Gay marriage and civil unions

Giant_Joe:

Does it really matter if someone likes or hates homosexuality?

Only when someone uses that hatred as a justification to deny the hated their rights, or tries to use that hatred as a substitute for logical thought.

 

Byzantine:

I'm not even touching the morality of the practice; just pure evolutionary biology.  Homosexual unions will never take root other than among a sliver of the populace.

So what. Do try to have a point other than "I hate gays and I want to attempt to bullshit my way around the fact that I hate them, since I'm secretly ashamed of that hate."

And I wear glasses. That's an unnatural act. Are you repulsed by it? You must be, if you are at all to be consistent.

Byzantine:

     Individualist:
    Isn't replacing all marriage-licensing with the granting of gender-neutral civil unions a step in the direction of getting government out of marriage altogether?

In that event, just draw up a contract outlining the parties' mutual rights and responsibilities, like homosexuals are already free to do.

The contracts won't replace anywhere near all the benefits the state gives to hetero couples.  A lot of the contracts and civil unions also aren't recognized from one state to another.  I think the state should stay out of 'licensing' marriage, but since they are in the marriage business then the LGBT community should have access to the same privileges.

Byzantine:

Tukaram:

Share a meal, a fireside, and a bed.  Simply proclaim it to your friends and family.  Married.  So simple.  Why do the churches and state feel the need to meddle?

Monogamous heterosexual copulation stacks up favorably against homosexual unions or polyandrous unions for a variety of biological, psychological and social reasons.  So regardless of your views on the State, there is a logical basis for favoring such unions over other types of unions.

Your comment on the Church is just ludicrous.  You can copulate with whomever and whatever you want and the Church will not 'meddle.'  But the Church is entitled to set its criteria for communion.

Not ludicrous at all really.  I don't give a rats ass if any church says I'm married or not.  And a lot of churches do recognize gay marriage already.  But the church is just another level of unneeded control.  The state rules with fear using laws, fines,  &  jails; the church rules with fear using sin, heaven, and hell.  Same sh@t different flies.

I think the main point originally was if we support gay marriage or should all marriages be replaced with gender neutral civil unions.   And again I say that the government should stay out of the marriage business but if they want to give so many financial benifits to married couples they should be available to all couples.  It is not the governments business who loves who.  So I think gender neutral civil unions would be fine for the marriage benifits.  Then you can go to what ever church you want, if you want, and have whatever religious ceremony you want.

I've honestly never seen the problem.  If you like men or women it won't affect me at all.  If I like men or women how does it affect you?  I'm straight but not narrow.

(Personally, my church is very strongly against gay marriage but I don't agree with them and they don't care that I don't. Actually I've been a happily divorced single dad for the last 14 years.)

How do you  know whether I hate gays?

Byzantine:

How do you  know whether I hate gays?

Good question.

It amazes me how all the gimlet-eyed realists who talk about the iron law of scarcity, the supply-demand curve, etc., have to break out the smelling salts when the talk turns to genetics and reproductive biology.

I bet most of the people on this thread believe that human evolution has stopped.

Byzantine:

I bet most of the people on this thread believe that human evolution has stopped.

How much will you bet?

Byzantine:

It amazes me how all the gimlet-eyed realists who talk about the iron law of scarcity, the supply-demand curve, etc., have to break out the smelling salts when the talk turns to genetics and reproductive biology.

That's not the case.  It's when you conflate some necessity to procreate as some sort of species obligation that people get turned off.  "Hey everybody, look at me, I am extending the species, I am fulfilling nature's design, I am using my penis correctly!"

You've had gay family members in the past, and you will have some in the future.  And that is just how it is.  I like you, and I agree with you on many topics, but when you want to laud how you distribute your sperm, as thought it somehow makes you more correct or righteous, that's kinda lame.  Big deal, you're a breeder.

In the long run, you and I (a non-breeding hetero) are both gunna be dead.  Maybe in some afterlife you will be able to look down on your descendants from heaven (or up from hell) and feel some sort of pride that they have carried on the human race, but me, I'm not too worried about it.  There are plenty of breeders whose contributions to the pool amounted to nothing, and plenty of substantial contributors to the human race who never bred.

Byzantine:

I bet most of the people on this thread believe that human evolution has stopped.

Well that is a difficult question. I think there is a case to be made that we have stepped outside of nature and into an artificial environment in which we have constructed. This could be the end of evolution for the homo sapient.

Homosexual unions will never take root other than among a sliver of the populace.

Only a sliver of the population is homosexual to begin with. So that is true.

The conversation turned toward how heterosexual unions can be favored over homosexual ones.  There is a really, really obvious answer to this:  homosexual unions are way down the list of Nature's priorities.  For me personally, homosexual copulation is on a par with heroin use:  I don't do it, and I don't care if you do, but don't tell me it's equivalent to heterosexual unions because it isn't on a number of levels.  Do you think drug use is just a choice equivalent to the choice of which way you'll part your hair?  Would you be willing to join the same risk-spreading pool with either group?

Byzantine:

How do you  know whether I hate gays?

Your words.

And I'd appreciate if you didn't run from my question about my wearing glasses. It IS an unnatural act. So is it ok? Would you hang around with people who wear glasses?

 

Laughing Man:

Well that is a difficult question. I think there is a case to be made that we have stepped outside of nature and into an artificial environment in which we have constructed. This could be the end of evolution for the homo sapient.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution

I wear glasses.  Wearing glasses, like restricting the sexual drive to a single opposite sex partner, doesn't spread disease nor does it inhibit the incidence of grandchildren. 

You probably think selection pressures are static as well.

Byzantine:

The conversation turned toward how heterosexual unions can be favored over homosexual ones.  There is a really, really obvious answer to this:  homosexual unions are way down the list of Nature's priorities.  For me personally, homosexual copulation is on a par with heroin use:  I don't do it, and I don't care if you do, but don't tell me it's equivalent to heterosexual unions because it isn't on a number of levels.

Do tell. Explain. Remember: any use of "they can't procreate" is nullified by sterile heterosexual married people. Go on and justify your hate--if you can.

 

Byzantine:

I wear glasses.

But..but...it's UNNATURAL! And you don't like anything unnatural.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Do tell. Explain. Remember: any use of "they can't procreate" is nullified by sterile heterosexual married people. Go on and justify your hate--if you can.

Again, you're the one who assumes I must 'hate' homosexuals because I point out that they will never be more than an outlier segment of any viable population group.

But homosexual acts extract a greater penalty from Nature than even impotent males and barren females, as AIDS and their lower lifespans make clear.  (Nature also abhors promiscuity in heterosexuals, as syphilis and demographically cratering populations in Britain and Europe make clear.) 

If you think homosexual unions are so copacetic, have at it.  Better yet, explain to me their benefits over heterosexual unions.  You can't, because any wholesale adoption of homosexual unions would mean an eventually extinct pool of aging queens.  Kind of like the Shakers.

Byzantine:

The conversation turned toward how heterosexual unions can be favored over homosexual ones.  There is a really, really obvious answer to this:  homosexual unions are way down the list of Nature's priorities.

Homosexuals can reproduce just as much as heterosexuals.  I don't see how this puts them down at the bottom of the list.

Byzantine:

For me personally, homosexual copulation is on a par with heroin use:  I don't do it, and I don't care if you do, but don't tell me it's equivalent to heterosexual unions because it isn't on a number of levels.

How is it not equivalent?

Byzantine:

Do you think drug use is just a choice equivalent to the choice of which way you'll part your hair? 

For most people, yes.

Byzantine:

Would you be willing to join the same risk-spreading pool with either group?

What risk is being spread in either group?

Byzantine:

Wearing glasses, like restricting the sexual drive to a single opposite sex partner, doesn't spread disease

How is having an opposite sex partner relevant to not spreading disease?

Byzantine:

nor does it inhibit the incidence of grandchildren. 

So, you don't think homosexuals can reproduce?

 

Byzantine:

You can't, because any wholesale adoption of homosexual unions would mean an eventually extinct pool of aging queens.  Kind of like the Shakers.

Again, with this nonsense that homosexuals cannot reproduce.  You do realize that homosexuals have all the same organs as heterosexuals right? Oh wait, you are saying that homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other!  So what?  You don't think if all humans were homosexual, that humans would not reproduce?  You think just because someone is a homosexual, that he or she does not want children?  You don't think the drive to reproduce is greater than their drive to not have sex with someone of the opposite gender?  Lastly, have you heard of artificial insemination?

Spideynw:

Again, with this nonsense that homosexuals cannot reproduce.  You do realize that homosexuals have all the same organs as heterosexuals right? Oh wait, you are saying that homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other!  So what?  You don't think if all humans were homosexual, that humans would not reproduce?  You think just because someone is a homosexual, that he or she does not want children?  You don't think the drive to reproduce is greater than their drive to not have sex with someone of the opposite gender?  Lastly, have you heard of artificial insemination?

If all humans were homosexual then they wouldn't exist. The reason reproduction occurs between animals (at least mammals) is because of the fun of sex. Take that away (everyone is homosexual) and there isn't any instinctive reason to do it.