FoolThemAll

Why does this matter?

I might've lost track of what you're trying to argue, so clue me in if I'm missing the point here:

Homosexual relations and homosexuality can be considered abnormal and deviant, maybe even defective from an evolutionary standpoint (though they're perfectly able to procreate). If that's your point, I agree. But I don't see how you get from 'abnormal', 'deviant', or 'defective' to 'immoral'.

And furthermore, I don't see why it would even matter if homosexuals were defective in that way - what's the actual relevance? You've got to explain why these points you're making are significant.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

roachboy

how did this deteriorate into a debate about who gets to say x is or is not "normal"? and why is this interesting?

any considered understanding of "normal" in the broader social or descriptive sense treats it as a synonym for "functional"----and what is socially functional encompasses a wide range of behaviours, like it or not.

you can't revert to evolutionary-style narratives in this context because there is no agreement on which time-frame is relevant to such discussions when they are applied to social life, and because there is no such agreement there is no meaningful way to demonstrate claims.
to revert to this is to mix up descriptive and normative.

normative claims about "normal" involve fundamentally different criteria.
the simple fact of the matter is there there is no natural law, there is no single set of norms that function as a baseline for all others, and so it follows that there is no way for people who operate within one normative set to argue that the normative set of another is absolutely wrong. all that can be said, really, is that actor x in group 1 does not like what actor b in group 7 does. the usual next move is to try to link claims that are arbitrary outside a given frame of reference to another claim concerning the idea that there is a single "mainstream culture" and a subsidiary claim concerning who gets to speak for that meanstream culture. there claims are ridiculous, and even if they weren't they still are not any good because the strongest position you can dervie from it amounts to a variant of "eat shit: 100 million flies cant be wrong"

mixing the two kinds of evaluation is simply an example of shabby thinking--which i see alot of here from the "we do not like gay people" set--ustwo is engaged in a tedious semantic game that is predicated on blurring any meaningful line between descriptive and normative, which he tries to legitimate by endlessly referencing his background in biology, much of which is no doubt a kind of abstraction in his line of work and so is amenable to being rearranged, blurred and used for cheap political purposes, etc. the recurrent claims of "ich bin ein expert" resonante in this context in a manner similar to the way it resonated when acting immortal karl hungus uttered this line in "the big lebowski"---ncb seems unaware that there is any distinction between normative and descriptive and the results are predictable...i could go on but my interest is waning fast.

perhaps it is time for this thread to dribble toward a well-deserved conclusion.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ratbastid

The main rhetorical trick the anti-gay side seems to have in this thread is to shift the sand. You can't reply to one statement without them saying, "That proves this other statement! Ha ha! I win! I always win!"

It's now officially pointless to discuss this any further, so here's the bottom line, for me. Homosexuals are human beings. To whatever degree they differ from the norm, it's not because of any choice they made; it's because of something entirely outside their control. The least a caring society should do is to allow homosexuals the same rights and benefits as everyone else. Anyone in the world is free to disagree with me. If you do, I assert that you're lacking in compassion.

The same anti-gay argument could be made for not making public buildings handicapped-accessible. Being in a wheelchair is abnormal, after all. Why should those people have special ramps and stuff? It's a valid position, I guess, but it's pretty heartless.

Willravel

When you said that it was a trait that would be lost over time.
So then we agree that homosexuality is probably a natural way to deal with overpopulation. Natural. Normal. Acceptable. Even usefull.
I hope you have a link or citation to support that. How do you know that homosexuality doesn't only appear or become more prevalant when a population becomes to big? The current population, 300,000,000 people in the US alone, is CLEARLY overpopulation. And there are more homosexual people in larger cities.
If that were so, how did I formulate arguments against you? You can't argue with truth, but you sure as hell can argue with flawed logic.

Ustwo

Oh I'm firmly on the track, I think we are on different trains

both currently and historically - who have practised on a wide scale and condoned same sex behaviour and orientation (such as the Sambia or ancient Greeks),

In my last post, which you may not have seen I pointed out this is bisexuality not homosexuality. Bi sexuality, especially learned bisexuality, wouldn't stop you have having children. Its really an apple vrs an orange argument here. I don't have anything to cite by my own memory, but from what I was taught, homosexuality was not considered normal or desirable in the greeks. You had social sex with your male friends, and wives, slave women, and prostitutes for the real thing.

the "birth defect" argument assumes that homosexuality is caused by genetics.

No, not all birth defects are genetic. Birth defect means the damage was done prior to birth. It doesn't matter if its genetic or environmental at that point.

Upbringing may be the predominant role,

From what I have read, this has been pretty well debunked.

exposure to various hormones at certain stages of development might do it,

This may well be true to exposure to hormones prior to birth in male homosexuals, it doesn't seem to be true after birth. The 'male' brain is stamped into place and doesn't require hormones to be male after birth. This is why young boys like to hit things with sticks, and are less verbal than young girls. Neither has sex hormones telling them what to do or their brain how to form at this point, the change has already occurred. Young boys who act more feminine have been shown to have a greater chance of being homosexuals once they reach sexual maturity than more masculine boys. I can't say how this applies to female homosexuality as its less well studied. One thing that was done was to treat male homosexuals with testosterone to see if that 'cured' them of being gay. What the result was they were more horny but for homosexual sex, the hormone didn't make them straight, their brains were not wired at such.

or there may be a "gay" gene.

There MIGHT be a single 'gay' gene, but I don't think thats the case. I think there is most likely a group of genes which makes one susceptible to being gay. If the mothers hormonal condition is right (and the leading cause is believed to be stress hormones in the mother) and you are susceptible to being gay, the brain turns 'gay'. It doesn't matter a whole lot if its a gene, gene's, or pure development to the child, it all happens before birth and can't be changed after by any means we are aware of.

The reason I think its genetic is there does seem to be a family trend for it. Families who I know have homosexual members, tend to have other family members who do as well, though not always immediate family (which would help to limit the 'nurture' argument).

You're focusing on only one potential cause, without considering the other strong possibilites, which is hardly a very scientific or dispassionate way of looking at things as you claim to do.

I have been nothing but scientific or dispassionate. I think the issue is you don't have a good understanding of the science and are not thinking through the situation. Most people think of genetics as a black and white science. Bonde hair or brown, blue eyes or green, all based on the old dominant/recessive genes you were taught in biology freshman year in highschool. In reality very few genes follow this pattern, and there are many overlapping effects. If there was a 'gay' gene, my guess is it would have died out a long time ago. If there was no genetic component, then we would be able to isolate what the environmental conditions were that caused the change. Instead I think its clear we have a genetic predisposition which can be affected by the conditions in utero.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

NCB

My argument has remained the same. Its the pro-homosexual redefinition of marriage crowd that has been twisting themselves into pretezels defending their position. Homosexual "marriage" is unnatural and it should not turn upside down the very building block of our society, especially since they represent 3-5 % of the gen pop.

__________________

Kaliena

Although this is seriously off topic, I wanted to say thank you to each and every person who has posted in this thread so far.

I can honestly say that this is one of the best debates I've seen so far where each person throughly explains their points, the points are commented on with through explainations, and it hasn't come down to a huge flamer thread.

I would post my opinion but all I have are a few questions if anyone can answer them:

For the greek references, are there any referral websites/sources to look at? I've been curious about that and it has come up in many gay debate conversations.

For the science: the gay gene factor, I've heard research studies have been conducted, again, sources?


Overall: thank you all again for posting, I really hope this thread continues, it's been very educational.

__________________
~Beware the waffle~

filtherton

You put the penis in the vagina. There are variations.

You're very tenacious for someone who can't retain the same argument for more than three or four posts.


Oooooh, an arbitrary and selectively applied reason why homosexual families are wrong. Frankly, i'm shocked.

I'm sure you thought a lot of things about homosexuality. Unfortunately you can't seem to consistently think the same thing about why it is wrong for more than a day or so.

silent_jay

Umm, where have you been? Divorce, adultery, spousal abuse, or any number of other things, I'm pretty sure they've turned your 'building block of our society' upside down quite a bit, but why discuss those, it's those damn gays.

Next time you call something a 'building block of our society', make sure it can support the weight.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

NCB

As useless as many marriages turn out to be, the normal union can produce a productive family situation. With a homosexual "marriage", this is biologically impossible in any situation.

A homosexual "marriage" will never have the stability of a natural, heterosexual one. You can spin all the statistics and celebrity couples you like, the differences in men and women are purposeful and no amount of put on feminine and masculine homosexual enthusiasm can imitate that.

BTW, nice avatar. Fan of the old USSR I see

__________________

ratbastid

I'm really interested in what real world evidence you have of that. Do you actually know any gay people, NCB? How about any gay couples? This paragraph has the smack of blind faith about it.

Gay people are human beings. They're just like you. They deserve everything you deserve. That's what I have blind faith in. I'd much rather live in a world where people are interested in our similarities than one where people are interested in our differences.

NCB

We'll just agree to disagree I guess. I'm not for denying anyone anything, I'm just agianst giving 3-5% of the genpop special rights that in turn revolutionize the way family structures are designed for the rest of us.

__________________

ratbastid

Wait... So that's the fourth or fifth time the argument has changed. I don't disagree that we'll have to agree to disagree. I just want to be clear what I'm agreeing to disagree with.

What exactly does a gay couple having equal rights do to your marriage? How does it impact anybody other than that gay couple?

Also, for the second time, I ask: do you know any gay people? Any gay couples?

snowy

ratbastid, I would just like to say that you summed up my feelings on the situation present in this thread very well.

I guess not everyone can be as compassionate or caring for another human being as we would like them to be.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

NCB

1. Again, they already have equal rights. They just want special rights. It impacts society as a whole for it legitimizes a sexual fetish. Also, it will eventually lead to homosexual sex education in our schools and thus upsurping the majority of American families values.

2. Yes, my hair stylist is a homosexual man. Great guy.

__________________

Willravel

Marriage is a special right? Why? Also, I think you might be confused. "American family values" is a meaningless phrase. There were no family values set up in the Constitution or the BOR. Family values are everchanging as society ever grows and evolves. What you mean to say is traditional religous values, as the moral ida that homosexuality is wrong has an obvious root in religon. That makes this whole thing religous persecution.

Not allowing homosexuals the right to mary has, is and always will be religous persecution. It's like not letting Jewish people marry.

Gilda

All marriage is unnatural.

Granting homosexuals equal marriage rights will not in any way affect heterosexuals or their marriages, and won't turn the institution upside down.

A homosexual marriage can be a productive and functional family situation. Mine certainly is, as is that of my sister-in-law and her wife.

Setting aside for a moment that there's no such thing as a "natural" marriage, why do you say this? I've been married four years and in a stable relationship with my wife for five. I know a good number of gay couples in long term stable relationships.

I'm trying to respond to this, but I can't seem to understand the point you're trying to make. If it's about gender roles, most of the homosexual couples I know don't adopt traditional gender roles within the marriage, or attempt to emulate the masculine-feminine dynamic that you seem to be implying. My wife and I are both femme. We're mostly just trying to be who we are and find a mode of expression that fits us as a person and a balance within the marriage that fits us as a couple. I imagine that's what most heterosexual individuals and couples do.

You're wrong on both points. We don't want special rights, we want the same rights as heterosexuals. Extending civil marriage to homosexuals won't change anything about it for those in or entering heterosexual marriages.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Rekna

If gay is genetic can someone explain to me why I work with a pair of identical twins one of which is gay and the other of which is not?

I believe being gay is primarily a result of influences within ones life, many of which are probably outside of the control of the individual. I don't believe it is genetic nor do I necessarily believe everyone makes a conscious choice to be gay. With that been said I defiantly do not believe that just because someone is gay we should treat them differently, that we should ridicule them and take away their rights. For some reason I have a hunch Jesus wouldn't support that either, didn't he come for the sinner not the sanctified....

ratbastid

I've already demolished the "they'll gay up our kids" pap; I'm not going back there.

Explain how not being allowed public and legal recognition of their relationships constitutes having equal rights, please.

Have you talked with him about this? I'd be really interested to see what would happen if you put a human face on the people you're working so hard to invalidate.

silent_jay

Where did I say I was a fan of the USSR? Or are you assuming that because I have a hammer and sickle in my avatar I must be a fan of them? Of course if I have it for an avatar then I must be a fan, I couldn't just put it there to fill the space when I can't find anything better to put on

Funny though it's only 2 posters who have mentioned my avatar, and both happen to tow the dubya party line to a T. Any guesses as to who the other is aside from NCB, it's really easy?

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Ustwo

Oh MR. Kotter, I can answer that one, OH OH OH OH MR. KOTTER!

I'm surprised you remember it though for reasons in that thread

Actually lesbian couples have been shown to be mostly stable, gay males far less stable. Personally I think it doesn't play any part in the argument about marriage per say.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

silent_jay

I miss Welcome Back Kotter so much, what a great show that was.

I'm rather impressed I remember that too, it was a rough, weekend, damn pot is going to be the death of my memory

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Lady Sage

OMG you defective human!!! You should be singled out and poked fun at and stripped of all your rights!!!!!

See how silly that sounds?

For Craps and Giggles I went to Dictionary dot com...

marriage Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

I am particularly fond of #4 and #6. Note not one of the above definitions say anything about children.

Live and let live! Group hug! Lets all sing campfire songs now!

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Gilda

If that were so, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We have unequal rights and would like to change that so that we are recognized as equals.

Please elaborate. What "special rights" do we want that are not also granted to heterosexuals?

First, homosexuality isn't a fetish. I'm assuming you're attracted to women. So am I. If this is a fetish, it applies to both of us.

Second, there's nothing wrong with a fetish that doesn't impair one's sexual or social functioning. A fetish becomes a paraphilia only when it causes impairment, and homosexuality doesn't fit.

This is a big leap in logic. Explain the connection here, how gay marriage would lead to homosexuality being included in sex education.

I see these as separate issues, and would like to see homosexuality included in comprehensive sex education so that people will be more informed on the subject and we can demystify it. So long as the subject matter being taught is done in an equivalent manner to how heterosexual sex is treated, I have no problem with such an inclusion. Why would this be a bad thing?

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

pig

How would you propose accomplishing this? It seems to me that many of the specifics of the actual sexual acts and precautions can pertain to either homosexuals or heterosexuals. Do you mean sexual education in terms of sociology?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Infinite_Loser

This still doesn't explain how and where I said that homosexuality was relatively new.

No. This has been proven true in animals; It has yet to be seen in humans. I won't even get into the fact that homosexuality in humans has been documented long before the issue of overcrowding ever became the central topic of debate. In regions where there is severe overcrowding, you would expect homosexuality to be more prevalent than in regions with less people per square mile/kilometer, but this simply isn't the case. In fact, it's almost the opposite. Did you know that a large portion of homosexuality in humans occurs in regions which aren't considered to be overcrowded?

Wait... The United States is the third largest country by landmass and the third largest by population. The fact is that the United States doesn't even rank at the top of the most densely populated countries of the world yet we have one of the highest occurances of homosexuality. Please explain to me how this fits into your "Population control" theory?

Simple answer: You didn't

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Gilda

I meant that I see same-sex marriage and inclusion of homosexuality as part of a comprehensive sex education program as separate issues, though I am in favor of both.

I do agree that, other than vaginal intercourse, sex acts and the precautions needed to engage in them more safely are applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual contact.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Infinite_Loser

You do have equal rights.

I hate this argument, as it can be applied to a multiple of different social groups which suffer the same "Injustices" that homosexuals feel they endure.

"Why can't I drink legally but someone over the age of 21 can?"
"Why can't I vote? It's discriminatory?"
"Why can't I <Insert action here> while <Insert group name> can?"

An argument shouldn't rely on the "They can so why can't I?" premise for strength, as it usually crumbles under scrutiny.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

dc_dux

NCB...you really need to explain your "special rights" argument. How is it "special" to want to be able to enter into a social contract (leaving the religious issue aside, for that is a church matter, not a state matter) that would provide the same rights for any two adults entering into a committed relationship.

As to the sex ed component, whats wrong with a comprehensive sex ed program that acknowledges and allows an honest discussion of homosexuality. I suspect many kids would appreciate the facts and not the myths that are perpetrated. But then again, I think many of the parents are probably more fearful than the kids and many would still prefer to limit sex ed to abstinence only.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Ustwo

While I've ignored the 'homosexuality as population control' sub-thread, I have to say he did nail you here will.

Homosexuality as population control doesn't seem to work as an evolutionary 'reason', at least not in todays society.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pig

I think we had different sex-ed classes in high school, or my memories even dodgier than I originally thought...totally possible. I think what you're describing would be something of a combination between what we had in sexual education (which wasn't really sociological interaction of either hetero or homo, but only biological "here's the penis, here's the vagina, are you all squirming?") and sort of a civics type class. Either way, I can't see the harm in teaching the reality of our society, which is apparently that there are some gay people around. Who knew?

As to the homosexuality as population control discussion - oooh burn, lock the door on your way out crap...if one of the principal arguments in favor of denying homosexuals the right to marry is that they can't directly, biologically reproduce, while heterosexual couples can directly, biologically reproduce and it is a fact that the world's population is increasing (as is the United States population, our percentage of the world's population is decreasing, because that's how exponential relationships work), then under these caveats homosexuality would seem at the least to be a nil on the population argument, and quite possibly a bonus. This is an argument which is structured within the assumption used by critics of gay marriage; otherwise, the entire argument falls apart.

As has been pointed out, there are numerous other ways for people, both the not-gay and the gay, to go about becoming parents. In these scenarios, all blanket statement sort of fall apart - but that's because its closer to reality.

That entire line of reasoning is off the point. As has been said before, these are real 3-D people and this special rights crap is obviously not logically valid. Why can't people drink before they're 21? Beats the crap out of me. Reactionary blue law horseshit? But the idea is you need some training wheel time before you start drinking. I don't think there are really training wheels for sexual orientation. For sexual practices, there are. That's why we can't fuck children. They're off limits....theoretically, even to each other. You can't fuck before you're 15.

Why can't I vote? What the fuck does that even mean? I don't know. Maybe you're Austrian. Maybe you're in prison. Maybe you've been assigned supersecret top special mission to pee in Hugo Chavez's lemonade. You mean, why can't I vote before 18? See above.


Why can't I while can? You are completely on your own there. It's worked so far for me, so I'm going with the training wheel thing, but that's a big time guess.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

ratbastid

You can't just say "it usually crumbles". That's not argumentation, that's just pulling stuff out of your ass. You actually have to crumble it for us.

This is my whole experience of talking to anti-gay people. They pronounce these... pronouncements as if they were ironclad fact and patently obvious. There's never any defense of their position. I believe it's because they know that the only possible defense is moral/religious in nature, and they know better than to go there.

In the cases you've cited (drinking under 21, voting when it's not legal to), there are very good reasons why those laws are in effect. In the case of allowing gays to marriage, it's pure prejudice.

Infinite_Loser

Wrong. They're arbitrary laws with arbitrary numbers. The rationale for having such restrictions are that people under said ages aren't mature enough to make responsible choices. That entire premise is false, but I'm not going to go off on a wild tangent. You want to scream discrimination based on sexual orientation? There's mild discrimination against people of age, mental prowess, national origin etc. Point being, all groups aren't treated equally. Therefore, before you pull the "We're not being treated equally!" card, you might want to rethink that stance.

Now, if you would, show me an argument that doesn't boil down to "They have, so why not me?", which is fundamentally flawed.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Frosstbyte

I hate it when I write a big post and then something weird happens and it gets lost. That really pisses me off.

The ONLY argument for not allowing gay marriage to be recognized by the state that rings true to me is that we-as a governmental society-create benefits for things which are socially desirable. Heterosexual marriage is desirable because it creates children and creates a stable family relationship to support the children, thus, we encourage people to become married. Homosexual marriage cannot do that, and, thus, from a purely rational perspective, we shouldn't give people an incentive to do it. It's not a perfect argument, but it's the only one that isn't based on religion or morality, which is why it's the only one that makes any sense to me.

That being said, if this is true, then all marriages in which either or both members are infertile either by choice or by natural causes, all marriages which are childless by choice and all marriages which require medical assistance in order to create a viable pregnancy should also not receive the benefits of civil marriage, since none of them are able to fulfill that institutional purpose of creating and nurturing children. If you (anti-gay marriage people) are ok with depriving all of those people access to civil marriage, then I can't criticize you and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's very likely that you would be ok with it, however, so maybe you need to think about your reasoning some more.

ratbastid

So you're okay with prejudice, then? NCB argues that gays already have equal rights. You seem to be saying that they don't, but that's okay, because minors can't drink and felons can't vote.

Here's one difference: being a minor is temporary and being a felon is a matter of choice. Being gay isn't temporary and isn't a matter of choice. It's much more like my earlier analogy--we build special accessibility into our public buildings for handicapped people, whose situation isn't temporary (or, at least, not short-term) and generally isn't voluntary. Should we destroy all wheelchair ramps?

I decline, in as much as that's not what my argument boils down to, and even if it did, I'm not convinced it's fundamentally flawed, if you actually compare apples and apples.

Willravel

OH, you wanted a quote and post number:
Post #183
By your logic, homosexuality, something you yourself claim runs contrary to reproduction, would be weeded out rather quickly from the gene pool. That's quite wrong.
Ah, but there is not one variable in this equasion. Again, not everything is black and white. For example, would you expect homosexuality to be more socially exceptable in a liberal place like San Francisco, or a conservative place like India? If you guessed SF, you get a cookie. If you're raised in a society where homosexuality is considered to be wrong, you're less likely to 1) admit to yourself that you might be gay, 2) admited to others that you were gay, and 3) live a gay lifesyle where you actively seek out other homosexuals for a relationship. On the opposite end, if you're raised in a society that promotes and even celebrates in your living as you see fit and in what way makes you comfortable, you see more homosexuals coming out and living honestly. That one variable, without any others, could explain why there are not as many outed homosexuals in some of the heavely populated places outside of the liberal areas of the US.
It's too bad you can't see the forest for the trees here. Bigotry can't be hidden beneith weak arguments. Homosexuals deserve the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, and to deny them this based on logic such as yours - homosexuals already do have equal rights, homosexuals aren't "normal because they only make up 8% of the population, homosexuality is comparable to polygamy or incest, and it doesn't follow "traditional American values" - is absolutely insane.

Maybe we should take away marriage rights from everyone.

Frosstbyte

On another note, a critical difference between the drinking/driving age discussion and gay marriage is that while it is an arbitrary number, everyone gets there eventually (short of some tragic accident). It's just when we, as a society, have decided it's ok to allow it to happen at that arbitrary age.

Being gay or not being gay is an attribute of a person. It is not fluid, you don't grow out of it. EVERYONE goes through 21 years where they can't drink and then they suddenly can, just because. There is nothing so arbitrary about being gay or not being gay. It's who you are on a fundamental level. There is NOTHING different about discriminating against someone who is gay and discriminating against someone who is black or who has a long nose or who has red hair or who was born in a clay hut on the wrong side of the tracks in French-Indo China to a potter and a seamstress at 9:30 AM on July 2nd. They're all fundamental parts of the person that they can't alter (though plastic surgery is awesome). It is nothing like an age limit, and making such a suggestion is plainly ridiculous.

FoolThemAll

I do have some sympathy for this argument. I live in a household with a teenager who can maturely handle the use of alcohol, and a middle-aged man who can't. To some degree, I agree that it's arbitrary.

But not completely.

The vast majority of ten-year-olds should not legally have access to alcohol. The vast majority of thirty-year-olds should. Within those brackets, there is surely a great amount of variation - responsible 15-year-olds and irresponsible 25-year-olds alike - but the government is not equipped to deal accurately with such variation. We go with an arbitrary standard because it's better than no standard and infinitely more feasible than a precisely justified standard. An arbitrary line can have a reasoned purpose.

But I don't see a reasoned purpose with a line that excludes gay marriage.

In either case, "We're not being treated equally!" deserves a good response.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

NCB

IL answers it pretty well above. Its a special right because they already can get married and that they are not discriminated against.

You argue that people are imposing their beliefs on others, yet you seemingly have no quams with the school system to have "open dialogue" about a sexual preference practiced by a small % of genpop and that goes against many parents morals and values. Most people would call that hypocritical, but I assume that you and other liberals would call it something else.

Thats a really bad argument (especially for someone as well informed as you), will, and it demonstrates the grasping of straws when it comes to this issue. Tell us then, exactly which religion is doing the persecutin'?

__________________

FoolThemAll

But I don't see how homosexual marriage would "turn upside down the very building block of our society".

How would it?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.