Requiring Children...

[Bluejay]

Unfortunately, the inability for people to have a decent discussion (which by the way I think for the most part this was) is a direct by-product of our politicians who have successfully brainwashed everyone into the Us/Them mentality.

We have nothing to fear but the fear of learning from each other. (to paraphase)

J.

ITA. I also see the Us/Them mentality as problematic.

I, personally, do fall on the "marriage between man and woman" side of the spectrum.

However. I like to think that I can see the other point of view. For example, what if a homosexual lacked health insurance, could not access it through his partner's benefits, but was critically ill? I think most people could have some empathy for someone who is sick but can't afford healthcare.... whatever their views. I'm using that example to illustrate why I see this as a multi-faceted issue. And why I resist clumping homosexuals into a category when really, they are individuals with specific situations. That's just me.

[Meenah]

Hello Bluejay, welcome back. Please post an introduction, you have posted quite a bit but have yet to introduce yourself!

[Momo]

Unfortunately, the inability for people to have a decent discussion (which by the way I think for the most part this was) is a direct by-product of our politicians who have successfully brainwashed everyone into the Us/Them mentality.

ITA. I also see the Us/Them mentality as problematic.

This why I chose to register as an independant. The larger the indepents grow in #s the more and more politicians are having to address some sort of middle ground. I read enough about how the political machines are having to take more notice of the independants and appeal to them...just my :02:

[DCJenn]

I totally agree that the political machine really needs to start paying attention to the Independent vote but I still want to vote in the primary. Now, I also think you should be able to vote in whicever primary you want- not the one to which you have been assigned. Of course that could result in people voting for the guy/girl who can't win but really- how fun it would be to actually have an interesting vote.

and I really wish you could vote for the vice presidential candidate without voting for the whole ticket.

So, when I'm Supreme Leader I'll change it up for the next person.

Jenn

I totally agree that the political machine really needs to start paying attention to the Independent vote but I still want to vote in the primary. Now, I also think you should be able to vote in whicever primary you want- not the one to which you have been assigned. Of course that could result in people voting for the guy/girl who can't win but really- how fun it would be to actually have an interesting vote.

and I really wish you could vote for the vice presidential candidate without voting for the whole ticket.

So, when I'm Supreme Leader I'll change it up for the next person.

Jenn

AND .... I really wish the electoral college would be aboloished. It doesn't work.

[pstone]

Man, electorial college is hard...

It does keep population centers from dictating to rural people what they have to do. Or NY from telling North Dakota how it has to be...

To do that however it gives ND more say then its population would get under one person one vote...

Of course we are a republic and not a democracy.

I think the votes within a state should be cast representative of the way the state voted. If someone wins Ohio by 51%, should they get all of Ohio's electoral votes?

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) there are currently 1 or 2 states who do this ... but I think they're the really tiny ones (like RI).

[Gwendolyn]

Peter, I was just responding to the comment that to be pro-gay marriage is anti-religious. There is one particular religious voice, that is not representative of all religion that must be answered anytime this debate is engaged.

It was brought to my attention that this was unclear and might be read as insulting. That was certainly not my aim and I am sorry if a lack of clarity soured the discussion. I was talking about a particular brand of Christianity. I have no way of knowing what the other posters religious beliefs are. I was referring to the one voice of that particular Christian perspective, regardless of who here ascribes to it.

I am sorry that was not clear. After the warning on the thread, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what I had done.

So…I apologize for any unintended offense and would like to say there is no animosity here, just a strong opinion about a very important debate in our country. I've really enjoyed the discussion. I know that I represent a perspective that is out of the mainstream, but it needs to be voiced. How would we ever get anywhere if we all just agreed?

[pstone]

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMAT ... procon.php

[pstone]

BTW: I did not realize I was offended.

No harm here.

[Rapunzel]

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

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...

Faulty logic.

Most animal species are also prone to cannibalism of one type or another as well as infanticide. Now we have two ways of viewing this in order to remain consistant:
1) Either the overriding tendency to do this all IS genetically programmed in animals and, man is just another animal. Therefore, we can and should justify ALL innate "animal" behavior in man because it is genetic. If we're going to call it genetic because it is observed in the animal kingdom then we cannot pick and choose what we want to apply to man (as another animal). The consistant argument here is that yes, all of these traits - same-gender intercourse, infanticide, and cannibalism - are inborn because we observe them in animals. Man is an animal. Man has these inborn traits.
2)Man is not an animal. Animals do have the inborn tendencies to have sex outside of male/female copulation, kill their young, and eat their own. However, as human beings we have the ability to choose our own behavior. Therefore we choose not to do those things we observe in the animal kingdom.

If we're going to compare Man to animals then we need to be consistant.

[Stella]

Just because a man and woman are needed to procreate, does not mean that it is the best paradigm for raising a child as our society values it. There is a biological need for a sperm and an egg, but is by no means an argument for keeping a loving family in fear of separation because they do not have the same rights as those with the biological ability to make a baby...there is so much wrong with this...and is truly the saddest consequence of denying marriage rights to gays.

And with all the kids out there needing adopted, what is the harm of letting a perfectly willing and capable homosexual couple raise a helpless child in need of a home?

Peter, I was just responding to the comment that to be pro-gay marriage is anti-religious. There is one particular religious voice, that is not representative of all religion that must be answered anytime this debate is engaged.

I understand where you were going with this. For example, I consider myself religious and Christian, but I'm an Episcopalian and we allow gay priests. By supporting gay marriage/civil union/whatever, it does not mean that you are against the "religious" viewpoint. Sometimes, the religious view can encompass popularly opposing views.

Does that make sense?

There are always people who have some pretty fundamental beliefs on either side of the spectrum but generally over the years we usually pretty much fall to the more socially liberal, more fiscally conservative moderate stances.

My middle ground is "civil unions" for same sex, "marriages" for opposite sex, and the exact same legal rights/protection for everyone.

Just like the concept/definition of mother and father, marriage is a gender specific concept that has been around since civilization. "Parent" is gender neutral description but same concept as mother or father. Should I feel discriminated against as a parent because I don't fit the gender spefications of being a father too? It's ridiculous. There's room and reason for the definitions of mother, father and parent.

I know some people feel different is not equal, and it's not. It's a different description for different genders.

Gender happens.

I like the way you stated this, Annie, and I agree. I think it is a good compromise.

[Stella]

And if we follow the "religious" argument that homosexuality is "wrong" and therefore they should not be allowed to marry, then I have to ask...

Did God ask you to judge? Or did God maybe mention that judgement was his job?

[Rapunzel]

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.

Again, consistancy!

Let's reread the following and tell me what this makes you feel:

"If pedophiles can only feel attraction to pre-adolescents, then why on earth should they be denied the right to marry/have sex with/whatever with them? If certain persons find that idea offensive, then they have every right to decline that such relationships take place in their institutions."

Now, let's not all get our panties in a wad and yell out in righteous indignation, "You're comparing same-gender attraction to pedophilia!!!!" I'm not. I'm saying that the SAME argument can (and is) made by pedophiles.

If we're going to use the "I was born with this sexual attraction/urges" argument then we must CONSISTANTLY APPLY IT.

What makes a pedophile's sexual urges wrong in the context of he was born to have that predisposition? Consistantly apply the quoted reasoning in the beginning of my post and you find that it also justifies THAT behavior.

Consistancy. Good thing. Everyone: Think through your arguments to the very end and you'll either find yourself twisting all over the place trying not to look hypocritical OR you'll have to admit the argument is faulty because when applied to mankind as a whole it doesn't work.

[Rapunzel]

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.

OK, this is a good point:

Sex is an act. You are not compelled to act in a certain manner. Otherwise rapists and murderers could use such a justification for their actions (my genetics made me do it!).

Ethnicity is a situation in which you were born. You can choose to reject your ethnicity - but you can't erase the tribe/community/society in which you were born.

Race (ie skin color primarily) is a product of heredity - what color your eyes, skin, hair are, and other factors are not controllable (at this point).

Now, if we're going to say that certain sex IS genetically imprinted then we have to say (for consistancy's sake) that ALL sex is genetically imprinted - including sex we would all find abhorent.