Requiring Children...

[Rapunzel]

In other words:

Sex is an act - like running, brushing your teeth, etc.

Race and ethnicity are NOT actions AND neither race NOR your ethnicity genetically cause you to behave in certain ways - that's called culture and you can still choose which aspects of your culture you will act out.

Therefore you cannot equate sex (action) with race and ethnicity (neither of which inherently COMPEL you to actions).

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.

The glaring difference being sex acts between consenting adults whether or not it's something that appeals to us personally. Pedophilia, rape, incest - whether the assailant was "born that way" or not, not okay because it is not entered into voluntarily by both parties.

[Rapunzel]

Not sure why we are talking about sex here, thought it started with marriage.

I have no problem with bill boinking bob, or sally and suzy, though I think the moral relativism is a slippery slope.

I personally think our country has MANY MANY MANY more things to spend our tax dollars on the affording 'benefits' to same sex couples. What about polygamy? and Bill, Sally, and Betty wanting to be married?

Sleep with any consenting adult you want, (I don't buy it is all genetic however, lots of other studies) but what does it benefit society that we should spend money on it?

If you don't like that hetero couples get it and homo don't then abolish it all. Lets not spend more money supporting personal choices. What about people that don't believe in marriage but live together? Do we force marriage on them to get benefits also?

What priavate companies do is up to them, offer and pay for whatever you want, but if Mr. and Ms. Religion think it is a sin, do you really tell them they are wrong and force them to pay for the retirement?
:

OK, now, regardless of if I believe with all of these points - he's being consistant here. And, I'm intrigued by some of these arguments - very good thinking material!

[Rapunzel]

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.

The glaring difference being sex acts between consenting adults whether or not it's something that appeals to us personally. Pedophilia, rape, incest - whether the assailant was "born that way" or not, not okay because it is not entered into voluntarily by both parties.

Actually there are instances of incest that are clearly between consenting adults (repellant, yes, but there nonetheless).

In certain cultures it is quite acceptable for an adult male to have a sexual relationship with a pre-adolscent male. In fact, that was the case in the vaulted civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. It is still a situation among some cultures today. And, in those societies they would argue (possibly effectively) that the boys involved ARE consenting.

[Rapunzel]

And, whether or not these are consenting individuals does NOT address the point:

That, if animals do these activities, it's OK for Mankind. I'm sure that the lion cub killed by its father was not "consenting" for instance - yet, if we argue that same-gender intercourse is OK because the lions do it then why not all of the other things lions do?

Again the argument of consent is irrelevent when we are discussing whether or not people are genetically programmed to engage in certain actions.

[Rapunzel]

It is tragic to suggest or claim proudly that a man and a woman is the only and/or best paradigm for raising a child, when actually income has much more to do with it...statistically speaking....probably we should sterilize poor people.
.

So, which gender is irrelevant (or just MORE irrlevant)?

Why did we not evolve as hermaphrodites? I don't think income was necessarily an issue in the evolutionary scheme of things. So, if both genders are not needed (except for the actual sex act itself) then what is the point of gender? Nature tends towards the easiest option - hermaphroditism would be that option.

[Rapunzel]

Why should I not give a religious reason for my feelings?

You are absolutely entitled to a religious reason for your feelings. Not to a religious reason for a law, though.

So, the only opinions worthwhile are those that are not justified by religious beliefs? Only certain opinions are acceptable to you?

THIS is the reason we have the First Ammendment - to protect religion and the ability to express your religious beliefs.

And, there is no religious test for political office (illegal here - that pesky Constitution!) AND those who describe themselves as religious are also actually allowed to participate in government (ie vote)!

[Rapunzel]

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, so why do we not have the ability to biologically produce another human being from same gender sexual intercourse? If you believe in evolution then how does your argument apply? What with Occum's razor - if both of the genders were only necessary for one exacting moment (ie conception) then to have two genders is, biologically, wasteful. Why do we have two genders?

[Stella]

Maybe evolution saw that we are killing ourselves by birthing more of ourselves and decided to take the matter in its own hands? Overpopulation (along with a long string of other things) is killing our resources and our environment, and we'll be next in the domino effect of that cycle.

Gwendolyn wrote:
It is tragic to suggest or claim proudly that a man and a woman is the only and/or best paradigm for raising a child.


I think what is tragic are the number of children in this country who do not have a mother *and* father, be it from same-sex unions, divorce, death, deployment, etc. Now *THAT* is tragic.

[diggitydot]

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

My favorite point....ever.

I have always wondered why some offensively religious people deem themselves as worthy to pass judgement on others when they're specifically admonished not to do so. If they're so much more "Christian" than those of us who don't jump up and down whilst thumping our bibles wildly and quoting scriptures to anyone nearby, why don't they seem to be aware of this tidy little passage?

And by offensively religious, I mean those irritatingly irrational people who wear their religion, (whichever it maybe), on their sleeves like a badge of honor and refuse to listen or respect anyone else's beliefs or ethics. This is definitely a small percentage of the religious, but a very vocal percentage, at that.

THIS is the reason we have the First Ammendment - to protect religion and the ability to express your religious beliefs.

Express your religious beliefs - not legislate everyone else into following them.

[pstone]

Actually...

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

It does not say don't judge, it says if you judge you will also be so judged. One of the most miss quoted, mis understood notions.

Now not to say I feel either way, but also if you read a 'part' of any religous text as saying 'some action' is wrong, then you are not doing the judging yourself anyway right?

[pstone]

Express your religious beliefs - not legislate everyone else into following them.

This is true, but it also works in reverse. The 'non' religous can't claim they come from a point of view that is 'right' so it is also subjective yet want to legislate as well.

True for both what Peter and Tara said. No one side should get to dictate how everyone lives or what our laws say. Sadly, extremists from both ends of the spectrum end up making things "all or nothing".