Creation vs. Evolution

[Sas]

You try really hard to be a victim but you can't be my victim.

How am I trying to be a victim? I am confused, or have you assumed I am gay?

The fact is that the sexual habits of anybody I know won't ever be an issue unless they make it an issue.

Then why do you say that homosexuals are not allowed to marry or adopt children? That IS making an issue of their sexuality.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike - Where do you find your definition of marriage?

Using a google search yields numerous definitions that may include a homosexual union:
define:marriage - Google Search

Good point. Here is a definition pulled from a dictionary... marriage >noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.

I can marry two boards together with a nail...or two pieces of steel with my welder.

What definition do we want to use and why? One reason is the formal establishment of a family unit. Men and women seem to have a better chance of generating offspring than other combinations but what do we want a "family" unit to be?

If a man can marry a man, I suppose it wouldn't matter if they were brothers or father and son would it? If a "family" can be any combination of people, why limit it to two? Couldn't it be 3, 4 or 50?

Why should we even limit it to people. Why couldn't a person marry that wonderful dog that they love so much?

ok so if we're going to completely remake the concept of "family", you tell me where we should go with it and why.

 

[Sas]

Why should we even limit it to people. Why couldn't a person marry that wonderful dog that they love so much?

Dogs cannot consent. That is the difference. To me, it does not matter what the dictionary definition of marriage is, words can be redefined and I think they should be in this case. Why not? What does it matter if marriage becomes any union of two people, regardless of gender?

If a man can marry a man, I suppose it wouldn't matter if they were brothers or father and son would it?

Also why would letting homosexuals marry cause people to have incestuous unions? That is crazy talk that I hear from many Christians. The so called slippery slope argument. Why don't fathers marry their daughters now? Or mothers their sons? We allow men and women to marry, and that would be a heterosexual union... Just because people of the same gender could marry, would not mean that incest or bestiality is the next step...

Men and women seem to have a better chance of generating offspring

Yes of course you need a man and a woman (or at least, an egg and a sperm, whether or not the donors are present) to *generate* offspring. But you certainly don't need a man and a woman to raise a child successfully.

 

[MikeFerrara]

How am I trying to be a victim? I am confused, or have you assumed I am gay?

Not at all. My use of "you" is meant in a figurative sense refering to your position in the discussion/debate. The examples of social settings that I used was intended to illustrate that whether or not you were gay would be irrelevant.

 

[Sas]

Ok thanks for the explanation. Did not come across that way so I found it quite confusing to be accused of "playing the victim" for arguing for homosexual rights :S

 

[redacted]

Good point. Here is a definition pulled from a dictionary... marriage >noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.

I can marry two boards together with a nail...or two pieces of steel with my welder.

What definition do we want to use and why? One reason is the formal establishment of a family unit. Men and women seem to have a better chance of generating offspring than other combinations but what do we want a "family" unit to be?

If a man can marry a man, I suppose it wouldn't matter if they were brothers or father and son would it? If a "family" can be any combination of people, why limit it to two? Couldn't it be 3, 4 or 50?

Why should we even limit it to people. Why couldn't a person marry that wonderful dog that they love so much?

ok so if we're going to completely remake the concept of "family", you tell me where we should go with it and why.

My version of a Webster's Dictionary does not mention man or woman. It does include"any intimate union."

My problem with denying marriage to any couple is that it also denies many legal benefits that are granted to "married couples" regardless of their intentions toward procreation. My issue is not with the word that may be used (although I see no compelling reason that a different word must be used) but with the legal rights that are being denied in a discriminatory manner.

My personnel feeling is that sexual orientation should be protected, under law, in the same manner that race and religion are protected. And I believe that is the direction this country is slowly and hesitantly heading.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Dogs cannot consent.

Of course they can except that, at present, their consent is not recognized by law. That could be changed easily enough.

That is the difference. To me, it does not matter what the dictionary definition of marriage is, words can be redefined and I think they should be in this case. Why not? What does it matter if marriage becomes any union of two people, regardless of gender?

Why does it have to be only two people? If we're going to redefine words here, lets start with a clean slate.

Also why would letting homosexuals marry cause people to have incestuous unions? That is crazy talk that I hear from many Christians. The so called slippery slope argument. Why don't fathers marry their daughters now? Or mothers their sons? We allow men and women to marry, and that would be a heterosexual union... Just because people of the same gender could marry, would not mean that incest or bestiality is the next step...

As far as I know incest is currently disallowed because of the potential for wild genetic results. That isn't a concern with same sex relationships so what's wrong with incest? If father and son want to marry, who are you to say they shouldn't?

Yes of course you need a man and a woman (or at least, an egg and a sperm, whether or not the donors are present) to *generate* offspring. But you certainly don't need a man and a woman to raise a child successfully.

Sure, mix sperm and egg any way you want and raise the children in any sort of environment you want. What possible difference could it make?

 

[MikeFerrara]

My version of a Webster's Dictionary does not mention man or woman. It does include"any intimate union."

The online webseters has seperate entries and same sex marriage is one of them. The definition I gave was from the dictionary on my computer.

My problem with denying marriage to any couple is that it also denies many legal benefits that are granted to "married couples" regardless of their intentions toward procreation. My issue is not with the word that may be used (although I see no compelling reason that a different word must be used) but with the legal rights that are being denied in a discriminatory manner.

I don't care much what kind of inheritance or tax benefits are extended to whoever. I think I already stated that, as far as I'm concerned, the group discriminated the most by our tax code is successful people.

As to the word used, I think it does matter. Forget values, religions or anything else. Don't we want the ability to use language consicely? When we get done openiong up the definition of all these words, there won't be any sense in using any of them because no one will know what the hell you're talking about.

My personnel feeling is that sexual orientation should be protected, under law, in the same manner that race and religion are protected. And I believe that is the direction this country is slowly and hesitantly heading.

I think the government already sticks it's nose too many places where it doesn't belong.

As to the direction the country or society, in general, is headed...I'm thankful that I'm old enough that I may not have to be here when it gets very far down the current path. Societies have become decadent to the point of total disfunction before and it will happen again.

 

[MikeFerrara]

My personnel feeling is that sexual orientation should be protected, under law, in the same manner that race and religion are protected.

What about property owner rights?

 

[redacted]

What about property owner rights?

What about them? I have no problems with some limits on property owner's rights when activities have adverse influence on neighbors.

I suspect most gay couples would be thrilled to be able to enter a legal union called something other than marriage if it brought them all the legal benefits currently bestowed on married couples.