Gay Marriage

[djpark121]

Gay marriage, as hot of a topic it has been throughout America these days, has not been posted as a topic surprisingly. Truly a thing cannot undermine such a sacred and precious process as marriage. A marriage between a man and a woman is insulted if a "marriage" between a man and a man holds equal value. Folks, gay marriages are not marriages. What they really are is a way for gay couples to get the same social and economical benefits married people do. In doing that, they have insulted the sanctity of marriage across the world. The constitutional amendment defining marriage as a legal union between man and woman is needed, though it really shouldn't be needed, which is the funny thing. Bush is the only candidate in 2004 who supports this, and rightfully so. The Democrats will allow gay civil unions and start changing this entire nation's principles, for the worse.

[RB]

i support all people in their expression of their individual freedoms and i also have much more respect when they can also exercise and extend their voices to promote those freedoms especially when they are not of mainsteam voices.

you have more economic advantages being a single person in terms of taxes, dependencies the only advantage being married is what is transferable which you can have as a single person

being gay is still a messed up psyche in some people but the more informed and educated we are i believe the more accepting it becomes

amending laws only fast forwards the inevitable

its up to you to defind where you see "you" in the change acceptance process and in the broader scope of things - no one will take away your believes or penelize you

[SirRiff]

Truly a thing cannot undermine such a sacred and precious process as marriage.

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

where have you been living?

marriage was a process by which to assign PROPERTY RIGHTS!

it has nothing to do with god or religion.

women NEVER had a choice in who to marry till just recently in the western world, and still in africa/middle east/asia women have far less say them men. often treated like property still.

americans have the best lifestyle in the world and they choose to end marrage over 50% of the time. not to mention the numberous social studies that show infidelity rampant and many men incorrectly believeing they are the fathers of children conceiving out of teh marriage.

my god, this idea that marriage was somehow a divine creation or that its demise reflects anything other then its modern failings is nonsense. marraige never was anything other then a social construct, and its failure has become proof that humans rarely choose to fufill thier obligations, no matter how good they feel about making them.

[Michael Hardner]

and its failure has become proof that humans rarely choose to fufill thier obligations, no matter how good they feel about making them.

This is a depressing thought, and probably too cynical. I think that government sanctioned divorce was the nail in the coffin to what marriage was supposed to be about.

[djpark121]

Sir Riff, yes, consentual marriage is probably a recent thing and only in the U.S. But gay marriage is going too far. Clearly it's biologically erroneous for one. Men were not made to have sexual intercourse with men, and likewise for women. Just like humans are not supposed to have the same type of intercourse with animals, or other species, homosexuality is the same- very wrong and twisted. Marriage has another purpose, different from the ones you have listed. It was mainly for reproduction; you cannot disregard that fact if you view marriage as a social construct. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, obviously. Why should this country let such a twisted and detestable practice be a publically recognized thing? What other doors that shouldn't be opened, are opened?

[Rodeo]

No one said you had to marry a man DJ. If gay and lesbian couples want to marry, who are you to tell them they can't? If they are allowed to marry, it has no direct impact on you, your family, or your life. They're just asking to be treated with the same respect and privileges that the rest of us take for granted.

[Bushmustgo]

This is America, the land of the free!

Once again, some want govt. to step into the lives of others to control their actions. Why can't two people who love each other have a civil union and obtain the same rights as us...because they're different???

If you recall from history, that "different" label caused a lot of grief towards African Americans because it's a prejudice! This simply is discrimination.

There's no doubt in my mind that "gay" is of birth, not by choice; therefore, any one of us could have a son, daughter or grandchild who happens to be born gay...would you take their equal rights away???

[djpark121]

Marriage has always been a heterosexual institution, and should remain so. For homosexuals to hijack this heterosexual institution is immoral and undermining. They cannot be given the same rights for something which they are not innately a part of. This is not prejudice, it is logic.

[FastNed]

I could care less about with whom someone else elects to sleep or live - the only sexuality I control is my own and that is as it should be. I am not a homophobe, I just don't care what anyone else does.

While the State is involved (for historical reasons), marriage is a religious matter (for most) and has been defined for some six thousand years as the union of a man and a woman. This is not simply a matter of custom but is basic dogma for many churches. No one is going to use the State to force a change in our dogma or theology.

If it is legal status they wish, a Civil Union seems appropriate, just leave our religions alone!

[SirRiff]

While the State is involved (for historical reasons), marriage is a religious matter (for most) and has been defined for some six thousand years as the union of a man and a woman.

while that argument relies on the traditional structure of marriage, the role in society is not examined. how long of that 6000 years was marriage used solely to move property into generations? how long have women had a say in this instituation of marriage. how long has it been since free blacks could choose to marry?

if you cut out all the time marriage was used by men for thier own property interests, for men to sexually dominate women, or that marriage was denied to blacks, you see how pithy and insignificent the modern track record of marriage is. maybe it resembled your inferred ideals from the 30s to the 80s, but certainly not for 6000 years. there was nothing grand about marraige for all the 6000 years and i dont see then why an argument based on tradition is valid.

however, i can definatly see how an argument made on family structure if valid. mother-father-biological children has been the most stable unit of mammal life for a long time, even in communal primate settings. a reasonable argument can be made that by looking at nature, the hetero family unit is the "natural" way for our species to exist in most harmony. no way to measure, any by looking around society there is no way to specifically correlate why some familes self destruct and some dont,

i do not think you can find fault with a society favoring htero marrige on the gounds that all humans are likely influenced positively towards stability when the interests of thier biological offspring produced by thier current sexual mate are involved. the biological progeny bond is the strongest in nature and on a societial level, i dont think you can argue that the bond between heteros which can produce biological offspring related to both is equal to any other configuration, or that the hardwired biological link towards related offspring is equal to non-related.

but this are almost philosophical and natural debates. in societies like US/Canada, we still have crime and poverty and murder and kidnappings, so it seems silly to go out of our way to prevent others from doing someting that will have little if any negative impact on society as a whole that is comparable to what we accept on a daily basis as part of normal life.

[KrustyKidd]

Riff my man, you feeling OK? Not only did you post something that made sense to me as I read it in theory, but on second reading it clarified a lot of this whole issue! I am of course pulling your leg with humor but in seriousness, it was great!

Of particular note is this:

but this are almost philosophical and natural debates. in societies like US/Canada, we still have crime and poverty and murder and kidnappings, so it seems silly to go out of our way to prevent others from doing someting that will have little if any negative impact on society as a whole that is comparable to what we accept on a daily basis as part of normal life.

No matter what your view of homos hitching is, it's pretty irrelevent to what our real problems are.

Well done!

[udawg]

Perhaps, if marriage is just a process by which property rights are assigned, we should simply outlaw marriages of all kinds

Such an obviously archaic institution has no place in forward-moving societies like our own. Being legally bonded to a single other person for life is preposterous! If the survival of our species relies on reproduction, then there should be nothing standing in the way of said reproduction. Go crazy!

And obviously the concept of marriage and monogamy is a failure. With such high rates of infidelity and divorce, one should be astonished that the institution has lasted as long as it has. It is only through legal intervention that marriage remains in existance.

Maybe it is time to let go of old customs, and embrace the new world order. Go find a woman, get laid, and sow the seeds of mankind's future. No longer shall decency and love stand in the way of procreation.

[Bushmustgo]

I would like to quote the Rev. Al Sharpton from a T.V. program I watched this week when asked what his stance was on gay marriage/ civil union.

"As much as I may disagree or not understand the life style, this is still about civil liberties in America and until someone can convince me that homosexuals are not human, they shall have the same rights as the rest of us."

Now I agree that the church can say what they want because we do not have to be a part of it; however, the law shall not be biased and discriminatory.

This kind of falls in the lines of Separation of Church and State, if my history serves he well this time.

[djpark121]

I don't know if you liberals saw the SuperBowl halftime show, but I'm assuming all of you disapproved and were extremely uncomfortable with the exotic scenes that went on. I don't understand why openly gay marriage is any different. It can only be that those who did not care about things that like the SuperBowl halftime show being shown on tv, that are supporters of gay marriage. Gay marriage is a flagrant display of what is not the norm. Just like many parents wouldn't want their 4-year olds watching this year's SuperBowl halftime show, following the logic, I'm assuming they wouldn't their 4-year old asking why best friend Billy has two moms. Why is it any different?

[Bushmustgo]

DJ,

Superbowl Halftime Show episode with exposing the breast was Intentional, whereas, being gay and human is not.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know if you liberals saw the SuperBowl halftime show, but I'm assuming all of you disapproved and were extremely uncomfortable with the exotic scenes that went on.

The SuperBowl show was planned and executed by business people working for corporations designed to make a profit.

If you didn't like the show, blame them not the audience.

[djpark121]

Bush and Mr. Hardner,

While the exposing of the breast may have been intentional, and being gay and human is not, getting married is. That is the issue here. I have nothing against practicing homosexuals, but when they try to be a part of something they're not, and never really will be, that's a problem. Regardless of who was truly behind the inappropriate halftime show, the point is still the same.

[Derek]

Bush and Mr. Hardner,

While the exposing of the breast may have been intentional, and being gay and human is not, getting married is. That is the issue here. I have nothing against practicing homosexuals, but when they try to be a part of something they're not, and never really will be, that's a problem. Regardless of who was truly behind the inappropriate halftime show, the point is still the same.

As being the minority on this board dj, i completely agree with you.

Being gay is not natural. If it was our physical aspects of our body would be quite different.

Being homosexual is, to me, completely insane. To me homosexuals are just trying to be different in the sickest way.

What is next. "Marrying" your pet? "Marrying" your sister?

While i am in no way a homophobe....(as many of you would like to label myself) i do hate the lifestyle, not the person.

But i do not like the way they flaunt themselves, the way they compare themselves to blacks in the 1960's.

Today on Nat. news i saw a newly "wed" (pfft) gay man say bush was calling him a terrorist in his state of the Union address.

Legalizing gay marriage is our first step to destruction of our morals and ethics.

We all remember one of the main reason rome fell? Right?

Gay Marriage is like saying, "hey We have no problem with you being a walking sin, and we are going to let you have whatever the hell you want, because your a 'minority' ", thanks to the judges and officials (mayors) who think they can twist bill of rights, constitution that has been already twisted to hell.

I have a problem with gay people being gay, but i can't do anything about that anymore. But letting the people marry, is just taking this issue way too far.

[RB]

marriage is a universal institution, that is socially recognize. however a choice of mate though is usually a preference, symbolic of love and beauty is fundamentally accepted in western society.

it is ironic that there is a call for suppressed love or beauty when it is deviating from the norm.

i am afraid that we have only encouraged male female relationship from the beginning of time and have stifle same sex relation into silence from the beginning. and i blame tradition for bench marking and setting standards that is now adopted as gospel but not universal to all people.

i have a tag line for gays only because you keep measuring them with your own standards and believe

"i stand before judgement equal as a man and equal before the law"

sort of don't tell everyone to proclaim love and then kill it when i do

furthermore, in terms of legality of marriage, i wanted to point out that the popular belief that marriage is made VALID because it is consummated as in sexual relations is an error.

there are other rights and obligations to be more vigilant about, like the ones that really bind the folks together with the usual reliance of the male, so you men better be physically and mentally competent to furnish the ladies with "necessaries"

here is also what i meant

"When two people marry they become in the eyes of the law one person, and that one person is the husband"

Shana Alexander U.S. writer, editor. State-by-State Guide to Women's Legal Rights, Introduction

[SirRiff]

djpark121

Clearly it's biologically erroneous for one. Men were not made to have sexual intercourse with men, and likewise for women. Just like humans are not supposed to have the same type of intercourse with animals, or other species, homosexuality is the same- very wrong and twisted.

this is a purely biological argument against gay marriage. i have some background in biology. one thing that is very very dangerous in society is to label things as being "natural" or "unnatural" because its an attempt to use the inherant "rightness" of examples in the animal world to justify human conduct in society. often there is no such need to do this. this sort of oversimply equating the limited instincts of animals with the conscious capabilities of humans is fundamentally flawed because it does not account for the giant leap between simple biological design and real human intelligence, emotions, conscious, and free will.

as Derek said

Being gay is not natural. If it was our physical aspects of our body would be quite different.

but a closer examination of this "nature" logic finds it cannot even attempt to rationalize the differences between biological programming and cultural expansion.

firstly, there is no need to find a "natural" example in nature to justify human behavior. nature has few advanced societal behaviors that are comparable to the instituations that human society requires to function. nature has no taxes, no schools, no health care, no armies, no democracy. by limited to nature the behavior that is justified, the argument fundamentally implies limiting human behaviors to those which can be "justified by nature". this goes against the most important gains of human intelligence, namely the ability to go beyond teh behaviors necessary for simple existance (hunting, reproduction) to include actions that develop technology and societies that improve our quality of life (roads, food safety, human rights)

second, the examples that are cited as being "natural" are often only the most easily visible ones like heterosexual mating or mothers protecting thier young. this is not a real study of nature, its just picking an obvious and easy example of behavior you want to justify. certainly nothing that can be considered so strong and so representative that it should govern the relations of men.

i mean really, how many species get married anyways? monogy is not natural and never has been, its only a evolutionary strategy used by some species but not by many others.

and why should humans limit themselves to what is "natural" anyways? in nature, a sick infant may be left to die. i society, we pool resources (hospitals) and we all bear the expense of healing that infant. the difference humans benefit from the sick becoming well, while in nature the cost of the pregnancy and loss of the infants potential are born by the population. thus what is natural is neither moral nor more productive.

humans have evolved beyond simple instinct or simply behaving to hunt and reproduce. we can experience joy without striving to live each day. it is crazy to limit our social abilities because we are the only species to have evolved this far. unless something is harmfull to society, there is no reason to limit it because its unnatural.

[udawg]

Great post SirRiff. I agree completely, as I think many of us do, but are unable to put into words so eloquently.

[Bushmustgo]

ShiRiff,

Great post!

Should we ban people with mental disabilities and physical disabilities from getting married as well.

Do you think that someone with Cerebral Palsy or Down Syndrome had a choice in the matter???

NO they didn't, therefore, we shouldn't be out taking their rights away either. Just because you may not agree with the lifestyle does not mean you should tell them what they can and cannot do.

Marriage is also suppose to be for life but, look at the divorse rate...should we not allow divorses by law???

No, it's your choice and America is all about choices until conservatives try to control every aspect and minimize our RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

DJ and Derek,

Would you like America to be like the muslim law where the women wear burkas? Is this how much control you want our govt. to have?

By the way, Dick Cheney (of all people) and Dick Gephardt each have a gay child..

[RB]

I particularly like this statement from the quote below that “any human behavior that is directed by the environment is always primed by genetics”.

I would like to take your biological argument further to allude from the “The Gay Gene” thread that I am resolute in making such a statement that everyone was born with perhaps even the slightest “possibility” of being homosexual.

Well accordingly since we could not totally rule out the non-existence of a gay gene.

It is very clear to me how the pretentious humans have selectively advance only the heterosexual notion and assign privileges and make social a culture whilst always the minority that did advance a “possibility” is pigeon-hole into oblivion

So now I would also ask whether you believe that gender therapy made available for homosexuals to explore heterosexuality is for whose betterment: the person or society?

And then they can get marry?

And then I would also express that we should also make available therapy to expand homosexuality is a behavior that should be promoted for a person right to self-determination?

And then they can get marry?

SirRiff

Posted: Aug 24 2003, 03:51 AM

the proportion of total phenotypic (behavioral/physical/biochemical) variance that can be attributed to genetic variance

There is no other functionally accepted definition as far as I know.

Heritability is basically determined as the variation of a genotype Vg over the total variation Vt (genetic and environmental) in the phenotype. Basically the genetic contribution to observed phenotypic variation.

H= Vg / Vt

OR

H= Vg / (Vg+Ve)

Thus if we had a cage of inbreeding rats, that were all nearly genetically identical (Vg=0), and one rat showed a variation in a trait, the heritability would be 0 because only environmental factors (Ve) could influence the trait.

If we take the opposite, and look at a greenhouse where all plants grew in the exact same environment (Ve=0), any variation in traits must be genetic.

...............

Just because we cant find a 0.9 heritability coefficient for a genetic trait influencing a binary sexual preference doesnt mean anything. The door is wide open and anybody who claims it will ever be 100% or 0% is a quack. a nut. a moron. and idiot.

in 10 years we could very well pinpoint 13 individual genetic components that show 'gayness' has a 0.9 heritability coefficient. we just dont know genetically yet, however a lot of study and almost ALL circumstantial evidence so far gathered on other complex human behaviors show a significant, if not compelling genetic influence.

.......

any human behavior that is directed by the environment is always primed by genetics, and it would be unreasonable to assume any person is primed neutral.

hmmm

well if we can hypothesize that we cannot completely rule out that people are who they are and what they become - then how about applying law as in freedoms and equality consistently.

Give respect, rights and freedoms as you apply it at between yourselves, at home, in communities, in states and universally no matter whom we declare we are i.e. gay or not-gay.

[djpark121]

The argument here seems to be that gays are born with the gene. Maybe they are. Nevertheless, they can control their sexuality. However, like I stated earlier, the more important issue is the issue of marriage, which is a heterosexual thing. Homosexuals can control not being married, I'm assuming. Homosexual practice, and getting married are both very controllable things. The argument of the gay gene appears to portray homosexuality as a mental disease. Folks, it is not. Kleptomania, is an example of an uncontrollable disease. Homosexuality is not. I would also like to point out that just because it's a gene, and "uncontrollable," it is right. Just because Kleptomaniacs cannot control their stealing, doesn't mean what they do is right, or should be acknowledged in anyway. Marriage is clearly a heterosexual thing and should remain so, I do not see it any other way. It's insulting when homosexuals try to hijack the institution of marriage to get financial benefits.

[RB]

The argument of the gene was there was sufficient ambiguity to assert that a gay gene exist in every person…not just gay people.

further to the above assumption all people should be allowed to practice their individual freedoms. it means giving the same rights to all people.

nepotism to certain groups allows for discrimination and leads to the less tolerated defiance and conflicting behavior

here is my thought, try deleting the recognition of marriage based on sexuality, and question what are you left to grapple with?

I will help you a bit

- establishment of household

- companionship

- contract of status

- property relations

- and the usual lets not forget the love, love

Now take some pride - with no sex preference:

- Every person can contribute to this great land of ours

- Each person can step up and identify with their contribution

- Each person can identify with others in what they do

- Each person can articulate how creative they and others are

- and that Each person can actually contribute equally without biases

then point a finger, picking a random person and label them as sick as you do now, and decide how right, wrong or lie?

"I think a lot of gay people who are not dealing with their homosexuality get into right-wing politics." Armistead Maupin U.S. journalist, author