Non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage

[LunarRay]

1.) Can you please explain how demanding public recognition of your relationship has anything to do with privacy?

2.) Explain why abortion ceases being a private act in the 2nd trimester?

I am regurgitating what SCOTUS said. Their rationalization is found in the case or cases they cite. I may or may not use the same words to form the same opinion... Privacy apparently has to do with a wide breadth of issues. You seem to grasp Privacy and limit to closing a bathroom door... for instance... I simply accept that in Law it means more than I'd usually use in every day conversation... Law is a language of its own.

2nd Trimester is the barrier their opinion chose... Roe spells it out.

I think when you actually sit and read specific cases, and especially Constitutional Law, you'd be amazed at some of the linkage Stare Decisis provides to adopt positions seemingly contrary to Stare Decisis.

 

[cybrsage]

Not sure your meaning of the first and second... but the point I understand.

The first of the two listed items I quoted and the second. Sorry if I was not clear.

I, legally, believe a fetus becomes a citizen - a human being - when it becomes viable... can survive without the mother... each case is different and requires an expert opinion for each...

AFAIK, legally the unborn become citizens and human beings upon birth. Things are aways in flux, so I am not positive this is still true.

I, personally, believe that upon conception a human has been created and abortion terminates that situation...

I place it at the point where the human attaches to the wall of the uterous and nature says it will be born in a few months. Your position is more conservative than mine.

 

[LunarRay]

The first of the two listed items I quoted and the second. Sorry if I was not clear.



AFAIK, legally the unborn become citizens and human beings upon birth. Things are aways in flux, so I am not positive this is still true.



I place it at the point where the human attaches to the wall of the uterous and nature says it will be born in a few months. Your position is more conservative than mine.

Yeah... I would defer to your attachment consideration and adopt that as mine as well...

Regarding the legal issue... I have always separated the issues into my religious belief and the fact that I can't apply that to the laws of the Nation. IOW, the god of society is the SCOTUS and the prophets are the legislators and the President... he is the Archangel ready to smite you if you don't obey...

 

[cybrsage]

Agreed, and quite an interesting way to view the government.

That is why when I discuss the Catholic Church and birth control, I always make sure I mention it is from the POV of the Catholic Church. My views on it are quite different.

 

[nehalem256]

I am regurgitating what SCOTUS said. Their rationalization is found in the case or cases they cite. I may or may not use the same words to form the same opinion... Privacy apparently has to do with a wide breadth of issues. You seem to grasp Privacy and limit to closing a bathroom door... for instance... I simply accept that in Law it means more than I'd usually use in every day conversation... Law is a language of its own.

No I limit privacy not to include things where you specifically ask government/society to be part of your life. That is the very opposite of any sane definition of privacy.

 

[nehalem256]

I, personally, believe that upon conception a human has been created and abortion terminates that situation...

So, which 'bible' do I apply?... Well... the Constitution when it involves others and my belief in God when it concerns me.

If a constitutional amendment were proposed that changed the constitutional definition of a human to match your belief would you support it?

 

[LunarRay]

If a constitutional amendment were proposed that changed the constitutional definition of a human to match your belief would you support it?

If Society changes the word of their god... the Constitution, I will abide by and defend it...

The legislature votes on that issue and I'm for expansion of Rights so would not oppose it... for society... even if they said they wanted to make an amendment so far out to be obsurd... as I see it... my letter to my legislator would contain what relevant scientific facts I might want him to consider... but my religious view is for me and my God..

No one can change the word of My God...but God.

 

[LunarRay]

No I limit privacy not to include things where you specifically ask government/society to be part of your life. That is the very opposite of any sane definition of privacy.

Forget what you consider Privacy and when you speak to the Constitution use the language they use... They call what they do Privacy... So you should too. How can we debate the greater issue on the choice of words they use or we use... we know what they mean... and it is the law.

Marriage and abortion is under the umbrella Privacy... Use Black's dictionary if you want... I've a few copies here to help...

 

[soulcougher73]

LunarRay im proud as an Agnostic Athiest that you are able to separate your God/religion from politics. Its a rare thing to see in this forum and i commend you for it It is refreshing to see a level headed religious (Christian?) person here.

 

[LunarRay]

LunarRay im proud as an Agnostic Athiest that you are able to separate your God/religion from politics. Its a rare thing to see in this forum and i commend you for it It is refreshing to see a level headed religious (Christian?) person here.

Christian from Catholic background.

My position is self serving actually. I preserve my rights by insuring that your rights are maintained.

Folks who seek to push their rights or belief at the expense of another have yet to live where rights are provided by the majority...
My family are Irish and Catholic... and Armagh is home for many and they are still second class citizens because they are Catholic... Imagine that... The civilized nation where what your religion is dictates your rights... and it has been that way since well... quite some time.. Henry VIII I suppose started it all.
The same mind set would seek to push the Baptist's religion not only to your front porch but into your home and bedroom... That notion brings with it the same activity... eventually... as in the Streets of Belfast not so long ago.

 

[lopri]

Only a fool would say that same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are the same. How could they be, when men and women are intrinsically different from one another..

You see, that's the gist of your argument/confusion. And believe it or not, your argument is a very religious one. It's also why those who are against same-sex marriage are also against the equal-rights amendment. See below:

What is the "intrinsic" difference between men and women?

 

[nehalem256]

You see, that's the gist of your argument/confusion. And believe it or not, your argument is a very religious one. It's also why those who are against same-sex marriage are also against the equal-rights amendment. See below:

What is the "intrinsic" difference between men and women?

Somebody had an abstinence-only sex ed class :awe:

 

[Zebo]

My beef is it's two consenting adults and doesn't bother me in slightest what relationship they have with one another. I generally have a mind your own business approach to life because it's a lot of business to mind - rather than worried about what others do - unless it's harming someone.

One could make a procreation argument as necessary to care for our elders and carried out to extremes as very survival of species. But other than that all the other secular arguments against homo marriage are busy body shit and bigotry.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

My beef is it's two consenting adults and doesn't bother me in slightest what relationship they have with one another. I generally have a mind your own business approach to life because it's a lot of business to mind - rather than worried about what others do - unless it's harming someone.

One could make a procreation argument as necessary to care for our elders and carried out to extremes as very survival of species. But other than that all the other secular arguments against homo marriage are busy body shit and bigotry.

Quoted for truth. Another interesting footnote is that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomena in the animal kingdom with 15% of each species practicing on average. Sadly, animals seem to be much more accepting of it than us supposedly highly evolved humans. It's pathetic really.

If they would rather molest each other than some kid then more power to them. We should be applauding these people instead of closetting them even further which, as we've seen in the Catholic Church, only makes things worse.

-A married man in Georgia

 

[Sunburn74]

You see, that's the gist of your argument/confusion. And believe it or not, your argument is a very religious one. It's also why those who are against same-sex marriage are also against the equal-rights amendment. See below:

What is the "intrinsic" difference between men and women?

Excellent post.

What constitutes a marriage is highly variable between ages in time and between societies. The belief that today's marriages are the only possible option is very shortsighted.

Marriage is predominantly a religious institution (as proof, consider that for essentially all of western history, marriage licenses were granted by the Church. In the United states, marriage licenses weren't really in use until about the 19th century where they were mostly a form of prevention of interracial marriage. Nowadays I reckon they mostly exist as an additional stream of income to governments) The catholics consider it to be a sacrament. Why are states in the business of regulating religious practices? Should they tax and hand out licenses to take communion as well?

 

[Incorruptible]

What people should be really worried about is the Liberal/Gay agenda

 

[Pr0d1gy]

What people should be really worried about is the Liberal/Gay agenda

Why?

 

[Sunburn74]

One could make a procreation argument as necessary to care for our elders and carried out to extremes as very survival of species. But other than that all the other secular arguments against homo marriage are busy body shit and bigotry.

Gays are usually <10 percent of a population and don't reproduce, regardless of marriage. If everyone was gay, we wouldn't be having this discussion (gay marriage would already be in place and procreation and survival of the species could still occur with in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers and etc).

Homosexuality is really interesting to think about though as a genotype because if you assume its genetic, it kind of defies the whole natural selection theory.

 

[soulcougher73]

What people should be really worried about is the Liberal/Gay agenda

Wow, what insight. Did you come up with this theory all by yourself?

 

[nehalem256]

Gays are usually <10 percent of a population and don't reproduce, regardless of marriage. If everyone was gay, we wouldn't be having this discussion (gay marriage would already be in place and procreation and survival of the species could still occur with in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers and etc).

Homosexuality is really interesting to think about though as a genotype because if you assume its genetic, it kind of defies the whole natural selection theory.

I recall reading that it was ~4% for LGBT, with around 0.1% Transgender and 2% being Bi-sexual.

 

[fskimospy]

Gays are usually <10 percent of a population and don't reproduce, regardless of marriage. If everyone was gay, we wouldn't be having this discussion (gay marriage would already be in place and procreation and survival of the species could still occur with in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers and etc).

Homosexuality is really interesting to think about though as a genotype because if you assume its genetic, it kind of defies the whole natural selection theory.

There's a fair amount of research done about this as it is a very interesting problem. First, we know homosexuality is not entirely genetic. There are identical twins where one is gay and the other is not. That being said, it appears to have a very strong biological component. (the odds of those identical twins both being gay are extremely high) If I remember correctly, the current best guess is that a gay component to the population would decrease competition for mates while still providing the benefits of a large population. But... it's just a guess.

 

[OrByte]

I think the OP bailed.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I think the OP bailed.

Of course he did, just like the other idiot never answered my WHY? question about his liberal/gay agenda post.

 

[crashtestdummy]

There's a fair amount of research done about this as it is a very interesting problem. First, we know homosexuality is not entirely genetic. There are identical twins where one is gay and the other is not. That being said, it appears to have a very strong biological component. (the odds of those identical twins both being gay are extremely high) If I remember correctly, the current best guess is that a gay component to the population would decrease competition for mates while still providing the benefits of a large population. But... it's just a guess.

I've always seen it as a side effect of the need to make humans intensely sexual. Human sexuality is incredibly complicated. Wiring someone to be strongly attracted to a specific specific set of features, personalities, and phermones is a non-trivial endeavor, even with a billion years of evolution behind it. As you said, it's unlikely that there is a single "gay gene". It is likely a mix of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that decide sexual orientation. It might have been possible, for example, to reduce the number of homosexual members of our species, but at the price of making us less interested as a whole in reproduction.

Of course there are also inherent biological advantages to bisexual behavior as well, which is why you see a very high rate of it in many animal species.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Why would we need to reduce the number of homosexual members of our species? So you are basically saying that a monkey is more evolved in it's views and ideology than you are?