Brilliant post, Eilonnwy.

(June 26, 2009 at 10:46 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: So, yes, men and women can have children. Gays cannot, but it's doesn't prevent the race from continuing if a substantial amount of the species are still breeding. Thinking of evolution in terms of what is "best" for the race is highly fallacious.

This is one point I find incredibly interesting, particularly in the gay marriage debate. "Gays are an evolutionary dead-end, they can't have their own kids, it's not right". I now wonder if these same people are going to fight against marriage between a straight but infertile couple? If they can't have kids then why should they be allowed to marry? If they want to raise a family (the supposed purpose of marriage [wrong imo]) they'd have to adopt. But wait, the option is actually there for them. Then why not gays?

Thanks.

As far as the gay marriage debate, if you know all the talking points it's easy to show how fallacious they are. Such as keeping the "tradition" of marriage and not "redefining". Marriage used to be a business deal between the husband and the girl's father. Polygamy used to be okay. Interracial marriage was illegal in this past century. It's been redefined many times.

There's also the argument that it's a religious institution. Well great, no one is saying churches have to perform marriages, we're talking about civil marriage. So either let gay's marry or get rid of civil marriage and only have civil unions.

Then there's the "protect the children" argument, that has been thoroughly demolished. Gay parents have been shown to be just as good as heterosexual parents, and in some cases even better. (Consider the fact that homosexual parents always have to plan for their child whether through artificial insemination or adoption, heterosexuals don't) It was also addressed in the Iowa court decision. In fact I highly recommend reading the Iowa court document on gay marriage, it demolishes all of the points against gay marriage beautifully. It comes down to that people are against gay marriage for religious, and especially bigoted reasons. None that are based on fact or what is fundamentally correct for every human's civil rights.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/1022...ing-points

There's also this amusing top ten list: http://www.stopgeek.com/top-10-reasons-g...legal.html

(June 26, 2009 at 12:04 pm)LukeMC Wrote: I now wonder if these same people are going to fight against marriage between a straight but infertile couple? If they can't have kids then why should they be allowed to marry?

Off the top of my head I think that's actually a valid reason to separate (not being able to have kids). Not that I'm in agreement with it. I've just known people (not Christians I might add) that believe strongly that marriage is precisely for having children.

(June 26, 2009 at 3:18 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Off the top of my head I think that's actually a valid reason to separate (not being able to have kids). Not that I'm in agreement with it. I've just known people (not Christians I might add) that believe strongly that marriage is precisely for having children.

Certainly. If you have the worldview that marriage is for the purpose of children, then anyone who doesn't want to have children or can't should not get married. But the majority of people, especially on the front lines of this debate, don't have that view.

The truth is that marriage is a contract and/or a religious ceremony/sacrament. While some gays may believe in the religious aspect, the gay rights movement is about the contract. If two consenting adults of opposite sex can enter into a legally binding contract that grants them certain benefits, then two consenting adults of the same sex should be able to as well. I support one of two solutions. Marriage becomes religious only and the government only gives out civil unions and their benefits, or gays can married and religions can discriminate as they want and already do. (Although I don't think religions should get tax benefits but that's another discussion ENTIRELY)

I personally, am a bigger fan of the latter solution but either achieves civil equality.

For what it's worth I think we're all a bit "gay" (god I hate using that word) by which I mean I don't think there is really such a thing as a 100% straight or even 100% gay ... I think there is a broad range of sexualities in society and I think people like me are mostly (maybe 90%?) straight and people like (say) Graham Norton well over into the lower numbers (maybe 90% "gay"). I think society "teaches" us (normalises us) into heterosexual roles which is why it is such a big thing "coming out" as "gay" ... of course in today's "progressive" culture that is changing.

Kyu

Can't you have a negative percentage? I'm certainly not even remotely attracted to me. And if I'm in a room of only other men...I want to see some girls! Just a load of men not only isn't attractive to me, it's unattractive.

I don't see how I'd have to even be 1% gay. I'm not even remotely attracted to me (I find them unattractive, period) so that makes me not remotely gay. I am attracted to women only. That's why I'm just plain straight see

To be at all gay I'd have to be at least a tiny bit attracted to men. I am not.

EvF

(June 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: To be at all gay I'd have to be at least a tiny bit attracted to men. I am not.

I don't agree ... I can appreciate (admire) a good looking man, I'm certainly attracted socially towards good looking people (men and women) especially those who dress the way I like and I love my friends who are all men (I'll happily hug another man if that's what the situation seems to require) so I reckon I have to be at the top of a slippery slope

Kyu

Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. I'm not only not at all attracted to men. As I have said I can find men to have negative attractiveness too (as well as feeling nothing on the matter of (sexual) attractiveness).

EvF

(June 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. I'm not only not at all attracted to men. As I have said I can find men to have negative attractiveness too (as well as feeling nothing on the matter of (sexual) attractiveness).

Whatever floats your boat dude ... I'm old enough and secure enough in myself to be able to admit that I can get enjoyment out of things that some might say is gay. OTOH I'm fairly sure I'm straight because I don't fantasise about men in a truly sexual sense and the one thing I utterly love is watching women move ... whatever shape or size they are they just blow me away.

Kyu

(June 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. I'm not only not at all attracted to men. As I have said I can find men to have negative attractiveness too (as well as feeling nothing on the matter of (sexual) attractiveness).

Whatever floats your boat dude ... I'm old enough and secure enough in myself to be able to admit that I can get enjoyment out of things that some might say is gay.

I understand that you're 'old enough and secure enough to be admit', but remember - I was talking about specifically me here not you

In my case there's nothing to admit. I'm well and fully aware of my sexuality. I am not remotely (sexually) attracted to men because I don't find them at all attractive (sexually) in any way. That's a subjective fact for me personally, I mean assuming that I am very well aware of my own sexuality (which I am, I'd bet a hell of a lot of money on that (not that I'd ever need to or want to bother - I just mean I'm that certain).

EvF