[Chongo]

Yep, Paul and Anne Ehrlich nailed it with the Population Bomb, or was it Soylent Green?

[Waragainstsleep]

A selection:

Procreation.
(Marriage not required at all)

Same-sex marriage is bad for children
(I really don't see why)

Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business
(Complete and utter shit)

Same-sex marriage is bad for public health
(This one claimed that the gays spread STDs more, even the ladies. If anything, marriage will cut this among those populations and I have my doubts that lesbians are any worse than heteros for spreading STDs)

Homosexuals are more likely to suffer substance abuse problems.
(Maybe if people didn't persecute them for being born with their sexual preference it wouldn't be the case? Assuming this is true in the first place of course)

The usual crap about role models and children needing a man and a woman to raise them.
(This is why single parents are banned from child-rearing obviously.)

One little gem:
" it's unnatural. Yes, SOME animals do it, but just being found in nature doesn't make it natural"
(Um, yeah it does)


In short, lots of homophobia, lots of religious support (because if the religious peeps can find atheists who don't support gay marriage then that obviously strengthens their argument. Or makes them look less like assholes) Very little logic, sense, reason or generally being right in any way. What a shock.

[subego]

Here... let me sorta read between the lines here and play something of a devil's advocate, but with the (perhaps only slight) benefit that I'll try and scrape away the bullshit dancing around the point.

The question at hand is this: is gender preference malleable?

If it is, then acceptance of homosexuality, or the lack thereof, will act as an influence on it.

I actually do believe it's malleable. Way more than people are willing to admit. OTOH, I'm fine with people homoing it up, so the positive influence doesn't bother me.

That said, I don't think your eternal soul is at stake, and I'm willing to cut some slack to people who do when they come to the same conclusion as me on the biology, but have a different policy stance than me. I don't envy their thorny position.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

One little gem:
" it's unnatural. Yes, SOME animals do it, but just being found in nature doesn't make it natural"
(Um, yeah it does)

Since MANY animals eat their young, mate with siblings/parents and since that um makes it natural, we should too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not going to address the implication that I'm homophobia-phobic.

The good news is, no one asked you to.

Marriage doesn't belong to christianity, or to any one religion. Most of them have it in some form but it predates Christianity and even Judaism which is of course where Christianity got it from.

True, but it had belonged, nearly exclusively to heterosexuality.

Given that marriage spans most religions and cultures, trying to define what constitutes a traditional marriage is rather pointless and using the bible to define it is quite obviously incorrect.

You're certainly welcome down this road, but then words themselves would be useless without definitions culled from their traditional roots. i.e. you're welcome to refer to women as men just as you're welcome to call a man a platypus as long as you're not frustrated by others' inability to understand and/or accept what you're saying. I've not used the bible to define anything.

So given there is no such thing as traditional marriage for anyone to support, what else do you have to explain these people's opposition to same-sex marriage besides homophobia?

Given there is no such thing as traditional marriage for anyone to support and that any benefits conferred upon marriage are also available through civil, contractual agreement; both sides of this issue confound me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Since MANY animals eat their young, mate with siblings/parents and since that um makes it natural, we should too.

This reminds me of a time at the zoo when we watched as an orangutan inched himself, ever so slowly toward a pile of dung left by another orangutan, and commenced with eating it. Eating each others' dung in the animal kingdom = natural human behavior.

I've often wondered how many homosexuals would actually appreciate this line of reasoning.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Given there is no such thing as traditional marriage for anyone to support and that any benefits conferred upon marriage are also available through civil, contractual agreement; both sides of this issue confound me.

Get a will, powers of attorney, and set up a trust. Being married does not gaurentee inheritance, especially when someone dies intestate.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge Strikes Down Kentucky's Gay Marriage Ban - ABC News

"Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct," Heyburn wrote. "Here, that would not seem to be the case. Assuring equal protection for same-sex couples does not diminish the freedom of others to any degree."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Since MANY animals eat their young, mate with siblings/parents and since that um makes it natural, we should too.

Infanticide and incest are not illegal for being unnatural. Not much is.

Whether something is natural or unnatural, neither is a reason to do it or not to do it and by extension to allow it or to ban it.
The fact that animals exhibit homosexual behaviour goes to dispel the accusation that such behaviour is unnatural. It has no bearing on whether or not homosexuality should be allowed beyond the dismissal of that foolish argument.

One could argue that marriage is unnatural because we don't see chimps or butterflies doing it. Would that be a reason to ban all marriage in your eyes?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This reminds me of a time at the zoo when we watched as an orangutan inched himself, ever so slowly toward a pile of dung left by another orangutan, and commenced with eating it. Eating each others' dung in the animal kingdom = natural human behavior.

I've often wondered how many homosexuals would actually appreciate this line of reasoning.

Perhaps if a book written by God 2000 years ago said it was the only way to get into heaven, we'd all be eating orangutan dung.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

True, but it had belonged, nearly exclusively to heterosexuality.

And all wealth, power and influence used to be firmly in the hands of a minority of royalty or feudal warlords. Should nothing ever change when we work out we've been doing it wrong?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're certainly welcome down this road, but then words themselves would be useless without definitions culled from their traditional roots. i.e. you're welcome to refer to women as men just as you're welcome to call a man a platypus as long as you're not frustrated by others' inability to understand and/or accept what you're saying. I've not used the bible to define anything.

Then where is your definition of traditional marriage taken from then? Seems to me it doesn't really matter since there can be no agreed upon authority credited with inventing it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Given there is no such thing as traditional marriage for anyone to support and that any benefits conferred upon marriage are also available through civil, contractual agreement; both sides of this issue confound me.

Quite. So if its nothing more than a label where is the harm in letting everyone use it or the sense in preventing them?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Perhaps if a book written by God 2000 years ago said it was the only way to get into heaven, we'd all be eating orangutan dung.

Hinduism almost fits the bill. Thay may not eat dung, but do expound the virtue of drinking urine. One of India's PM's Morarji Desai said this in a 1978 60 Minutes interview with Dan Rather.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Since MANY animals eat their young, mate with siblings/parents and since that um makes it natural, we should too.

Check outside almost any Paleolithic settlement, and you'll find dead infant skeletons. Either left to die of exposure, or in a twisted act of kindness, with their skull bashed in by a rock.

When you don't have medicine or agriculture, that's how you deal with overpopulation and deformity.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Check outside almost any Paleolithic settlement, and you'll find dead infant skeletons. Either left to die of exposure, or in a twisted act of kindness, with their skull bashed in by a rock.

When you don't have medicine or agriculture, that's how you deal with overpopulation and deformity.

Sounds like Obamacare

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Perhaps if a book written by God 2000 years ago said it was the only way to get into heaven, we'd all be eating orangutan dung.

Or if another scientific consensus were fabricated to dupe sheeple, orangutan dung would find its way into the food pyramid.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sounds like Obamacare

Not over the top enough. I would have added a part where there's a lottery to have Obama come over personally and euthanize your infant.

And then he eats it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And all wealth, power and influence used to be firmly in the hands of a minority of royalty or feudal warlords. Should nothing ever change when we work out we've been doing it wrong?

Where is your definition of "wrong" taken from then? Royalty and feudal warlords were the centralized authority of that time, not unlike what is forming in our time. What piece is it you're trying to work out? I'm addressing the centralized authority while you seem to be addressing the symptoms of its folly. i.e. still doing it wrong.

Then where is your definition of traditional marriage taken from then? Seems to me it doesn't really matter since there can be no agreed upon authority credited with inventing it.

I think both sides would argue that it still matters. It's the authority behind it that's most silly, IMO.

Quite. So if its nothing more than a label where is the harm in letting everyone use it or the sense in preventing them?

Where have I advocated that we prevent anyone from enjoying meaningless labels?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Where is your definition of "wrong" taken from then? Royalty and feudal warlords were the centralized authority of that time, not unlike what is forming in our time. What piece is it you're trying to work out? I'm addressing the centralized authority while you seem to be addressing the symptoms of its folly. i.e. still doing it wrong.

I was referring more to the society of the time's perception of wrong. This doesn't mean we are now doing things right, at a later date we will no doubt decide we are still doing it wrong and try something else.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think both sides would argue that it still matters. It's the authority behind it that's most silly, IMO.

I think you already know my opinions about religious authority of any kind. I'm kinda surprised to hear this sort of statement from you though.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Where have I advocated that we prevent anyone from enjoying meaningless labels?

I have no idea what side of this discussion you come down on any more. If you have a problem with same sex marriage then how is that not arguing to prevent people from enjoying the meaningless label of marriage? If you don't have a problem with it then why are discussing it? Are you just playing devil's advocate or trolling me?

[Chongo]

Is the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association (publisher of of the DSM) a silly authority?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association (publisher of of the DSM) a silly authority?

Pretty sure neither of them invented marriage.

[Chongo]

No, but they are behind defining what homosexuality is/was. BTW, who invented marriage?.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No, but they are behind defining what homosexuality is/was.

Do they hand out certificates? Membership cards?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BTW, who invented marriage?.

Exactly. Who is to say what constitutes "traditional marriage"? I guess "popular" or "common" marriage doesn't carry the same persuasive quality.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

any benefits conferred upon marriage are also available through civil, contractual agreement; both sides of this issue confound me.

Jumping through more hoops for same rights = unfair

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This reminds me of a time at the zoo when we watched as an orangutan inched himself, ever so slowly toward a pile of dung left by another orangutan, and commenced with eating it. Eating each others' dung in the animal kingdom = natural human behavior.

I've often wondered how many homosexuals would actually appreciate this line of reasoning.

The defense arose because a certain side used to claim homosexuality was unnatural.

[Chongo]

How many children have been produced from the "union" of two men/women?

[subego]

From me, the number is zero.

[The Final Dakar]

Man we're rehashing flawed reasoning that old? Thanks, waragainstsleep.

[Waragainstsleep]

How is it my fault? I'm just shooting them down as they pop up.

[Chongo]

OK, 'splain to us brainwashed Neanderthals why it is flawed.

[subego]

The whole "animals eat their poop" argument seems to carry the subtext there's something wrong with it, and we just happened to realize how uncool it was.

The reason we don't eat our own poop is because we have more food than we need, and it gets pre-digested for us over a fire.

If all the food we ate was raw, and we had to forage every last calorie with our bare hands, not eating your poop means you're wasting half the calories you collect.

That means you starve to death.

[Waragainstsleep]

I already pointed out the lunacy of that argument anyway. Just because animals do/don't do it, doesn't mean we should/shouldn't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The whole "animals eat their poop" argument seems to carry the subtext there's something wrong with it, and we just happened to realize how uncool it was.

The reason we don't eat our own poop is because we have more food than we need, and it gets pre-digested for us over a fire.

If all the food we ate was raw, and we had to forage every last calorie with our bare hands, not eating your poop means you're wasting half the calories you collect.

That means you starve to death.

Great except, my example was at the zoo where the animals are hand-fed. Sometimes animals just do "animalistic" things and the point was to demonstrate the absurdity of the "But animals do it too" line of reasoning.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I was referring more to the society of the time's perception of wrong. This doesn't mean we are now doing things right, at a later date we will no doubt decide we are still doing it wrong and try something else.

I think you already know my opinions about religious authority of any kind. I'm kinda surprised to hear this sort of statement from you though.

I'm one of the most critical posters on this forum of centralized authority. Why would my statement deriding their "contribution" to this issue surprise you?

I have no idea what side of this discussion you come down on any more. If you have a problem with same sex marriage then how is that not arguing to prevent people from enjoying the meaningless label of marriage? If you don't have a problem with it then why are discussing it? Are you just playing devil's advocate or trolling me?

I'm on the; everything's great until you add government, side of things.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jumping through more hoops for same rights = unfair

As discussed before, I'm in favor of everyone having to jump through the same hoop = fair and logical.

The defense arose because a certain side used to claim homosexuality was unnatural.

And the contrary point was to illustrate the absurdity of such a line of reasoning when attempting to champion human rights.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Great except, my example was at the zoo where the animals are hand-fed. Sometimes animals just do "animalistic" things and the point was to demonstrate the absurdity of the "But animals do it too" line of reasoning.

I dunno. Animals, including us, do what we're evolved to do. Apes haven't evolved to live in zoos, nor have they evolved to eat cooked food.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I dunno. Animals, including us, do what we're evolved to do. Apes haven't evolved to live in zoos, nor have they evolved to eat cooked food.

I agree, but it is this evolutionary pathway that differentiates humans from animals most profoundly. Why we'd repeatedly use species evolved to the wild for comparison with that evolved to civilization is curious to me.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm one of the most critical posters on this forum of centralized authority. Why would my statement deriding their "contribution" to this issue surprise you?

In my admittedly poor memory, you usually come down on the conservative/religious side of debates here. Apologies.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm on the; everything's great until you add government, side of things.

I'm sure you don't disagree with a government dealing with the administrative aspect (at least any more than you disagree with them administrating anything) but do you really have a problem with the government stepping in to try to stop discrimination? Thats really all they are doing. Sadly they are just too spineless and/or too biased to come out and call it that. Like that ridiculous Hobby Lobby decision.

[Chongo]

Hobby Lobby already covered contraceptives in it's health plan. It was the abortion inducing drugs and devices that were objected to. It is ridiculous that it wasn't 9-0 in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Who said these?

I think it is the height of ignorance to believe that the sexual act is an independent function, necessary like sleeping or eating. The world depends for its existence on the act of generation, and as the world is the playground of God and a reflection of His glory, the act of generation should be controlled for the growth of the world. He who realizes this will control his lust at any cost, equip himself with the knowledge necessary for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of his progeny, and give the benefit of that knowledge to posterity.

The union is meant not for pleasure, but for bringing forth progeny . and union is a crime when the desire for progeny is absent.

Once the idea that the only and grand function of the sexual organ is generation possesses man and woman , union for any other purpose they will hold as criminal waste of the vital fluid and the consequent excitement caused to man and woman as an equally criminal waste of energy.

It is dinned into one’s ears that gratification of the sex urge is a solemn obligation like the obligation of discharging debts lawfully incurred, and that not to do so would involve the penalty of intellectual decay. This sexes urge has been isolated from the desire for progeny and it is said by the protagonists of the use of contraceptives that conception is an accident to be prevented except when the parties desire to have children. I venture to suggest that this is a most dangerous doctrine to preach.
Sex urge is a fine and noble thing . There is nothing to be ashamed of in it . But it is meant only for the act of creation . Any other use of it is a sin against God and humanity.

[Waragainstsleep]

Corporations are not people and should therefore not have religious status.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Who said these?

No-one worth listening to.

So you've only ever had sex to procreate? I'd find that hard to believe of anyone who has actually had sex at all.

[Chongo]

Just in case you wondered, that would be Mahatma Gandhi.

Mind of Mahatma Gandhi : Complete Book Online

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I agree, but it is this evolutionary pathway that differentiates humans from animals most profoundly. Why we'd repeatedly use species evolved to the wild for comparison with that evolved to civilization is curious to me.

It depends on the point one is trying to make.

Here is the valid information I believe one can glean from it.

1) Animals aren't capable of abstract thought, therefore homosexual animals aren't coming to that orientation by choice. They're compelled to it instinctually. We've added an abstract layer on top of it, which undoubtedly has its own effect, but there is also a segment of homosexuals for whom abstract thought has nothing to do with it. Nature built them that way... the same way many heterosexuals claim they were built the way they are.

2) That it appears in multiple species means it's likely an adaptation to something, rather than a random mutation which happened to take hold. The most obvious theory is it's an adaptation to overpopulation, which from a biology standpoint, we hit soon after we learned how to use fire, and has been getting worse the whole time.

3) Is the magic number. No more, no less.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Sadly they are just too spineless and/or too biased to come out and call it that. Like that ridiculous Hobby Lobby decision.

Here are the material facts of the Hobby Lobby case.

1) Non-profits already have an exemption for this.
2) The potential yearly fines for refusing to pay for it approach a half-billion dollars.

I'm not asking you to agree with the SCOTUS decision, but does the above situation sound correct to you?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

1) Non-profits already have an exemption for this.

Some non profits. The exemption is narrowly crafted. The Little Sisters of the Poor do not qualify for an exemption, nor does the Diocese of Phoenix or any Diocese in the US.

[subego]

Didn't the SCOTUS order (without dissent) the LSotP were covered by the exemption?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Didn't the SCOTUS order (without dissent) the LSotP were covered by the exemption?

No. Justice Sotomayor granted an injection until their case is heard by the court.

[subego]

And... considering the Hobby Lobby decision, I don't exactly see the court telling a bunch of nuns they can pound dirt.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

In my admittedly poor memory, you usually come down on the conservative/religious side of debates here. Apologies.

I generally come down on the fiscally-conservative side of things and with social issues simply avoid the types of generalizations and intolerance those deriding these flaws find impossible to avoid in their own arguments when indicting religion for __enter grievance here__.

I'm sure you don't disagree with a government dealing with the administrative aspect (at least any more than you disagree with them administrating anything) but do you really have a problem with the government stepping in to try to stop discrimination? Thats really all they are doing. Sadly they are just too spineless and/or too biased to come out and call it that. Like that ridiculous Hobby Lobby decision.

Marriage by definition is discriminatory, otherwise it would have been available to all without question from birth. Even now with same-sex marriage being legalized, it's still discriminatory. Overall, it's much ado about nothing and has been elevated to a sort of cause du jour because it's en vogue and people are far too bored with weightier matters, not unlike the Hobby Lobby decision. It has been made to be some sort of discriminatory act because they lack knowledge of the issue at hand and the people behind an opposing view. As if your auto-insurance should not only provide new tires when you need them or 16 brands of them, but should offer all of them. That is of course, ridiculous.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As discussed before, I'm in favor of everyone having to jump through the same hoop = fair and logical.

It shouldn't confound you that people want equal access when one side has better access. That was the point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And the contrary point was to illustrate the absurdity of such a line of reasoning when attempting to champion human rights.

Your contrary point is unnecessary. The counter-point wouldn't even exist if it weren't for one side's terrible grasping at straws reasoning.

[The Final Dakar]

How the hell did we end up on Hobby Lobby? That's deserving of its own thread if you're actually going to get into it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How the hell did we end up on Hobby Lobby? That's deserving of its own thread if you're actually going to get into it.

Waragainstsleep mentioned Hobby Lobby.

The contraceptive mentality is part of why we are where we are at today.