[quote=Zeta-Flux;135004]I disagree. I disagree vehemently.
...
You chose to have a partner. You choose to continue to remain with said partner, despite biological programming to distribute DNA.[/quote]
You're quite right. I could have chosen to deny my feelings. It could have been so simple, too. I could have married and had children. Studied theology and devoted my life to God. Started a church and preached continually about the evils of homosexuality. Campaigned successfully for a change in the constitution of my state so that homosexuals would never be allowed to marry. What a missed opportunity.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard[/URL]

I guess this shows that I'm at a loss now about how to argue constructively with you. I'm not going to change your attitude, Zeta-Flux, I can see that. But I'm just not prepared to let you have the last word if that involves insulting my 22-year relationship with the man I love.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135029]But I'm just not prepared to let you have the last word if that involves insulting my 22-year relationship with the man I love.[/QUOTE]How is pointing out that you are choosing your relationship, and not forced into it, an insult??:confused:

The underlying questions here are profound

1. should gay marriage be legal?
2. should gay partners be permitted to adopt children just like married couples?
3. Can an acknowledged homosexual person teach in a school?
4. Should right of survivorship be extended to homosexual relationships? (Inherit property)
5. Can a lesbian couple have children via AI and retain parental rights in the event one dies?
etc.


The original definition of marriage is between a man and a woman for mutual benefit and to provide for the security of their children. This can be described as two equals with different responsibilities who share a common goal and provide for their children.

I cannot apply the word marriage to a homosexual union.

DarJones

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;135035]The underlying questions here are profound

1. should gay marriage be legal?
2. should gay partners be permitted to adopt children just like married couples?
3. Can an acknowledged homosexual person teach in a school?
4. Should right of survivorship be extended to homosexual relationships? (Inherit property)
5. Can a lesbian couple have children via AI and retain parental rights in the event one dies?
etc.


The original definition of marriage is between a man and a woman for mutual benefit and to provide for the security of their children. This can be described as two equals with different responsibilities who share a common goal and provide for their children.

I cannot apply the word marriage to a homosexual union.

DarJones[/QUOTE]

I on the other hand think that once we stop making distinctions about all these categories of union and just accept that people form decently successful pair bonds into unions we will be a lot happier. I actually dislike that we classify relationships on sexual distinctions and activities at all. I have been in a long term heterosexual relationship for over 10 years but sex isn't a primary focus at all. Rather in our case we support each other and deal with some medical and psychological issues. She is twice over a survivor after suicide and has the ongoing physical problems involving neuropathology, amputation, vision problems and care needs of a middle aged type I diabetic since childhood. I have had ulcerative colitis for over 10 years (we met at a hospital) and chronic depression with a direct familial connection to a severe bipolar disorder. We spend much of our time cooperating and dealing with our mutual problems. That, and love are the basis of our relationship.

These days with science and medicine, the distinctions become more pointless all the time. I remember in high school in the 70s discussing an ectopic pregnancy in biology class. The woman involved had received a full hysterectomy but nevertheless was pregnant and delivered a full term baby through cesarean section. This baby had formed a placental blood supply connection near the colon. It was clear to me that the fundamentals of her sex in that pregnancy were original egg provision, hormonal blood supply, and the physiological differences of being a woman. I have heard of other cases since that time. So medically this is very suggestive to me that having a male nurture and deliver a baby is not some drastic reach.

I feel that getting past all these couple distinctions is the act that actually gets us past them. It sounds like an empty tautology, but I don't think it is.

[quote=only_human;135039]I on the other hand think that once we stop making distinctions about all these categories of union and just accept that people form decently successful pair bonds into unions we will be a lot happier. I actually dislike that we classify relationships on sexual distinctions and activities at all. I have been in a long term heterosexual relationship for over 10 years but sex isn't a primary focus at all. Rather in our case we support each other and deal with some medical and psychological issues. She is twice over a survivor after suicide and has the ongoing physical problems involving neuropathology, amputation, vision problems and care needs of a middle aged type I diabetic since childhood. I have had ulcerative colitis for over 10 years (we met at a hospital) and chronic depression with a direct familial connection to a severe bipolar disorder. We spend much of our time cooperating and dealing with our mutual problems. That, and love are the basis of our relationship.

These days with science and medicine, the distinctions become more pointless all the time. I remember in high school in the 70s discussing an ectopic pregnancy in biology class. The woman involved had received a full hysterectomy but nevertheless was pregnant and delivered a full term baby through cesarean section. This baby had formed a placental blood supply connection near the colon. It was clear to me that the fundamentals of her sex in that pregnancy were original egg provision, hormonal blood supply, and the physiological differences of being a woman. I have heard of other cases since that time. So medically this is very suggestive to me that having a male nurture and deliver a baby is not some drastic reach.

I feel that getting past all these couple distinctions is the act that actually gets us past them. It sounds like an empty tautology, but I don't think it is.[/quote]
This is a position which I support completely. The categorisation of types of pair bonding, with male-female with child-bearing intentions as the top ideal and a horrific sliding scale of others, is something which belongs more in the Dark Ages than in our supposedly enlightened modern world. I don't quite dare to challenge Zeta-Flux to pass judgment on your relationship with your wife saying that you and she chose to enter a marriage which was not based on producing and rearing children despite your biological programming to distribute your DNA and then claiming that he isn't insulting you, but I can't resist noting the parallel.

However, having given my wholehearted approval to your ideal of a system where people and relationships are not categorised, I still feel that we have to deal with the concerns - no matter how unfounded and based on ignorance or bigotry - of the opponents of gay marriage and other marriage forms between human beings if we are to sway their opinions. And in that I shall answer DarJones briefly:

[quote=Fusion_power;135035]1.should gay marriage be legal?[/quote]Yes. It already is in many places. No problems have been encountered by the countries which have taken the step of widening the definition of marriage.
[quote]2.should gay partners be permitted to adopt children just like married couples?[/quote]Yes, according to all studies carried out on the subject (and please see my posting #44 in this thread and subsequent discussion around that time), gay couples make excellent parents. Ideally we need to open marriage to same sex partners so that the stability of the marriage union can be used to guarantee the stability of the family unit for the sake of the children. By the way, here is an interesting article about new research into same-sex parenting in Canada and the response of the Canadian governent which seems to have a bigoted agenda: [URL]http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/PDH090507.htm[/URL]
[quote]3.Can an acknowledged homosexual person teach in a school?[/quote]Of course. What on Earth are you getting at? If you think there is or may be a link between homosexuality and child abuse then let's see the documented evidence. Don't bother looking, you won't find it anywhere.
[quote]4.Should right of survivorship be extended to homosexual relationships? (Inherit property)[/quote] I should hope so. Why not open marriage to make this easier for the people involved?
[quote]5.Can a lesbian couple have children via AI and retain parental rights in the event one dies?[/quote]I hope so, the loss of one parent through death should not be made more tragic by the loss of the other through legal difficulties. Again, the marriage union makes this sort of vitally important legal issue much easier.
[quote]I cannot apply the word marriage to a homosexual union.[/quote]You are evidently not alone in thinking that way. But unlike some others, the only argument which you have expressed justifying your position concerns a "definition" of marriage...[quote] The original definition of marriage is between a man and a woman for mutual benefit and to provide for the security of their children. This can be described as two equals with different responsibilities who share a common goal and provide for their children.[/quote]...Must time stand still? Can't we alter our original definitions in the light of new understanding? Look at other areas of the world where same sex partners are now on equal terms and can marry. Canada, for example. Or The Netherlands. Or Spain, Belgium, South Africa. What is wrong there? Why do you think these precedents don't nullify the fears of people who think gay couples should not be allowed to marry? I think the burden of proof should be on you on this issue, and hiding behind a "strict definition" of marriage is not good enough.

I think perhaps you have your shoes on the wrong feet brian-e. Go back to the original question. Should gay marriage be legal. The 'burden of proof' is not on me. It is on you. All you have offered up so far is a bunch of statements that it is legal in some countries and complaints to the effect that it is so unfair for other countries to restrict marriage only to heterosexual unions. So you bear the burden of proof. Prove why homosexuals should have the benefits of marriage.

Make no mistake, life IS unfair!

DarJones

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;135067]I think perhaps you have your shoes on the wrong feet brian-e. Go back to the original question. Should gay marriage be legal. The 'burden of proof' is not on me. It is on you. All you have offered up so far is a bunch of statements that it is legal in some countries and complaints to the effect that it is so unfair for other countries to restrict marriage only to heterosexual unions. So you bear the burden of proof. Prove why homosexuals should have the benefits of marriage.

Make no mistake, life IS unfair!

DarJones[/QUOTE]

On the contrary. The burden of proof is on you.

The default assumption in the U.S. is that everyone should have equal
rights. Go read the 14th amendment.

If you believe that homosexuals should not have the same rights
as heterosexuals, then it is YOU who must give a valid reason for the denial
of those rights.

As I have previously stated Bob, I don't see any right for the government to legislate morality. To me, this is a case where individual responsibility applies. The government should not even attempt to define marriage. I am completely ambivalent about the actions of two people in the privacy of their own home, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It is their own responsibility.

What does bother me is the very obvious effort to 'redefine' the meaning and purpose of marriage. You have your view, I have mine. In the end, neither of us could convince the other to change. I understand your reasoning, but disagree with it.

I suggest you read the 14th amendment in its entirety. In the end, it does not guarantee the right to equal treatment, it only guarantees that no state government has the right to abridge the rights of individuals without due process of law. It does not preclude the US Congress from doing so nor does it stop states from doing so if done in the context of a law. Consider the 2nd amendment that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Laws have been passed that disenfranchise a significant number of people from being able to own guns. The courts have always held that the Bill of Rights is about Rights and that congress has the authority to restrict them.

DarJones

[QUOTE]I don't quite dare to challenge Zeta-Flux to pass judgment on your relationship with your wife saying that you and she chose to enter a marriage which was not based on producing and rearing children despite your biological programming to distribute your DNA and then claiming that he isn't insulting you, but I can't resist noting the parallel.
[/QUOTE]

Brian-E, did you completely misread what I wrote????! Every normal human has compulsions to procreate. It isn't insulting to point this out, and it is the [i]antithesis[/i] of insulting to point out that someone is putting said programming under their control. Please stop pretending that the comment was insulting. It is your comments, with regards to having no choice in your lifestyle, that are the insulting ones.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135029]You're quite right. I could have chosen to deny my feelings.[/quote]You could. Or you could acknowledge them. Or you could try to change them. Or you could revel in them. Or...etc...

[quote]It could have been so simple, too.[/quote]I doubt that. Some of those choices above would be quite difficult.

[quote]I could have married and had children.[/quote]Probably not a good idea, but you could have, yes. Or you could have been celibate. Or you could have had multiple gay partners. Or...etc...

[quote]Studied theology and devoted my life to God. Started a church and preached continually about the evils of homosexuality.[/quote]Or studied theology and preached for acceptance of homosexuality. Or studied theology and preached against God. Or...etc...

My point is that you had choice. I don't think those things you suggested you could have done are the best options. But they were options.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;135084]Brian-E, did you completely misread what I wrote????! Every normal human has compulsions to procreate. It isn't insulting to point this out, and it is the [i]antithesis[/i] of insulting to point out that someone is putting said programming under their control. Please stop pretending that the comment was insulting. It is your comments, with regards to having no choice in your lifestyle, that are the insulting ones.[/QUOTE]This is the lowest flame bulletin board for such socially charged issues to which I have ever had the privilege to contribute. In my early participation I'd misread the intent and focus of some messages to me. Messages are stripped of paralinguistic or other contextual cues and can lead to unintentional misunderstandings. One thing that helps me is to consider that a quote of something I say is often a topic marker in the Japanese language sense and not necessarily an attack on a point.

Back to the topic, I would say that drilling down to the specific impulses and wiring of individuals, although useful for some purposes, misses the target that this is about rules and and roles of society and not any more narrow focus. Much of a coral reef is not found in the specific nature of the core organisms but rather in the interaction of the whole. These rules and roles of society are what this is all about and religion, government, individual people, organized groups, group-think, the expression of the people's will in ballot initiatives and the opinions and attention from the fourth estate all have valid and vital places in the process. It is when we break our compacts with the rules of society that the worst behaviors emerge.