Or maybe: "married, but denied even the most basic rights that most married couples enjoy such as the right to live in the same country as each other".

Some individual stories such as [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/08/11/san-francisco-married-gay-couple-lose-immigration-case"]this one[/URL] really bring home that the issue of federal recognition of marriage for same sex couples can have enormous implications on people's lives.
[QUOTE]A married gay couple in San Francisco who have lived together for nearly 20 years have been told that one must leave the US by August 25th.[/QUOTE]

I don't know whether this is relevant to the current discussion, but I found it interesting nonetheless: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14479670[/url]

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;269140]I don't know whether this is relevant to the current discussion, but I found it interesting nonetheless: [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14479670[/URL]

Paul[/QUOTE]
Yes, these are interesting results. There have of course been various documented same-sex pairings amongst animals and birds in recent decades, but I haven't come across such a detailed study of the subject as this before. Thanks for the link.

I would also be very interested in any study into whether these birds in same sex bonds are more likely than other individuals or pairs to be ostracised (or even attacked) by other members of their species: in other words, is the widespread human antagonism towards same sex relations also driven by natural processes which are not unique to humans?

The relevance of the study to this discussion is, I suppose, that it provides evidence against some of the arguments used by opponents of same sex marriage: especially, I think, it challenges the argument that life-long bonding, and hence marriage, should be exclusively for the purpose of producing and raising the biological offspring of the two partners.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;269155] I think, it challenges the argument that life-long bonding, and hence marriage, should be exclusively for the purpose of producing and raising the biological offspring of the two partners.[/QUOTE]

This part of the "no gay marriage" argument does not [b]need[/b]
challenging. It is clear that marriage is not for "the purpose of producing and raising the biological offspring of the two partners". Otherwise infertile
couples or couples too old to have children would not be allowed to marry
either.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;269155]The relevance of the study to this discussion is, I suppose, that it provides evidence against some of the arguments used by opponents of same sex marriage: especially, I think, it challenges the argument that life-long bonding, and hence marriage, should be exclusively for the purpose of producing and raising the biological offspring of the two partners.[/QUOTE]There are a number of implicit assumptions in your post that I just don't think logically follow. Let me spell out some issues I think are important to keep in mind.

First, biological pressures in other species don't need to be present in humans. And even when they are, that does not mean that they are necessarily socially or morally acceptable. Here is a short list of mating strategies and other behaviors that give examples:
[LIST=1][*]Eating one's mate to provide sustenance for the young.[*]Mating with as many females as possible to spread one's genetic material. This may be accompanied by rape behaviors.[*]Killing the children of competing males to prevent the spread of their genetics.[*]Cross species courtship.[*]Changing one's gender when one of the genders is missing.[/LIST]
Note that some of the more disgusting strategies here arise in mammals, as opposed to birds, which are closer to us.

Second, aspects of some "life-long bonding" relationships are not necessarily parts of marriage, and vice versa. Friendships, for example, can be life-long and bonding. But that doesn't make them identical to marriages. The fact that friendships have nothing to do with the creation of children is irrelevant to the connection between marriage and child creation.

Third, marriages are about more than being life-long and bonding. To those against changing the definition of marriage, those two traits are not definitional.

Fourth, I agree with Silverman that marriage is not "exclusively for the purpose of producing and raising the biological offspring". Rather, in the context of this discussion, the [i]social[/i] reasons for marriage are tied to the [i]act[/i] of coitus, whether or not it ends in the creation of children. That in some species of birds some of the population does not choose to join in coitus is pretty far removed from the question of whether the social institution of marriage among humans deals with legal issues surrounding coitus.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;269648]There are a number of implicit assumptions in your post that I just don't think logically follow. Let me spell out some issues I think are important to keep in mind.[/QUOTE]
The fact that different species behave differently and have different social norms is obviously correct. My interest in the study linked by Paul was to wonder about previously unsuspected similarities, amidst all the long-established differences, between humans and other animals that may be driven by as yet poorly understood natural processes. No-one is suggesting that zebra-finches or any other species might form a blueprint for human behaviour, but we could possibly understand parts of human nature better by looking at the natural world and searching for new previously unsuspected natural engines which make us behave the way we do as a species. Our social and legal constructs may need altering to accommodate our nature, and that is the relevance to this discussion.

You and I in full agreement that marriage is more than about being lifelong and bonding in the way that strong friendships are. We differ, I think, in our judgment of whether being of opposite sex is, or should be, a defining characteristic of a couple who are suited for marriage.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;269648]
<snip>[LIST=1][*]Eating one's mate to provide sustenance for the young.[*]Mating with as many females as possible to spread one's genetic material. This may be accompanied by rape behaviors.[*]Killing the children of competing males to prevent the spread of their genetics.[*]Cross species courtship.[*]Changing one's gender when one of the genders is missing.[/LIST]
Note that some of the more disgusting strategies here arise in mammals, as opposed to birds, which are closer to us.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you *really* meant to imply birds are closer to humans than mammals:grin:

Notice, here, you are dripping with moral judgement and stress......yet these things happen in nature, and are facts.

Eating one's mate is something that spiders do, and it gives the little spiderlings a better chance...so it's an act of altruism.

Mating with as many females as possible is, at best, freeloading, and at worst, rape, in the context of humanity where children will take many years to become adults. Raping enemy women is well-known wartime behavior. But we don't seem to have a big problem when it's called a harem and it's an arabian prince or king. We have a little more problem when it's Warren Jeffs.

Genocide is a well-known human behavior.

Bestiality is well-known. But I'd point out that we don't seem to have a problem with mules, which arise when a horse mates with a donkey.

Trans-genderism is known in fish. Something like it has also been observed in humans in confined spaces such as submarines, especially amongst the Germans in World War II, where there was quite a bit of survival stress.


Now, you're really disgusted... because you were raised in a culture where diversity was not the norm. I think it works more like it does in dogs, where a certain amount of variation every generation gives rise to these anomalies. I see no point in being cruel to those people who are part of the variation simply because they are wired a little differently.

Now, you might argue that such people are freeloading, since they aren't going to have children of their own...but the problem right now is too much reproduction, not too little, and has clearly been a concern for all of my generation. I'm not in favor of killing anyone, but I am in favor of a smaller population -- because I know that, as with species in the wild, our extremely large numbers put us at risk of suddenly having tiny numbers or no numbers at all.

[QUOTE=Christenson;269663]I'm sure you *really* meant to imply birds are closer to humans than mammals:grin:[/quote]No, not really.

[quote]Notice, here, you are dripping with moral judgement and stress......yet these things happen in nature, and are facts.[/quote]Dripping? No, not really. Stress? No, not really.

But if you want me to drip moral judgement, I can. So here goes. If I were to eat my spouse, or kill the children of rival males, or rape women, and so forth that would be a morally reprehensible thing for me to do. I universally would condemn such behavior in myself. I'm also glad that I live in a society in which almost everyone agrees that that would be reprehensible and that we have laws against such behavior.

[quote]Eating one's mate is something that spiders do, and it gives the little spiderlings a better chance...so it's an act of altruism.[/quote]And when socialists want to take your money it isn't stealing, because their intentions are "just". :-p

At any rate, I don't think I said anything about the propriety/success of the mating strategies I listed for the species who usually use them. I only said that their existence in other species does not necessarily make them appropriate either morally or socially for homo-sapiens.

[quote]Mating with as many females as possible is, at best, freeloading, and at worst, rape, in the context of humanity where children will take many years to become adults. Raping enemy women is well-known wartime behavior. But we don't seem to have a big problem when it's called a harem and it's an arabian prince or king. We have a little more problem when it's Warren Jeffs.

Genocide is a well-known human behavior.[/quote]Yes, they are well known human behaviors. I'm not sure what your point is.

[quote]Bestiality is well-known. But I'd point out that we don't seem to have a problem with mules, which arise when a horse mates with a donkey.

Trans-genderism is known in fish. Something like it has also been observed in humans in confined spaces such as submarines, especially amongst the Germans in World War II, where there was quite a bit of survival stress.[/quote]And?

[quote]Now, you're really disgusted... because you were raised in a culture where diversity was not the norm.[/quote]:question: What gave you that impression? Either that I'm now disgusted, or that I was raised in a culture where diversity was not the norm? Neither is true.

[quote]I think it works more like it does in dogs, where a certain amount of variation every generation gives rise to these anomalies. I see no point in being cruel to those people who are part of the variation simply because they are wired a little differently. [/quote]I don't see the point of being cruel either. Differentiating between their relationships and the marriage relationship is not cruel.

[quote]Now, you might argue that such people are freeloading, since they aren't going to have children of their own...but the problem right now is too much reproduction, not too little, and has clearly been a concern for all of my generation. I'm not in favor of killing anyone, but I am in favor of a smaller population -- because I know that, as with species in the wild, our extremely large numbers put us at risk of suddenly having tiny numbers or no numbers at all.[/QUOTE]Fortunately, I don't argue such a position, or anything close to it.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;269660]The fact that different species behave differently and have different social norms is obviously correct. My interest in the study linked by Paul was to wonder about previously unsuspected similarities, amidst all the long-established differences, between humans and other animals that may be driven by as yet poorly understood natural processes. No-one is suggesting that zebra-finches or any other species might form a blueprint for human behaviour, but we could possibly understand parts of human nature better by looking at the natural world and searching for new previously unsuspected natural engines which make us behave the way we do as a species. Our social and legal constructs may need altering to accommodate our nature, and that is the relevance to this discussion.[/quote]I don't think I disagree with this, nor do the points I made contradict this. However, in the context of the marriage debate, finding new natural engines for homosexual drives would not negate the fact that the behaviors displayed in such relationships are biologically non-fungible with coitus. The behaviors [i]might[/i] even serve the same biological/emotional needs for the individuals involved, but the behaviors don't serve the same biological purpose for the couple as a whole nor for the society as a whole. You cannot replace one with the other without having a huge effect on the population. Marriage, as a social institution, is fundamentally about the effects coitus has on society.

[quote]You and I in full agreement that marriage is more than about being lifelong and bonding in the way that strong friendships are. We differ, I think, in our judgment of whether being of opposite sex is, or should be, a defining characteristic of a couple who are suited for marriage.[/QUOTE]Yup. Fundamentally, I don't think of marriage as something solely about the couple alone. Similarly, divorce is not fundamentally only about the two individuals involved. It has a wide range of negative impacts upon the coupling itself and society.

Zeta-Flux:
You were the one who talked about "some of the most disgusting strategies.."... in this context, I can't take that as anything other than moral judgement, and that you *are* disgusted...so I can reasonably suggest a possible cause. If you aren't disgusted by these, then you need to do an internal consistency check, and make sure you don't have a doppelganger somewhere, or don't have a multiple personality. Be very certain your last name isn't Silverman...

How do you find birds more similar to man than mammals? I'm curious, since it's pretty clear the closest relatives of humans are among the apes and monkeys, and they are most definitely mammals.

The sort of discrimination seen with respect to non-standard sex in this culture is nothing if not cruel...and that includes the legal failure to recognise a life-long bond for all that it implies. Yet you claim not to be cruel...which is it?

Incidentally, I am familiar with the state of California, probably about 1960, having to be convinced that a marriage between my grandfather and his cousin would *not* produce children. Here, the state was distinctly recognizing only the life-long bonding, no coitus involved.

[QUOTE=Christenson;269770]Zeta-Flux:
You were the one who talked about "some of the most disgusting strategies.."... in this context, I can't take that as anything other than moral judgement, and that you *are* disgusted...so I can reasonably suggest a possible cause. If you aren't disgusted by these, then you need to do an internal consistency check, and make sure you don't have a doppelganger somewhere, or don't have a multiple personality. Be very certain your last name isn't Silverman...[/quote]Personal comments aside, I thought your question was about whether I found your post disgusting. I didn't. I now realize you were asking if I found the behaviors you described in humans disgusting. Yes I do. Rape among humans is disgusting. etc...

Does that answer your question?

[quote]How do you find birds more similar to man than mammals? I'm curious, since it's pretty clear the closest relatives of humans are among the apes and monkeys, and they are most definitely mammals.[/quote]You need to re-read what I wrote. I said that mammals are closer to humans. You got it backwards.

Maybe that is why I'm having a hard time understanding parts of your response.

[quote]The sort of discrimination seen with respect to non-standard sex in this culture is nothing if not cruel...and that includes the legal failure to recognise a life-long bond for all that it implies. Yet you claim not to be cruel...which is it?[/quote]I completely disagree with your assessment that recognizing the difference between marriage and other life-long bonds involving "non-standard sex" is cruel.

[quote]Incidentally, I am familiar with the state of California, probably about 1960, having to be convinced that a marriage between my grandfather and his cousin would *not* produce children. Here, the state was distinctly recognizing only the life-long bonding, no coitus involved.[/QUOTE]First, I didn't say that coitus had to happen in a marriage. (It also doesn't happen if one of the spouses is in a coma, for example.) Sometimes the only [i]direct[/i] relation a given marriage has to coitus is that the marriage keeps one of the partners from performing the act outside the relationship. For a more complete explanation I recommend the article I linked to earlier.

Second, ignoring that distinction, it is clear that cultures and states do not view marriage in the same way, even across time. I could equally cite laws and legislative views which contradict your example. We humans are not always a consistent bunch.