarily inconsistent. Much depends on how you define "homosexuality". Even if we take it to be same gender sex exclusively it still doesn't get you where you want to go. It's quite likely that the same types of traits that produce inovation are also going to produce a certain amount of same sex behavior. It might be in societies best interest to encourage just this sort of growth for the aggregate good.

Just because animals engage in same sex behavior does not mean they are going into reproductive obscurity. Anyone who has spent time on a farm will laugh at saying homosexual interactions aren't natural. Our closest genetic animal relative is the Bonobo who are completely sexual social animals.

Homosexuality may be linked two a cluster of genes not just one single gay gene. If you start trying to breed this out you may not like the results.

Oops, I should have finished reading the thread, others have made my point better.

Gattsuru, I apriciate your desire to move slower for more realistic gains. I suppose for me the issue is different. I'm sick of the fight over the term. I'm het and I don't want a marriage anymore. I take it on faith as it were that "marriage" is a sacred institution. As such it shouldn't be part of the state, and I don't want it informing my relationship.

Psudo: there are all sorts of moral justification for unions flying about this thread. I can only take it that you choose to ignore them.

[JJ]

XianLewis wrote:

To JJ I must say the following: my friends in the AHA (Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics) Club back in college would have disagreed with you enthusiastically. From their point of view, homosexuals are simply evolutionary backwash - nonproductive units of the species whose greatest potentiality only means greater tragedy. That is, my atheist friends believe that even if these people do have a talent or an ability to add to the world, it is tragic that their gene pool is shunted and they will not contribute to the next generation. Furthermore, many atheists who participate in marriage to any degree, and who give a damn about the convention, see marriage to be for procreative purposes and to promote the nuclear family.

This a perfectly rational, albeit rather cold and ultra-Darwinistic, argument. The main problem, however, is this child-bearing issue, which continues to pop up. Other posters have already made the point that married homosexuals are not, in fact, inherently incapable of contributing to the growth of humanity, if this is indeed what the state demands. Lesbians and gays can still produce and birth children in some manner or another, albeit with the presence of a third party. Gays who are willing to adopt are likewise beneficial to future generations, since countless studies have shown that children raised in a stable home generally go on to have more productive lives than those raised by orphanages or deadbeats.

But you know, with all the secularism and liberalism flying around in this debate, I think we have to keep in mind that our own highly academic discussion does not represent the mainstream discourse on the issue. The people who are organizing the petitions and lobbying long and hard for all these pre-empitve bans are not individuals who are motivated by deep philosophies about the role of government and nature versus nurture debates. No, they simply just don't like homosexuals, and hunger for an official outlet through which their disdain for the lifestyle can be registered. This is why the fight to ban gay marriage is always presented as a "moral issue" in a "culture war" and not simply a matter of legalistic rationality. When we talk about the fact that being gay is now widely tolerated, we should not forget that to many people this status quo represents a defeat, not a concession of tolerance.

[Psudo]

Les-R wrote:

Is homosexuality inborn or is it something learned? Who cares? It's irrelevant to this debate.

That's exactly the response I was hoping for. It bypasses all the scientific minutia and delves straight at the point: nature vs. nurture is irrelevant in respect to gay rights. Actions have moral content, not origins.

Les-R wrote:

The only relevance arguing where homosexuality comes from is an argment over justification, and since when do two consenting adults behind closed doors need to justify Anything to Anyone?

The only reason they'd need to is to gain some kind of approval or sanction that wasn't automatic. Like trying to convince a government to change a law.

The phrase "by consenting adults behind closed doors" is used to mean "in situations where no one is affected besides the willing participants." Sane could be added to "consenting adults" to more effectively avoid limitations of mental competence, but the meaning is understood: everyone who could possibly be harmed fully understands and consents. It doesn't matter if those inside the room risk harm because they agree to it, and no one outside the room can be harmed. Those in the closed room cannot cause harm or defy will in such a closed system, so anything they do within these parameters is justified.

Is such absolute idealism possible? Total disconnect from the outside world? Total sanity and understanding? Under the perfect conditions, immorality is perfectly prevented. The further removed from perfection the conditions are, the less assurance we have that their actions are above reproach. This begs the question, how far removed from perfection is reality?

The question of what happens to rational consenters behind closed doors is inherently untrustworthy.

[Kjorteo]

Psudo, why is heterosexuality more innately "moral" than homosexuality? You haven't once called for heterosexual couples to morally defend themselves, but you have with homosexual couples in almost every single post you make. What's the difference? And don't say that heterosexual couples contribute more to society. It has already been pointed out by several people in several posts that that is A) a disturbingly Orwellian view of why couples exist, and B) not even remotely true, once you allow things like gay adoption, etc.

[Les-R]

Psudo, what the hell are you talking about?

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

Psudo, why is heterosexuality more innately "moral" than homosexuality?

Technically, I haven't claimed heterosexuality is more innately moral than homosexuality, only that heterosexuality has already proved it's value whereas homosexuality has not.

Heterosexuality, if nothing else, perpetuates the species. Without that, there is nothing. What value does homosexuality add? The species is already perpetuated, and homosexual couples could not give birth until humanity already endured until it could develop our technological sophistication. Perhaps there is something, but I don't know of it.

Kjorteo wrote:

And don't say that heterosexual couples contribute more to society. It has already been pointed out by several people in several posts that that is A) a disturbingly Orwellian view of why couples exist,

One's value to society is not all the value one has, but it is real value. Orwellian worlds are horror stories because all individual value is rejected or destroyed in pursuit of value to The Party, The System, Big Brother, or whatever. I recognize the morality of aiding society, but I also recognize moral value in success and glory for oneself. To call me "Orwellian" is to note the similarity on one hand (social value is moral) and ignore the radical disagreement on the other (individual glory is moral).

Hitler refused to drink alcohol. That doesn't mean everyone who refuses to drink alcohol also wants to conquer the world.

Kjorteo wrote:

and B) not even remotely true, once you allow things like gay adoption, etc.

Gays and straights are equally valuable to society in a vast array of ways. They can both raise children, they can both have successful careers, insightful philosophies, etc. But only heterosexual sex (or science imitating such) can create children, a process humanity needs for survival. Survival is necessary for morality. Science inducing pregnancy shows value in science, not homosexuality.

This difference between sexual preferences exists. We can debate the relevance of the difference, and perhaps the difference is nearly zero. But it is not zero. The difference exists. So what greater-than-zero does homosexuality provide to balance the scales, to make both sexualities equal?

----

Les-R, I like your answer to the "is homosexuality genetic" issue. It is irrelevant, as you said. I admire your insight on that point.

However, I don't believe that what is done behind closed doors by consenting adults is inherently harmless. If consenting adults are smoking in a closed room, they could accidentally start a fire which in turn hurts people in other rooms. Sex behind closed doors can still spread STDs or create pregnancies. Plans made behind closed doors can lead to criminal activity or expertly executed surprise birthday parties. I'm sure there are a few dozen more examples. But no room is not so closed as to make the actions inside immune to morality.

[USCAdad]

Psudo wrote:

This difference between sexual preferences exists. We can debate the relevance of the difference, and perhaps the difference is nearly zero. But it is not zero. The difference exists. So what greater-than-zero does homosexuality provide to balance the scales, to make both sexualities equal?

Because, as you say, the individual and their expereince count as well. It would have been better for Ted Haggart, his immediate circle, and society at lagre, if he were allowed to be himself.

You've really separated out actions from overall preferences. Anal sex, blow jobs, and hand jobs are not restricted to homosexuals and have no more likelyhood of producing children amongst heteros, and I'm not even bringing up birth control. Should these things be denied everyone? Is this where the bedroom police come in?

[Les-R]

Pseudo, I still fail to see what you're getting at.. unless what you're trying to accomplish is de-rail this topic with irrelevant tangents.

In the context of this thread it should be obvious that what I was saying about consenting adults was in reguards to consensual sexual activity NOT Being performed in public, but then you go hareing-off into the subject of criminal conspiracies and inadvertent arson which is just as relevant to the topic of gay marriage as the question of homosexuality's origins is.. which is to say, not at all.

On-Topic: Since when has Marriage been about benefits to Society? I mean, when has it been Explicitly about, and I mean to those actually engaging in the practice of Marriage and not to academic social-engineers? I mean I've always considered Marriage to be about monogomous pair-bonding publicly declared by two individuals as a show of their mutual love, and I think that's the way most people view marriage who have any personal stake in it. It's only in recent years when homosexuals have come-out and said, "Hey! How come our monogomous pair-bondings aren't given the same legal privalages and protections as heterosexual monogomous pair-bondings? That's not fair!" that I've started hearing the idea of Marriage as a social-commodity being banded about in more mainstream venues.

[Psudo]

I get a lot of criticism for my references to moral issues irrelevant to homosexuality. These references are not to detract from the main topic of gay marriage or do make a slippery slope argument about where gay marriage might lead, but to illustrate that the imperative moral declarations used to defend homosexuality are not universal and, thus, do not inherently apply to homosexuality.

Actions behind closed doors are not inherently harmless, so homosexual activity behind closed doors is not inherently harmless.

The definition of "adults" in the sense of "mature enough to legally consent to sex" is an arbitrary age limit that has practically nothing to do with mental, social, or emotional maturity. "They're all adults" is an argument with inherent flaws.

A marriage license is a legal reward from the government in return for perceived benefits to the society the government represents. Thus, to receive a marriage license, the marriage should be perceived to benefit society.

These points are central to the topic of gay marriage, and my "tangents" were examples of these fallacies on these points. They are relevant and on-topic.

My comment about whether or not homosexuality was genetic definitely was an irrelevant tangent, albeit a requested one. When I was arguing that secular arguments existed against gay marriage, people responded to my specific arguments rather than the greater point that the arguments existed. I was hoping someone would make the connection between their irrelevant tangent and mine, see the same irony I saw. It seems no one did.

USCAdad wrote:

Because, as you say, the individual and their expereince count as well. It would have been better for Ted Haggart, his immediate circle, and society at lagre, if he were allowed to be himself.

It would certainly have been better if he hadn't acted one way and spoken another. He chose what he did, and he chose what he said. Thus, he chose the discrepancy between the two. He should have totally chosen one path rather than following both at once. It would have been better for Ted Haggart, his immediate circle, and society at large.

USCAdad wrote:

Should these things be denied everyone?

Maybe not, but the certainly shouldn't be licensed.

USCAdad wrote:

I'm not even bringing up birth control.

Does anyone else see why this sentence is funny?

Les-R wrote:

Since when has Marriage been about benefits to Society?

Marriage, no. Marriage licenses, yes. If you want to make an oath between you and your mate, no one's stopping you. If you want it legally recognized and sanctioned by a government, you have to demonstrate some benefit to society.

If government gets out of marriage entirely, then the legal difference will end without you ever having to demonstrate homosexuality's benefit to society. It would be an entirely different situation, with individuals, religions, and other groups choosing for themselves whether or not to recognize others' marriages. Maybe it'd be a better situation or maybe not, but it would certainly make this debate moot.