Requiring Children...

[Vishenka69]

I'm in the "marry whoever you want" camp. If majority has a problem with calling it a "marriage," then let's create a new label but keep the same rights/benefits. Does that work for (general) you? I'm straining to see the difference between man/woman and man/man union. Aside from some anatomical difference, which don't relate to legal rights in my head.

On the same note, I hate when people ask when we plan to start a family. I hate the incinuation that DH and I can't be a family on our own. That a family can't be called a family without a child. But I guess it's along the same lines of a marriage can't be a marriage without both a penis and vagina being present.

[Rapunzel]

Unfortunately for us blacks and whites can marry now. Things just aren't what they used to be.

I cannot pick out my skin color or what ethnicity to which my parents belonged. One is the result of genetics the other of history prior to my birth. (And, ahem, I am married to someone who does not check the "white" or "anglo" box).

Who you have sex with or even IF you have sex is not a genetic determination.

[Auspicious]

Who you have sex with or even IF you have sex is not a genetic determination.

It's also not a prerequisite for legal marriage rights.

[Rapunzel]

Who you have sex with or even IF you have sex is not a genetic determination.

It's also not a prerequisite for legal marriage rights.

Well, if we change the nature of what marriage is (and, has been since, well, written history) then you can say the above. But, by changing the nature of marriage we, in effect, destroy that state of marriage and attempt to invent a new one.

And, as of today, who (or what or how many people) you have sex with does not entitle you to call yourself married anymore than wearing bunny ears on your head entitles you to call yourself a rabbit.

Marriage is a particular relationship between a man and a woman. Granted, in our society in these recent times that relationship has gradually been destroyed (divorce, infidelity, etc.) but that doesn't change what marriage is.

[pstone]

and polygamy too?

[diggitydot]

I look at it like this: There's so much hate in our world, why put limits on the love of two legally consenting adults? I personally have no problems with homosexual couples marrying each other, if they so choose. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us! (Only teasing!)

But, in all honesty, someone else's marriage doesn't validate or invalidate my own. It's a committment, regardless of whomever makes it. And with the US divorce rate hovering near 60%, let's face it, marriage isn't what it used to be or once was.

It's funny that this comes up today. My friend and I were talking about this last night and I was really surprised that he, as a gay man, wasn't for gay marriage, but instead supported civil unions. I'm not making a point by posting this tidbit, it was just interesting to me.

[Auspicious]

My friend and I were talking about this last night and I was really surprised that he, as a gay man, wasn't for gay marriage, but instead supported civil unions.

What was his reasoning?

[diggitydot]

My friend and I were talking about this last night and I was really surprised that he, as a gay man, wasn't for gay marriage, but instead supported civil unions.

What was his reasoning?

He brought up a few points:

1.) That he didn't feel it necessary to have someone else validate his relationship by calling it a marriage. They can call it whatever they want, but it doesn't have to be called a marriage to make him happy.
2.) His main point is that he'd just like the same protections and priviledges as those afforded to heterosexual couples who've paid the fees, done the paperwork, and have state-sanctioned unions, whatever the heck they end up being called.
3.) He figured it gives the pro and con crowds a compromise. Those opposed to marriage for gays don't have to call it a marriage. (And can feel that "marriage" is only afforded to heterosexuals). Then the pro crowd would have gay couples attaining the same priviledges and protections as straight couples. Kind of a win/win, as he saw it.

It doesn't really matter to me, one way or another. But, if one of my children were to grow up and end up loving those of the same gender, I would hate for them to not have the option, if they so wanted it.

[SuzySunshine]

My company extends benefits to partners living with their gay/lesbian partner. The question was raised "why don't you make the same offer to heterosexual couples that live together but aren't married" - the reason given was that gay/lesbian couples don't have the option to marry.

I don't have a problem with them being afforded benefits. I do have an issue with the word marriage because it has religious foundations. Use unions, etc., fine with me.

[Auspicious]

Yup, interesting. Although I don't think the separate civil union designation is right, I'm starting to think it's a compromise that may just need to be made en route to the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage. Not sure.

Who you have sex with or even IF you have sex is not a genetic determination.

I don't usually head into the debates section much, but I happened upon this fallacy and had to challenge it. I'm surprised noone else has beaten me to it.

Homosexuality has been observed to exist in 1500 species, in everything from fruit flies to sheep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality). Homosexuality is not a choice but a genetic predetermination. In an interesting aside, "Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexual behaviour, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males." And I can't say that sounds like a bad thing...

At any rate, there is no excuse for discrimination, be it based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. Everyone should be accorded the same rights.

[Bluejay]

Who you have sex with or even IF you have sex is not a genetic determination.

I don't usually head into the debates section much, but I happened upon this fallacy and had to challenge it. I'm surprised noone else has beaten me to it.

Homosexuality has been observed to exist in 1500 species, in everything from fruit flies to sheep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality). Homosexuality is not a choice but a genetic predetermination. In an interesting aside, "Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexual behaviour, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males." And I can't say that sounds like a bad thing...

At any rate, there is no excuse for discrimination, be it based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. Everyone should be accorded the same rights.

To clarify what (I think) Tabula Rasa is saying, is that there is a CHOICE to have sex or not, and likewise a CHOICE as to who you have sex with.

In contrast, we cannot CHOOSE our ethnicity.

Now, Tenshi is saying that WHICH SEXUAL CHOICE YOU MAKE may be genetically determined.

The difference between their arguments is that Tabula Rasa is pointing out WHETHER OR NOT a choice exists, whereas Tenshi is pointing out WHAT CHOICE IS LIKELY TO BE MADE.

Now I've got myself embroiled... I'm not sure if it's safe to guess what Tabula Rasa intended, and the clarification would seem to be splitting hairs anyway. It came across as saying that one's sexual orientation is merely a preference, and I was pointing out that as homosexual behaviour is observed and documented in the animal world, it is thus genetically - and not preferentially - determined. If, on the other hand, she was stating that people can and should act contrarily to their innate desires because she finds them offensive, then I would have to say that that is clearly discriminatory.

The assumption that people who identify as homosexuals should just "suck it up" and either force themselves to mate with the opposite sex, to whom they are not attracted, or to abstain from sex for life, in order to not to offend the sensibilities of others, is patently ridiculous. I fail to see why they should have to miss out (if that's how they see it! ) on marriage because of their sexual orientation.

If homosexuals can only feel attraction to the same sex, then why on earth should they be denied the right to marry a member of that sex? If certain Christian denominations find that idea offensive, then they have every right to decline that such marriages take place in their institutions. But law is not based upon religion and so as I see it, denying homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory and should be illegal.

The very idea that we now hold of marriage is of itself a modern construct. There's no harm in things moving with the times a little.

[Vanquisher]

Now I've got myself embroiled... I'm not sure if it's safe to guess what Tabula Rasa intended, and the clarification would seem to be splitting hairs anyway. It came across as saying that one's sexual orientation is merely a preference, and I was pointing out that as homosexual behaviour is observed and documented in the animal world, it is thus genetically - and not preferentially - determined. If, on the other hand, she was stating that people can and should act contrarily to their innate desires because she finds them offensive, then I would have to say that that is clearly discriminatory.

The assumption that people who identify as homosexuals should just "suck it up" and either force themselves to mate with the opposite sex, to whom they are not attracted, or to abstain from sex for life, in order to not to offend the sensibilities of others, is patently ridiculous. I fail to see why they should have to miss out (if that's how they see it! ) on marriage because of their sexual orientation.

If homosexuals can only feel attraction to the same sex, then why on earth should they be denied the right to marry a member of that sex? If certain Christian denominations find that idea offensive, then they have every right to decline that such marriages take place in their institutions. But law is not based upon religion and so as I see it, denying homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory and should be illegal.

The very idea that we now hold of marriage is of itself a modern construct. There's no harm in things moving with the times a little.

[Bluejay]

To clarify what (I think) Tabula Rasa is saying, is that there is a CHOICE to have sex or not, and likewise a CHOICE as to who you have sex with.

In contrast, we cannot CHOOSE our ethnicity.

Now, Tenshi is saying that WHICH SEXUAL CHOICE YOU MAKE may be genetically determined.

The difference between their arguments is that Tabula Rasa is pointing out WHETHER OR NOT a choice exists, whereas Tenshi is pointing out WHAT CHOICE IS LIKELY TO BE MADE.

OK, I'm going to try to clarify my clarification, wish me luck.

For the sake of a concrete example:
At noon on Tuesday February 13, 2007, I had sex.

Questions:
Was having sex my choice? Did my genes make that choice?
Did I have sex with Bill or Mary? Did my genes make that choice?

I do think there are two separate points involved. At least.