Gay Marriage

[copernicus 0]

Driving to Vegas the other day and rummaging through the entertainment I realized that I have absolute proof that homosexuality is acquired and not genetic. FAIR WARNING: DONT READ THE FOLLOWING IF YOU OBJECT TO CRUDITY, PSYCHOLOGICAL NUDITY, ARE A FEMINIST OR DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR ABOUT THE ISSUE! AND DONT OPEN AROUND THE KIDS!

Hey there, people, Im bobby brownThey say Im the cutest boy in townMy car is fast, my teeth is shineyI tell all the girls they can kiss my heinieHere I am at a famous schoolIm dressin sharp n imActin coolI got a cheerleader here wants to help with my paperLet her do all the work n maybe later Ill rape herOh God I am the american dreamI do not think Im too extremeAn Im a handsome sonofabitchIm gonna get a good job n be real rich(get a goodGet a goodGet a goodGet a good job)Womens liberationCame creepin across the nationI tell you people I was not readyWhen I ****ed this dyke by the name of freddieShe made a little speech then,Aw, she tried to make me say whenShe had my balls in a vice, but she left the dickI guess its still hooked on, but now it shoots too quickOh God I am the american dreamBut now I smell like vaselineAn Im a miserable sonofabitchAm I a boy or a lady...i dont know which(I wonder wonderWonder wonder)So I went out n bought me a leisure suitI jingle my change, but Im still kinda cuteGot a job doin radio promoAn none of the jocks can even tell Im a homoEventually me n a friendSorta drifted along into s&mI can take about an hour on the tower of powerlong as I gets a little golden showerOh God I am the american dreamWith a spindle up my butt till it makes me screamAn Ill do anything to get aheadI lay awake nights sayin, thank you, fred!Oh god, oh god, Im so fantastic!Thanks to freddie, Im a sexual spasticAnd my name is bobby brownWatch me now, Im goin down,And my name is bobby brownWatch me now, Im goin down, etc.

[timwakefield 68]

Driving to Vegas the other day and rummaging through the entertainment I realized that I have absolute proof that homosexuality is acquired and not genetic. FAIR WARNING: DONT READ THE FOLLOWING IF YOU OBJECT TO CRUDITY, PSYCHOLOGICAL NUDITY, ARE A FEMINIST OR DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR ABOUT THE ISSUE! AND DONT OPEN AROUND THE KIDS!

Hey there, people, Im bobby brownThey say Im the cutest boy in townMy car is fast, my teeth is shineyI tell all the girls they can kiss my heinieHere I am at a famous schoolIm dressin sharp n imActin coolI got a cheerleader here wants to help with my paperLet her do all the work n maybe later Ill rape herOh God I am the american dreamI do not think Im too extremeAn Im a handsome sonofabitchIm gonna get a good job n be real rich(get a goodGet a goodGet a goodGet a good job)Womens liberationCame creepin across the nationI tell you people I was not readyWhen I ****ed this dyke by the name of freddieShe made a little speech then,Aw, she tried to make me say whenShe had my balls in a vice, but she left the dickI guess its still hooked on, but now it shoots too quickOh God I am the american dreamBut now I smell like vaselineAn Im a miserable sonofabitchAm I a boy or a lady...i dont know which(I wonder wonderWonder wonder)So I went out n bought me a leisure suitI jingle my change, but Im still kinda cuteGot a job doin radio promoAn none of the jocks can even tell Im a homoEventually me n a friendSorta drifted along into s&mI can take about an hour on the tower of powerlong as I gets a little golden showerOh God I am the american dreamWith a spindle up my butt till it makes me screamAn Ill do anything to get aheadI lay awake nights sayin, thank you, fred!Oh god, oh god, Im so fantastic!Thanks to freddie, Im a sexual spasticAnd my name is bobby brownWatch me now, Im goin down,And my name is bobby brownWatch me now, Im goin down, etc.

I want a darling little Jewish princess,Who don't know shit about cooking and is arrogant looking.Sorry that's just my favorite line from the album .WON'T SOMEONE SEND ME A PRINCESS WHO BITES?

[Loismustdie 0]

Yes, they do. So we're not back to where we started.

Remember that one guy who chocked on a hamburger and died? That must be what always happens, I am not eating burgers ever again.

[copernicus 0]

I want a darling little Jewish princess,Who don't know shit about cooking and is arrogant looking.Sorry that's just my favorite line from the album .WON'T SOMEONE SEND ME A PRINCESS WHO BITES?

No apology necessary....lots of favorites on SY.

[El Guapo 8]

I want a darling little Jewish princess,Who don't know shit about cooking and is arrogant looking.Sorry that's just my favorite line from the album .WON'T SOMEONE SEND ME A PRINCESS WHO BITES?

I want a girl with extensions in her hairBamboo earringsAt least two pairA fendi bag and a bad attitudeThats all I need to get me in a good mood

[copernicus 0]

I want a girl with extensions in her hairBamboo earringsAt least two pairA fendi bag and a bad attitudeThats all I need to get me in a good mood

Can we get back to some good ole gay bashing please??

[KramitDaToad 0]

But they share the same womb. So you'd have to argue that say hormones were different enough on one side of the womb or that they had different experiences based on their position in the womb to account for half the variance in sexual orientation. It's a bit of a stretch imo.

I appreciate that, however to carte blanche rule that it must be after birth is an unsound conclussion.Given that hormones are delivered by 2 seperate umbilical cords with independant 'efficiencies' it still leaves a viable option for the development of sexual orientation.I'm not discounting anything you've said re environment, but if I was to guess I think it will be found that genetics will lend itself to a predisposition and the development environment, both in the womb and post birth will shape the final result.One thing I'm confident about is that it isn't a choice.

[DonkSlayer 1]

One thing I'm confident about is that it isn't a choice.

I think the true orientations question is irrelevant to the matter.Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, for the purposes of reproduction and/or for status/wealth gain or distribution. There are some very famous homosexuals throughout history that were married to a woman, had kids, etc. The US states sanctioned and regulated marriage since the beginning. While I wish they had the foresight to call it something else because they were essentially recognizing a traditionally religious institution, it was what it was back in the day. Things have changed socially and culturally, but marriage and its purposes have not. Since 2 gay men can never reproduce together, traditional marriage is out. IMO, any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract, like marriage, that gives them the same tax status and partner-right status as any two individuals who are married. Not just homosexuals could enter this...two old straight men who are widowers and best friends may choose to be responsible for each other in this way as they grow older, for example. We keep it at TWO consenting adults, so no one can claim (and there is no danger of) the pact opening the door for bigamy, etc..and go from there. Meh on whether the Fed should get to interfere with it or not. I guess under the equal protection clause they have a case, but they don't sanction marriages (the states do) so it's a sticky question, at least.

[KramitDaToad 0]

I think the true orientations question is irrelevant to the matter.

True. Vb & I got off on a tangent

Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, for the purposes of reproduction and/or for status/wealth gain or distribution. There are some very famous homosexuals throughout history that were married to a woman, had kids, etc. The US states sanctioned and regulated marriage since the beginning. While I wish they had the foresight to call it something else because they were essentially recognizing a traditionally religious institution, it was what it was back in the day. Things have changed socially and culturally, but marriage and its purposes have not.

You may have missed a couple of posts from before, but marriage predates Christianity. It wasn't a religous instituition nor was it restricted to hetrosexual couples.For Christianity, any other religion, or religion as a whole to claim as part of their 'institution' is disingenuous.

[DonkSlayer 1]

True. Vb & I got off on a tangentYou may have missed a couple of posts from before, but marriage predates Christianity. It wasn't a religous instituition nor was it restricted to hetrosexual couples.For Christianity, any other religion, or religion as a whole to claim as part of their 'institution' is disingenuous.

I think you're a little jaded from the posts before. Did you notice that I said "religious" and not "Christian"?

[copernicus 0]

marriage is a social response to the evolutionary need for the male to stick around with the family until the kids can fend for themselves. As such its an outdated institution, since social structures have been built that succesfully protect and nuture children in the absence of a father.Or not.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think you're a little jaded from the posts before. Did you notice that I said "religious" and not "Christian"?

It wasn't originally a religious institution. It was a civil issue in Greece + Rome.

[vbnautilus 48]

marriage is a social response to the evolutionary need for the male to stick around with the family until the kids can fend for themselves. As such its an outdated institution, since social structures have been built that succesfully protect and nuture children in the absence of a father.Or not.

Totally agree. The prevalence of monogamous relationships in nature correlates with the amount of energy required for childcare across species.

[DonkSlayer 1]

It wasn't originally a religious institution. It was a civil issue in Greece + Rome.

It was also a civil issue there, but read a book on Roman culture please...the ceremony was very spiritual.

[vbnautilus 48]

It was also a civil issue there, but read a book on Roman culture please...the ceremony was very spiritual.

Granted, but the point is that this isn't something the government has co-opted from religion. As cop pointed out, it is born of a natural purpose and we recognize it at various levels of our society.

[KramitDaToad 0]

I think you're a little jaded from the posts before. Did you notice that I said "religious" and not "Christian"?

For Christianity, any other religion, or religion as a whole to claim as part of their 'institution' is disingenuous.

I understand that, and yes the specific mentioning of Christianity is in context with with the rest of the thread where some Christians seem to be under the illusion that marriage is solely a Christian thing

[checkymcfold 0]

i'm pretty wasted so this may be typed incorrectly, but the gist of it is correct:in rat populations of sufficient size, 20% of the population has homosexual intercourse regularly. is this sufficiently "natural"?i also don't think that it should so much matter if it's a choice or genetic whether one does dudes or chicks, or butts or vajayjays.

[akoff 0]

in rat populations of sufficient size, 20% of the population has homosexual intercourse regularly. is this sufficiently "natural"?

Hmmmm....enough said on this one.

[vbnautilus 48]

i'm pretty wasted so this may be typed incorrectly, but the gist of it is correct:in rat populations of sufficient size, 20% of the population has homosexual intercourse regularly. is this sufficiently "natural"?i also don't think that it should so much matter if it's a choice or genetic whether one does dudes or chicks, or butts or vajayjays.

It depends upon the conditions. Having sex with a member of the same sex is not the same as having a gay identity. The behavior in overcrowded rats is more akin to what happens in prison than it is an appropriate analogy for gay people who want to get married.

[Loismustdie 0]

I understand that, and yes the specific mentioning of Christianity is in context with with the rest of the thread where some Christians seem to be under the illusion that marriage is solely a Christian thing

This isn't true. I said a few things without specifying so you assumed that. I don't think anyone has called it that. Watch your biases my friend.

[blakheart 3]

For Nutz and those who do not like the word marriage being used for gay people, I think the issue is that to you marriage represents an image. I would suggest that the traditional view of marriage that you have in your mind is already severly damaged.I have deep religious convictions and I have a strong sense of what a "christian marriage" means. I teach my children about the importance of christian marriage. I have changed the word marriage in my household when talking about a specific subgroup of marriages to christian marriages.I have no problem with Gay people getting married. I think society would be better if we could go back to ozzie and harriet in some ways, but that ship has sailed. It is probably best for kids to have a mom and a dad, and have mom stay home and be there for the kids every day after school with a glass of milk. But that aint gonna happen.If you have an issue with gay marriage, then you should also have an issue with the high rate of divorce, unwed mothers and other "attacks" on marriage. But we will not make any laws against unwed parents or divorce in this country. Are not these actions more directly problematic then gay marriage? I would suggest that actions like divorce and children being born out of wedlock are clearly choices. Yet we have no laws against those choices.

[uncooper 1]

If the goal of gays is to have legal marriage, there is a better and faster way of accomplishing it. Going "in your face" with straight people is belligerent and counter-productive. The answer is to pursue the goal of making civil unions legally and financially identical to marriage, and letting some time pass. Once civil unions that are identical to marriages exist for a decade or two, religious types will be forced to observe that society did not end. Family life did not end. Marriage rates did not change. Their primary argument, already referenced as the "slippery slope fallacy" will be observed as false. It will then be easier to dissolve the semantical distinction and the term "marriage" can be applied to everyone. These things are best accomplished through incrementalism rather than revolution.

While I understand that you are being sincere and practical in this point, there is a major flaw to this thinking. The idea of "separate but equal" rights inherently suggests that one group is inferior to the other. Therefore, by aiming for civil unions instead of pushing the marriage issue, gay people would not only be prolonging the struggle for equal rights (your "incrementalism"), but it would represent an unspoken notion that homosexuals are inferior, which would lead to further discrimination.I like what a number of people in this thread have proposed: that the government should define civil unions for legal purposes, and not marriage. That way nutzbuster can define marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman or whatever, and I can define it as an unholy union between a spoon and a pterodactyl if I feel like it.

[vbnautilus 48]

While I understand that you are being sincere and practical in this point, there is a major flaw to this thinking. The idea of "separate but equal" rights inherently suggests that one group is inferior to the other. Therefore, by aiming for civil unions instead of pushing the marriage issue, gay people would not only be prolonging the struggle for equal rights (your "incrementalism"), but it would represent an unspoken notion that homosexuals are inferior, which would lead to further discrimination.

Just a small quibble: in this case what is being suggested by the law is that one kind of relationship is inferior to the other, not that one kind of person is inferior to the other. It's not an unspoken notion, it's an explicit one: that the relationship between man and woman is sanctioned as the unit of family in a way that gay relationships are not.

[uncooper 1]

Just a small quibble: in this case what is being suggested by the law is that one kind of relationship is inferior to the other, not that one kind of person is inferior to the other.

It's late and I'm having trouble seeing how this distinction is significant. Can you explain a bit further?

[vbnautilus 48]

It's late and I'm having trouble seeing how this distinction is significant. Can you explain a bit further?

Well for instance, all men do have the equal right to marry a woman (regardless of their sexual orientation!). So there is technically no legal discrimination based on the group you are in, the law discriminates between the type of relationship that is sanctioned. A gay man can actually get married anywhere -- just not to another man. A straight man can't marry a man either (e.g. to get his friend citizenship).