Not only does being gay not preclude reproduction, being heterosexual does not include reproduction.

Unless this basis for anti-gay marriage (or anti-gay) legislation is coupled with legislation requiring reproduction from every man and woman, this basis is too limited to adequately address the perceived problem. And if the goal is simply to require reproduction, then whether someone is gay (or engages in gay marriage) is irrelevent. Reproduction is still possible, the legislation would simply have to provide an enforceable avenue.

In other words, that rationalization for any anti-gay sentiments is illogical.
I believe this was a further clarification of the gay = undemocratic concept. It's a very strange concept. What about sterile people? Sterile people have no potential for naturally conceiving (in many cases, any type of conception at all). Are they undemocratic?

This whole "gay people can't reproduce so they should not have equal rights" argument is making my head hurt.

1. Gay people CAN reproduce. Being gay doesn't mean you were born without testicles or a uterus. My boss is a lesbian and she and her partner have a 2 year old daughter (and another on the way) via artificial insemination.

2. Regardless, opening up legal gay marriage would (should) bring with it a more open minded policy regarding gay couples adopting children. The Heterosexuals are reproducing at an alarming rate, and frankly, they aren't keeping all the children they are making (but they are ever so much more responsible than those pesky gays).

3. Everyone pins the argument about "being" gay to either genetics or choice. The third choice would be what some of my gay friends consider to be early conditioning, meaning that everyone's sexuality (gay, straight or otherwise) is a product of environment and events in one's early childhood. And please, don't take this to mean that gay people were all raped or molested or likewise. It's not as unseemly as that. It's more of what people relate to their earliest feelings of love and pleasure.

4. It's been stated before, but if the right (or privelage) to marry is going to be based on one's ability to reproduce, than the natural end point of that argument is that everyone who applies for a marriage license should have to sign legal documents stating that they will have children in X amount of time or the marriage will be terminated. And absolutely no licenses for anyone who is sterile. No more married couples gaining spousal benefits and mooching off the government without bringing some more rug rats into the world!

5. Many people's arguments about any gay rights center on some sort of perceived immorality. This perception can only be based in Christianity, where there is a vague passage in the book of Leviticus about men laying with men. This is the epitome of picking and choosing what one wants to believe out of the bible, as most of the other laws in Leviticus have been deemed dated and unnecessary (it's a sin to touch raw meat, women must be shunned for 30 days after having a baby, not to mention the entire chapter on the proper ways to sacrifice animals to God).

6. Ultimately, if gays are allowed to marry, what does it REALLY do to you on an individual basis. Anything? Will your life suffer?

7. The argument for why this is a civil rights issue is simple. A portion of the law-abiding society is not given the same rights as others. Stating that marriage is a privelage and not a right doesn't hold much water, as there isn't exactly a strict screening process to get a marriage license these days. Add to that the fact that people are going out of their way to deny these rights to this sect of society, and there is your argument. Plus, look at history. We've been through this before with women and african americans. History is repeating itself, and hopefully for the homosexual populace we'll be moving out of the "back of the bus" mentality and into an actual democratic society with equal rights for all.

traditions shaped our country. It saddens me that so many people want to "make EVERYTHING ok". We have to have limits/boundaries for our daily life. Without, we fall into chaos.

Some of these arguments about gay marriage remind me of the discussions that were held in america in the nineteenth century about whether blacks had souls (many religious leaders believed they did not).
This wasn't intended to be but does looking at history make you uncomfortable?

Good point, maypo. Interestingly, on the question of homosexuality in other societies, many Native American societies recognized and accepted homosexuals in their tribe. They lived together, dressing in either men's or women's clothing, and were used to settle marital disputes, the idea being that they could see both sides of the argument. Whether that's a naive belief or not, the point is, they were fully functioning citizens of their community. They weren't ostracized, mocked, or beaten to death just for being different.

Warping history makes me uncomfortable.

You might as well have said Child Sacrifice to Baal was a conservative value.

Remember, we're talking theoretical concepts and not addressing current problems in our society. I didn't really directly address gay marriage in America in many of my arguments. But, that argument was simple, two gay men can't reproduce together. A heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman can produce. Therefore, if we're talking the future of humanity, which is more preferred? Would can produce offspring, one cannot naturally.

Sorry to further get off on this subject, but that is really all that argument is about. Maybe, I'm not wording it correctly, but it normally is easily accepted in terms of humanity. The if A,B,C argument looks like this:

1.The future of humanity depends on sexual reproduction.
2.Sexual reproduction is only achieved by heterosexual behavior.
3.The future of humanity is only achieved by heterosexual behavior.

To sum it up, evolution or the course of humanity selects heterosexual behavior on homosexual behavior.

On a previous comment, I believe mormons thought black people were demons until the civil rights movement if I'm not mistaken. Which is also one of those conservative traditions!

I'm not interested in theoretical concepts such as that unless they are being used to justify a course of action. If that theoretical concept is used to justify anti-gay legislation, it is very easily and quickly dismissed with this theoretical concept:

1. The future of humanity is achieved by reproduction.
2- Reproduction is achieve by fertilization.
3- Homosexual relationships do not prevent fertilization.
4- The future of humanity is not prevented by homosexual behavior.

Anyhow, bisexuals are certainly capable of reproduction as well as same-sex behavior.

And if reproduction is the key, what about heterosexuals that don't reproduce? Heterosexuals that have undergone voluntary sterilization? Are they somehow unfit to marry?

This argument is insane.

I totally agree, Adam.

no, not at the current rate

"If fertility rates remained unchanged from the 2000 rate of 2.83, there would be 134 trillion people in 2300, impossible to sustain."
(Yahoo)

So the homosexulas are no real thread against the "future of mankind"
Bushs enviroment policy is much more of a thread ...

Both are Religious institutions.
 

What we have here is a group barred a recognition of a religious institution (marriage) with people on the other side claiming it's improper in the context of often the SAME damn religion.

I think having the gov't recognize gay marriage may be silly, but certainly no more silly than recognizing "straight" marriage.

Since when do we need the body politic to condone our couplings?

I realize their are certain financial reasons for this union, but I would be hard-pressed to beleive this is the major or even a substantial reason for why people marry. No one gay or strait drops to one knee and asks if the other person would please accept their retirement investments without penalty if they should happen to die.

To me the issue seems to boil down to the fact that the parties on both sides would see the allowance or disallowance to be a validation for their respective ethos. I'm sure this may be a simplistic outlook, obviously I'm overlooking the monetary angle, no Insurance company in the world wants MORE marriage, straight, gay or extra-terrestrial.

-Sorry for the spelling, not sure if disallowance is even a word
-fibbers

Wow, I guess I derailed the original post and my statements have been further derailed. It's really futile to argue a point against such an overwhelming majority. Similar to arguing philosophical metaphors or the problem of good and evil in a Christian chat room or bible study group. Therefore, I won't argue any further points because to be honest, it's really not an interest issue.

Anyways, I appreciate the statistic listed earlier in a post even though I wish the source was not yahoo.

Wanted to point out that I think a previous poster had a very good statement regarding that it is silly for the government to recognize any marriage. It's a simple concept but it really makes you think ponder the actual concept.

*edited for advice to Manx. Not stating whether you are right or wrong, but your argument did not follow typical pattern. What I mean is statement one says, "If A, then B." Statement 2 says, "If B,then C." The only way you could use statement 3 followed by a four is if is a general fact such as "D=E" (A Smiley is an emoticon for exampe). And then tie it into statement 4. For example, Studying my subjects will help me get into graduate school. Graduate school will help me get a good job. Chemistry is one of my subjects. Studying chemistry will help me get a good job. Hope this helps, good luck.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if gays/gender benders/whatever marry. I think they should be entitled to the benefits of marriage, i.e. hospital visits, right of survivorship, whatever.

Can't figure out why they'd WANT to be married, though. That introduces alimony to the equation. Don't they have ENOUGH problems?

The only reservation I have is with calling it "marriage." To use cowboy logic, "Putting your boots in the oven don't make them biscuits."

So what's the consensus on creating some type of civil union for gays that confers all rights/responsibilities of marriage, but calls it something else? Would that work, or is calling it "marriage" the ONLY acceptable solution?

"So what's the consensus on creating some type of civil union for gays that confers all rights/responsibilities of marriage, but calls it something else? Would that work, or is calling it "marriage" the ONLY acceptable solution?"

Ideal, if marriage is eliminated as a legal state and exists only as a religious one, otherwise you've got a case of "separate but equal" which never is.

I'ld agree with the seperate but equal never is part, but if indeed ALL the rights are ported over, is a different word even enough to qualify as seperate?

-fibber

That be the beauty of human nature. That we are never limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry+. Our ability to adapt and advance from previously wrong stances like Child Sacrifice, slavery, womens suffrage, prohibitions against miscegenation, gay marriage, environmental conservation. Of course some of these like gay rights have swayed back and forth in human acceptance, as detailed in this thread already.


+definition of liberal, which is the antonym of conservative.

Kadath, absolutely.
I've said this many times.
I oppose "marriage" as a concept for everyone. IMO, it's an impossibly loaded conception and pointless. I am in favor of human beings making agreements and contracts with each other. And as for the idea of a "civil union" - that's all I consider necessary for people who want legal rights for their relationship.

Of course me, sus, and mimi aren't eligible and I wouldn't imagine our tripartite relationship would be sanctioned by a civil authority any time in the relevant future.

I have heard you mention briefly the triangle relationship you are in.
But, being curious, could you please elaborate on exactly the arangement you have?

Art... I am fairly certain you could draw up legal documents that would grant Power of Attorney, division of assets, etc. It would be a business type of arrangement...

Kind of sucks the passion out of it all though.

Yes Charlatan, we have those sorts of arrangements.
Really all we need. I was speaking specifically of the "civil union" concept and as it applies to insurance and other things.
We do not expect to ever receive the sort of tax benefits, etc. that "officially" sanctioned relationships have.

It's just that being in one of those categories that could be looked at as "discriminated against," (although I never care to apply that sort of notion to my life - I understand why some folks would desire to embrace it - and there's nothing wrong with that - don't get me wrong) we're way way down on the what-is-acceptable list, I suppose.

Superbelt , simple enough. The three of us live and love together - and have for many years.

How many liberal ideas have flared up and then disappeared? We should at this from both angles.

Do you disagree, then, that things like civil rights, worker's rights and women's rights were progressive vs. conservative issues? It's easy to look at the flow of history and see the modification of ideas into their present form. That's not to say that today's conservatives are pro-slavery, but you can look and see the pro-slavery values changing to anti-civil-rights values changing into today's anti-affirmative-action values. A lot of the people on either side of the civil rights issue are still around, and it's hard to pretend that that attitude has vanished entirely from the conservative viewpoint. Mostly it's just a changing of where the lines are drawn.

The same with worker's rights - in the 20s it was "reds" and "socialists" campaigning for worker's rights, and today we enjoy weekends, OSHA, and 40-hour weeks. However, we're still fighting for universal health care and a living minimum wage - and it's the same groups on either side of the fight.

Earlier it was anti-contraceptive people against the early planned parenthood-type places, now it's anti-abortionists - but the sides haven't changed, just the piece of the issue we're looking at.

In the 60s it was anti-Vietnam, now it's anti-Iraq, but it's the same groups going at it.

In fact, this constant progress is the only thing that keeps me as a progressive from sobbing in frustration sometimes - I know it has to change. The other night I watched "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" and thought about how the issue now isn't interracial marriage but gay marriage - and I hoped that the worries over gay marriage would look as quaint to the next generation as the worries over interracial marriage looked to me.

Bingle

Meh - 5,000 year tradition in the civilized world...