Your thoughts on gay marriage?

[mehrenst]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"109670)</div>

<snip>

It [marriage] was created for 2 main cultural reasons: to channel human sexual behavior, and to nurture children.  

Nowhere will you find any enduring cultures using marriage as a vehicle for adult sexual freedom-of-expression.  
[/b]

Actually, if you take the time to investigate the real reason for the evolution of "marriage" (or what use to pass for marriage) into what it is today was to allow for a clear line of inheritance of property. Remember, the practice of multiple wives was quite common in Judeo-Christian societies. (And don't even bother trying to respond with the need for a one-man/one-woman arrangement. If there were a significant event that reduced the number of men you would see monogamy disappear in an instant because of the disastrous effect such an arrangement would have on the gene pool.)

I find your comment about "enduring cultures" very amusing. I would guess you must have some explanation other than the desire to hop into bed with a different partner for the divorce rate and failure of so many male-female marriages.

[IALTMANN]

Yea Emily., just wanted to take a fair road to him and those that expouse that view. In the long run, a male and female union proceduce the offspring, and any future of mankind will depend upon maintenance of that union. Any Homo - type relation cannot be a part of natural selection or creation that is for sure. Throughout history, the gay lifestyle has not taken hold or faired well with any society, because of that natural fact. I suppose an enlightened world, with artificial insemination and a whole lot of science may someday think they will have a way around that.., I don't know. Personally I agree with your views, but am trying to be open to a person who did at least make some sense and factual arguements on a subject, without going back to old stuff as other posters have on these threads and other threads, so I came back at him on an open and repectful basis.

[IALTMANN]

Finiyon

Oh yes it was, coming from whom it came, believe me it was. I looked at his profile and find that he is an attorney.. Small wonder.. anyway, this gentlemen does not like to be argued with in the real world sense. He also has a fixed and deep hatred of the current Government or slate running things, and whenever discussion takes place, he always returns to that. Read the posts... His own posts do him in everytime, and he needs to follow his own advice with regards as to who someone needs to conduct themselves on this and any board.

Whenever someone tells him things he does not like it's drivel, and garbage...but the things he says he expects them to be taken as facts, established thoughts and accepted. That is not how the real word works. And I am kind enough that I will not comment on Lawyers.., would not want the thread drifting off in that direction, despite the fact he has and in the past has criticized me for being a teacher. I teach technical stuff, and I definetly do not mix my political beliefs with my teaching, in anyway, shape or form UNLIKE some teachers I hear and read about in Colleges and Universities, and probably High Schools too..(and ps most of them are on the other side of the fence so to speak).

[tiffanyjoy]

if you count gay people as an aberration (something that is not expected or normal) then you have to count black people, mexican people, chinese people...wait, what if you are in china? then white people are an aberration...

basically that doesnt hold up at all.

[IALTMANN]

Tiffanyjoy...I don't think you can consider gay people as a race. Most blacks hate gay people, as do Hispanics and a lot of others ...This issue does not have to do with racial prejudices, I just do not see how you make that jump.

[mehrenst]

ALTMANN... Tiffanyjoy has a valid point. The evidence is becoming clear that homosexuality is a variation of nature and not related to nurture. Using this same logic of a genetic aberration then everyone, except for the black race, is an aberration since science also points to the origin of man as being in Africa. Even if you are not willing to agree with the origin in Africa you have to agree that the bible places the location of activity in the Middle East. The race in that case would be Semitic which is a sub-family of Afro-Asiatic. Even taking a biblically oriented view the Caucasian race is an aberration.

[IALTMANN]

All I can say is

"The evidence is becoming clear that homosexuality is a variation of nature"

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the above statement is true in any way shape or form at this time.

[mehrenst]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"109737)</div>

All I can say is  

\"The evidence is becoming clear that homosexuality is a variation of nature\"

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the above statement is true in any way shape or form at this time.[/b]

On the contrary, a most recent article in the NY Times (May 10th) featured a study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The Times article reported:
"Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond in the same way as women.

The new research may open the way to studying human pheromones, as well as the biological basis of sexual preference. Pheromones, chemicals emitted by one individual to evoke some behavior in another of the same species, are known to govern sexual activity in animals, but experts differ as to what role, if any, they play in making humans sexually attractive to one another.

The new research, which supports the existence of human pheromones, is reported in today's issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Dr. Ivanka Savic and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm."

Obviously this is not written in stone and there is still some disagreement but it does raise a serious question about the nature vs. nurture thinking related to homosexuality since the reaction to pheromones is at a very basic level and cannot be a learned process. You may be able to suppress a reaction but that doesn't make a case for it being "learned".

[Fredatgolf]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rflagg\";p=\"109690)</div>

Don't forget in the animal world, where lives are lived in a more black/white environment, there is still homosexuality as well.  But our society and the world's society at large is much more complex than a black/white world where heterosexuality is \"on the path\" and homosexuality is \"against the path\".-m.[/b]

Although I agree with rflagg's points, I am reentering the discussion against gay marriage. I am more in sync with EmilyJohn's point about protection as an institution, I believe what he said about "any honest homosexual" to be an unfortunate characterization.
Quite a few posts back I addressed the question of how gay marriage would cost anyone anything. Nobody responded to the points that I made in spite of the fact that I posted again asking why everyone was attacking IALTMANN without attacking the points I had made. This is a second invitation to attack. I believe rflagg rightfully points out the complexity of this issue and further that compassion is certainly required. However, for reasons I pointed out earlier, it is very important to me to keep a distinction between a gay union and a marriage. To deny that gays can have children and they don't have the same loving skills as heterosexuals seems to be very unfair and ignores much evidence to the contrary. I believe the debate should focus on how to redress any legitimate grievances on the part of the gay community. One thing the gays do that really hurts their cause is demand way more than the "straights" who oppose gay marriage are willing to accommodate. There are many things we can agree on, but on this subject as well as many others today we choose strategies and arguments that tend to polarize.

[Emilyjohn]

IALTMANN, actually, when I referred to marriage as an institution created to nurture children, I did not have procreation in mind. Bearing children is biological; nurturing implies a psycho-social process that even a childless married couple participate in constantly. Even though they're childless, every child they contact is influenced by their marriage. Fredatgolf, I don't believe the use of the term "honest homosexual" is "unfortunate" at all. Frankly, I believe that those gays who are pushing hard to normalize homosexual behavior are being dishonest to us and to themselves. There are people on this site who are equating homosexual behavior and race. That's the same as equating heterosexuality, or bisexuality, or asexuality and race. They don't equate, and it's not being honest to do so.