Hey, I say let 'em do what they want. They'll find a way to anyway, so why not just let them legally?

okay so I know this doesn't really need to be revived but I wanted to put this link somewhere I'd remember it, and the 'un-natural' argument comes up all the time in homosexual debate here.

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1288633.ece">homosexual behaviour in animals</a>

Article by the Times.

Same as Helen, this link needed to go somewhere.

California Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage.

The minority report's argument is idiotic. The court's decision wasn't a social policy; it was an interpretation of the state constitution. It is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret that, not the public. Further, the public had - twice - passed legislature that legalized marriage for same-sex couples.

Not exactly. Back in '01 I think, the public voted and banned gay marriages. The California state legislature voted twice to allow gay marriages, but Arnie vetoed them.

Also, since the public is governed by the constitution, shouldn't the public be able to interpret it?

No. Checks and balances. Also, what was the vote back in 2001? Was it a public referendum?

More like mob rule.

In November there's already a measure to ban it. I never once saw a petition or ever met an anti-gay rights activist. I don't know where these people are, but apparently they always can get a measure on the ballot.

You know what let them be married and have the rings. They just want to be able to put the person that they're with on their insurance and simple things like that. They already live like married people so let them have the same rights as the heteros.

H.G. Wells makes an interesting point in his Modern Utopia (i keep refering to it cos it is ace) about the benifits of marrige being for the benifit of the children of the union, not the couple directly. As such in a relationship with no possibility of progeny the greater social point of marrige is removed, and with it any benifit (to the larger society) in the state allowing said couple said benifits.

Scotland brought it in a few years ago.

It proved that nobody actually cared about this particular issue outside the ultraconservative, christian western isles. And these people were safely ignored as a bunch of Lunatic Rednecks.

So Homosexuals of the world unite! Come to Scotland, get married in a legally binding way and spend your tourist dollar.

Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?





Sheep can hear zippers.

Which completely neglects the possibility of adoption, or that gay marriage might have any other social benefit.

Point being that if you quote an antiquated author, you get an antiquated argument.

In anthropology, marriage through out the world defines the children of that union identities. Just because marriage is capable of benefiting children of that union, doesn't mean gays should be excluded. It would also apply to childless couples. So if a marriage doesn't produce children in a number of years, it needs to be dissolved?


The ancient Germans used to kill homosexuals. My guess, is because survival and offspring were of the utmost importance, they had to eliminate burdens that would have put in jeopardy the survival of the tribe. I can see banning gay marriages in a post-nuclear apocalyptic America, in which the population was reduced so much that any males that don't or can't produce offspring, are banished as they are a burden to the community unless they had a special skill vital to the survival of the community. However, in modern overweight America, there's no such need for harsh measures such as that.

So the elderly shouldn't be allowed to get or stay married, and couples in which either partner is biologically unable to produce children should be disallowed.

Cool.

June 16, is known as Fag Day.

It helps to have a gay education when arguing about these things.

buggery is clearly a choice and god will send his wrath upon you all.

it does.

The possibility of addoption is still an iffy one.
that was the position. By no means did it condemn monogamy, it just failed to see why people should get legal benifits unless there were children involved, and frankly it's still a valid point.

Sid: I think a better solution would concern only providing state benefits for children, taking the emphasis off marriage and paying up for only the desired effects. Unless of course its cheaper to do this by who is married.

I don't really see why there should be any benefits for just being married to someone. Assuming this is fixed there is no reason not to let certain couples get married.

Not at all. It is benificial for society for the parents of children to be maried. I pulled up the figures on child poverty linked to marital state of parents last time this came up.

How so? And what about IVF?



As long as you're consistent, I guess, though marriage, at least in the United States confers more than tax breaks. There's power-of-attorney, the right to visit in the hospital (in certain situations), matters of inheritance and, if children are indeed involved, custody problems (my understand is that it's incredibly difficult to write up something ironclad that says Person X gets custody in the case of Person Y's death that couldn't be overriden by one of Y's family members, unless they're legally married).

It's still inconclusive as to how liukely a same sex couple are to be able to provide a healthy upbringing. Until it's shown (not just assumed, because to do anything else is discriminatory) that same sex couples are just as capable of providing a rounded, healthy upbrininging, and this includes secondary factors such as peer perception, then the idea of gays bringing up children is iffy.

As far as IVF goes, in same sex couples it't a way on increasing one's chance of haivng a kid. Nothin more, nothing less. Why would there be a problem.

In homosexuals it has the same issues as adoption.

I believe that the whole gay marrage thing is more to do with inheritance and financial rights than it is to do with procreation.

Adoption is in effect a whole seperate issue, as any adopting couple need to demonstrate capability to bring up the kid successfully. Which is a footnote in the whole marrage thing.

Marrage helps but won't be essential.

If they arn't predatory what's the problem?

The anti-gay marriage groups, mostly religious, believe that marriage is sacred and to let men marry would be a sin and ruin the sanctity of their own marriages. In other words, they need to mind their own business. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one.

We need to stop using the word marriage except in reference to religion. The government ought to be in the business of (among other things) civil unions. Churches are in the business of marriages (among other things). Period. If you are a gay couple and wish to be afforded all of the legal rights and benefits of a civil union, get thee to a JP. If you wish to be married, well you'll have to take that up with your particular denomination of religion. The government doesn't have any right to tell churches who they must and must not marry. Marriage, in most religions, refers to a specific sacrament with specific rules and laws and as much as many of us, myself included, think that they are being stick headed and retarded when it comes to homosexuals, gay people don't have to go to church.

/Rant. I hate the semantics of it too, but Jesus Christ, it's really that simple.