If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

Same Gender Relationships

Today, the California Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case with a decision set to come in 90 days.

Back when I was in college, a gay friend of mine was putting on an educational program called “Homosexuality and Spirituality.” This was the second time that she was putting on the program. The previous year, her program attracted massive amounts of fundamentalist Christians who were mostly acting as the Fred Phelps of the time. They seemed to have the goal of disrupting the program and calling everyone evil sinners. So when my friend decided to run the program again the following year, she called in the big guns.

I attended the program at her request for the specific purpose of distracting the entire fundamentalist Christian group from bothering the people who actually wanted to take part in the program. Basically, I was to get a small group discussion going on why they felt that homosexuality was bad. Many Christians were honest with me and pointed out that the one and only reason why they thought homosexuality was bad was because the Bible said so. While these Christians were honest with me, they were easy to argue with. The Bible of course says a lot of things that people today do not follow and of course would not follow. Slavery would be the first that would come to mind.

Some Christians would tell me that it isn’t about the Bible at all and that they would be against homosexuality simply because it is “unnatural.” How so, I would ask? Isn’t anything in the natural world, by definition, “natural?” Apparently not, since they make a distinction between God made (natural) and human made (unnatural). So of course I couldn’t resist following this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. If everything man made is unnatural and unnatural is bad, than we do a whole lot of unnatural things all the time and homosexuality would be the least of our problems.

Some Christians would be forced to say that it is all about the sex. They would tell me that the purpose of sex is to procreate and so therefore any sex, which makes procreation not possible or not the focus would be immoral and wrong. I would immediately ask this person how they feel about birth control and if they think that people who are infertile or sterile should be allowed to marry or have sex? While some Christians do have issue with birth control, they are not usually as animated on the subject as they are about homosexuality. And few if any people seem to think that heterosexual couples who can’t have children should be banned from marriage or even sexual activity. Maybe we should have a fertility test given before the State grants a couple a marriage license. And what if a couple can have children but simply choose not to have children? Is that morally wrong? Such a position is laughably ridiculous. Besides, why does sex have to have only one divine purpose? Maybe sex has different purposes for different people at different times in their lives. But all this is beside the point.

The fact is that homosexuality has very little to do with sex and more to do with attraction, love, and relationships. To claim that homosexuality is purely about sex is really inaccurate. Just as it is inaccurate to claim marriage is all about sex and not about sharing ones life with another. Sex is of course part of a relationship but anyone who marries someone purely out of sex will probably find themselves divorced very quickly. So maybe it is a Public Relations (PR) issue, which has helped the Religious Right to demonize homosexual and to get Californians to ban same sex marriage. Maybe we shouldn’t refer to homosexuals as homosexuals. Instead we should refer to gay people as being in a same gender relationship. Christians get way too hung up on sex and so maybe if we reframe the issue in the form of a loving relationship we can help to take this issue out of the Culture War and help to get our friends in the Same Gender Relationship Community some much needed equal rights to marry.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Barry

    Here, here!

  • Mr. X

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t “homo-” mean “same”, and “sexual” mean “gender” (or maybe “gender attaction” in this context)?

    If that’s true, then “homosexual” and “same gender relationship” would basically be synonyms, making your suggestion an exercise in redundancy.

    Anyhow…there are so many ways to argue in defense of homosexuality, mainly because it’s such a complex, multi-faceted topic.

    When you said that “To claim that homosexuality is purely about sex is really inaccurate”, you made a good point.

    I would add that the statement “all sexual behavior is purely about reproduction” is a difficult one to conclusively defend.

    If we were to argue the possibility that homosexual behavior sometimes makes (or has made) a valid contribution to the survival of our species, I think this is the first argument should consider.

    • Leo

      “If we were to argue the possibility that homosexual behavior sometimes makes (or has made) a valid contribution to the survival of our species, I think this is the first argument should consider.”

      Please do.

      • Mr. X

        Bisexual tendencies, at least, are easy to defend.

        If an individual were to form homosexual relationships, these emotional bonds would not be directly conducive to reproduction.

        But if these bonds increased the level of social cohesion within a group, they could improve the survival rate of its individual members. This would be mainly true in scenarios where cooperation was crucial to survival.

        The point is, there could be scenarios in which homosexual attachments (or heterosexual attachments; really any emotional bond, for that matter) between individuals could improve their rate of cooperation and thus survival. In these scenarios, all sexual behaviorA would not be “about” reproduction at all; they would be “about” improved social cohesion.

        If those individuals who survived as a result of this improved cohesion, went on to engage in heterosexual practices that resulted in the transmission of their genes (what you call “natural” sexual reproduction), then a genetic predisposition to bisexuality could survive within that population, and even increase in frequency over generations, if bisexuals had a higher rate of survival.

        In any case, homosexual tendencies could also serve as a counter-balance to competitive tendencies between members of the same sex, within the same population/community/gene pool. Males (and within our particular species, females too) find themselves alternatingly in situations in which they must compete for the survival of their individual genes, and situations in which they cooperate for the survival of the group.

        So, again, bisexual tendencies could serve to reduce competitive tendencies, in scenarios where they’d be inappropriate and counterproductive. Competitive tendencies between members of the same sex would be hard-wired and instinctual, so the mechanism that selectively counteracted them would have to be also (rationalizations do not seem to overcome instinctive drives at an adequate rate, especially among less intelligent species, which obviously are what we evolved from). For this reason, non-reproductive homosexual behavior might be among nature’s simplest possible solutions, to the problem of countering instinct with instinct. In nature, an adaptation doesn’t need to appear superficially elegant. It just needs to work, on a statistical level, to be a valid adaptation that contributes to survival.

        So, as such, I find any argument that “bisexual tendencies are unnatural” highly dubious. And what percentage of homosexuals never, in their entire lives, engage in heterosexual activities? What percentage of them are purely homosexual, and not arguably bisexual to some degree?

        Anyway, as for those with a genetic predisposition NOT to engage in sexual reproduction AT ALL – “pure homosexuality” or “complete non-sexuality” (which does reportedly exist, though probably at an even lower frequency) – it’s hard to imagine that such a tendency could ever become widespread, if it were dictated by genes. I think the population might, statistically speaking, tolerate its occurrence at a certain low rate, without entirely eliminating this tendency via natural selection.

        As long as such a genetic predisposition were not TOO damaging to reproductive rates, then, even in the absence of artificial fertilization technology, heterosexuals (OR bisexuals) could continue to carry this tendency as a genetically recessive trait.

        All of these arguments assume that sexual behavior is dictated entirely by genetic predisposition, and this assumption is, in itself, deeply flawed. Human intelligence has evolved to a level that allows us to override our basic instinctive tendencies, and behave in ways that are contrary both to them, and to the frequent transmission of our genes. Human sexuality, much more than the sexuality of less intelligent animals, is probably influenced by culture AND conscious decision-making processes. But this discussion is entirely different from the one we started with, and I’m not going to pursue it any further, right now.

        **********

        I want to apologize for the previous name-calling. I wasn’t feeling particularly depressed, but I WAS feeling frustrated.

        I’m sorry to keep returning to this particular paragraph, but, one last time:

        “when homosexuals forfeit the natural process of reproduction then they are committing unnatural acts. That what they are really doing is turning sperm / egg into commodities that can be easily bought and sold: This is not usual, not normal, not ordinary, nor accepted (by me at least), not innate or whole by any means, but rather twisted for their own device, abnormal, and deviant to the natural course of reproduction. Kind of perverse when you think of it like that”

        I shouldn’t jump to labeling you a “fascist imbecile”, and again, I apologize for doing so. But the truth is, I do find this statement highly offensive. I try not to have too much of a hair-trigger temper, but some things do set me off. Still, you deserve a bit of an explanation.

        I consider this statement to be “gay-bashing” because I think it singles out homosexuals, for the label of “unnatural”, in a biased and illogical manner.

        Your argument, essentially, is that 1) homosexuality is not by itself a reproductively viable tendency or behavior; 2) people who do not engage in reproductively viable sexual practices must resort to artificial methods of conception; and 3) people who rely exclusively (or even partially, you did not specify) on artificial methods of conception are “doing something unnatural” (/twisted/abnormal/deviant/perverse/etc.).

        The problem is, “pure homosexuals” are not the only group of people, who do not engage in activities that would be reproductively viable “in nature” (meaning, in this case, “in the wild”/”in the absence of technological intervention”/”in the absence of non-instinctive, conscious, deliberate actions”, etc.).

        If you want to label them as “unnatural (/twisted/abnormal/deviant/perverse/etc.)”, then by logical implication, you NEED to extend this label to include EVERYONE who relies entirely on artificial/”unnatural” (as defined above) methods to achieve reproduction. To apply it EXCLUSIVELY to homosexuals, is to perform an act of illogical discrimination.

        So, what’s the deal? Where do you stand on the issue of artificial conception defined as anything BESIDES heterosexual intercourse)? Do you oppose, without exception, the use of artificial methods of conception (defined as anything BESIDES heterosexual intercourse)? (This stance would be strange, and difficult to support, but not discriminatory.) Or, do you exclusively oppose the use of artificial conception BY HOMOSEXUALS? (This stance IS discriminatory, and it indicates that you hold views that are bigoted against homosexuals, whether you label them as such or not.)

        Meanwhile, there’s the separate question of your stance regarding sexual behavior. As far as I can tell (and again, correct me if I am wrong), you deem homosexual behavior to be “unnatural (/twisted/abnormal/deviant/perverse/etc.)” because it is not conducive to “natural (/in the wild”/”in the absence of technological intervention”/”in the absence of non-instinctive, conscious, deliberate actions”, etc.) conception. By this logic, you would have to extend your definition of “unnatural (twisted etc.)” to include ANY and EVERY sexual act that was not conducive to “natural (by MY definition)” conception. So, when a heterosexual couple engages in oral sex, or sodomy, or uses contraceptives, or does ANYTHING that could be described as a “sexual behavior” but which is not conducive to sexual reproduction (hell, you could even include kissing/making out in this definition), are you saying that all of these behaviors are therefore “unnatural, twisted, abnormal, perverse, and/or deviant”?

        An important point I’m trying to drive home to you, is that the term “natural” is much too vague and subjective to deserve a place in a rational discussion, of sexuality or anything else. Part of what I consider a “bigoted” mentality, is to use the word “natural” in a vague way – where it can be interpreted to mean “something that doesn’t occur in the wild” (such as reproduction by means other than heterosexual intercourse), “something I personally find unappetizing” (such as homosexual behaviors, in the eyes of many people), “something that my religion condemns” (such as, again, homsexual behavior according to the Bible; and in this case, “NATURAL” AND “IMMORAL” ARE SYNONYMOUS IN THE MIND OF THE SPEAKER! This point deserves emphasis), or any number of other subjective meanings. It’s an extremely vague and ambiguous word. When I use it, I use it ONLY with a long list of qualifiers, so that everyone is clear on which definition of “natural” I’m referring to. When someone uses it without qualifiers – and particularly in referrence to homosexuality – it’s reasonable to assume that they intend it to carry SEVERAL of these disparate connotations, simultaneously. This assumption may be incorrect, but all too often, it is not. This is why, any time someone starts to describe homosexuality as being “unnatural”, they are skating on thin ice – intentionally or not, consciously or not, they are coming dangerously close to what many people will interpret as a display of bigotry and hate-speech. The reality is that in many cases, the people who make this interpretation are correct. In our society, it is still inordinately acceptable to hate homosexuals, moreso than most other recognized minorities.

        So when you say that “homosexuality is unnatural”, you need to take extra pains to be clear about what you mean.
        If you’re pointing out that the human anus is not particularly well-designed as an entry point for intercourse, I would tend to agree. Others may not; it’s subjective to what you find aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable. But this observation does not, by itself, carry any moral/ethical significance; it’s merely a matter of individual taste and preferrence. To each their own.
        If you’re stating that “affectionate behavior between members of the same sex is unnatural”, I would tend to disagree, and refer you to my above defense of bisexual behavior as a reinforcement to social bonding and cooperation.
        If you’re stating that “homosexuality is immoral”, then I disagree with you absolutely. In my mind (and this could probably be extrapolated, as the general viewpoint held by most cultural liberals), any informed, consensual interaction between adults is not immoral; it does not carry any moral/ethical significance, as long as no one is being harmed or coerced as a result of it.

        One final point, on this particular topic – if you equate “conducive to heterosexual reproduction” with “natural”, and equate “natural” with “morally valid/ethically acceptable/RIGHT”, then by implication, you’re stating that any act that’s conducive to heterosexual reproduction is ethically acceptable. Unfortunately for this argument, rape, unrestricted heterosexual promiscuity, polygamy, and perhaps other objectionable sexual behaviors become ethically acceptable by implication. I’m not saying that YOU condone any of these practices; I’m saying that the above argument is an oversimplification, and not, in this simple form, valid or acceptable in practice.

        **********

        I wish I could stop typing but alas, I have more to say.

        “I’ll accept “cultural-conservative” if that means standing up for my rights.”

        Well, I find this statement inconsistent with other statements you’ve made (i.e., hypocritical). Hear me out.

        “I thought you’d say something about regulating your cum, Mr. X: A waiver would easily solve all your issues, but to simply think that sperm/eggs/stem cells are ethically irrelevant to life?”

        Regulatory waivers for my cum? The argument I’m trying to make, is that a person’s physical body, and its products, are the exclusive property of that individual. Attempts to “regulate” them lead us into arguments in favor of a big-brother, babysitter style of government. Some things you just can’t regulate without creating a total police state. I would argue that our soiled socks fit into that category.

        Anyway, WHY would you feel the need to regulate the sale/trade/donation of a person’s semen? Because it may be used for reprodutive purposes? By that logic, ALL practices that can result in reproduction should be regulated by the same standard. The only way around this, is to appeal to arguments that discriminate against some group on some level. As I asked you earlier: Do you believe that homosexuals (as opposed to ALL who DO NOT engage in heterosexual activity), should not be allowed to reproduce by artificial methods? Or do you believe that methods of artificial conception should be banned in ALL cases? In other words, which methods of conception should be regulated, which should not, and by what logic? How does conception via heterosexual intercourse escape regulation, while other methods do not? This seems grossly inconsistent (and therefore unjust) to me.

        You also brought up the sale/trade of vital bodily fluids, organs, etc. It seemed irrelevant at the time, but in relation to your statement about “standing up for rights”, it needs to be addressed.

        Alright – suppose, hypothetically, you could profit by engaging in an activity that placed your own life at risk; and in this hypothetical scenario, you were fully cognizant of all of the risks involved, and of their statistical probability.

        I would argue that the government should not be interferring in this particular scenario; that to do so is a violation of rights. Because the question arises – should the government interfere in EVERY case where a person knowingly chooses to put their own life in jeopardy? If you argued “yes”, then I’d say that once again, you’re arguing in favor of a big-brother, babysitter, totalitarian government, which MUST frequently strip people of their privacy and freedom of choice in order to fulfill the function you’ve assigned to it.

        I’m not defending actions such as driving while intoxicated/”under the influence”, because these decisions jeopardize the lives of others. But by this logic, I DO advocate the right to engage in any risky behavior, as long as the individual knows and understands the risks involved, and is doing so purely of their own volition. By this logic, I DO oppose the so-called “war on drugs”, and many of our existing drug laws and penalties, but NOT our laws regarding things like DUI/DWI, in which an individual negligently places other lives at risk.

        Then there’s the question – “should the government interfere only in cases where a person knowingly chooses to put their own life in jeopardy, but is enticed to do so by financial or other incentives?” Again – no. This is still an argument in favor of a totalitarian babysitter government, which is forced to disregard people’s right to privacy and freedom in order to fulfill its function. Also, consider some of our existing practices: some individuals, lacking other opportunities for employment and legitimate income, choose to become soldiers. Inevitably, in some of these cases, they do so as a result of financial incentives, and ONLY financial incentives. So if you believe that “people should be prevented from knowingly putting their own lives in jeopardy, if they are motivated purely by financial incentives”, then by this logic, anyone seeking to become a soldier would have to be screened, based on their motives. Whether this makes sense to you or not, I do not think that the government is ever going to be persuaded to do this in practice.

        So, in conclusion – in a truly free society, people should be allowed to risk their lives, as long as they did so knowingly and of their own volition. They should still not be allowed to risk the lives of others; I do not advocate this. I would advocate providing financial incentives NOT to recklessly risk your own life (at least in the specific instances you’ve sited, of selling vital organs and bodily fluids for profit); and I would hope that the government would enforce laws against slavery and/or the trafficking of other human beings (infants or otherwise). However, I still do not think that it’s the government’s place to directly interfere in someone’s personally-risky behavior.

        You brought up the topic of abortion. Well…I drew a distinction between “existing human beings” and “raw biological material”, and conceded that in the cases of embryos and fetuses, this distinction became uncomfortably blurry. I say this because, along with sperm, ovum, and stem cells, I consider a newly-conceived embryo to fall into the category of “raw biological material”, and not an “existing human being.” Granted, it (PROBABLY, not always) WILL develop into a full-fledged human being, if left to its own devices, and if the mother takes certain relatively minor precautions regarding her own health. But at its initial and early stages, I still consider this embryo a “potential human being”, and not a full-fledged “existing human being.” I say this because in its early stages, it has no consciousness and cannot feel pain.

        This is a difficult topic, because at some point in its development, this embryo will cross a developmental threshold, and become a being that has at least a limited (but ever increasing) consciousness and capacity for sensation. After this threshold is crossed, it becomes increasingly difficult to categorize it as a “potential human being” rather than an “existing human being.”

        So, regarding my view on abortion – “Is early-stage abortion ethically acceptable?” – Yes, I believe that it is. “Is late-term abortion ethically acceptable?” – No, I believe that it is not. “At what stage of fetal development is it too late for an abortion to be considered ethically acceptable?” – Personally, I don’t know. I lack detailed knowledge of fetal development. I wish I had all of the answers, but inevitably, I do not.

        All of these arguments are irrelevant to the question of whether the government should intercede to protect a fetus from the actions and decisions of a mother it’s clearly dependent upon. At some point, the ethical need to protect a well-developed fetus is eclipsed by the need to prevent the development of an intrusive police state. The point is, late-term abortions may be ethically unacceptable; but if the creation of a totalitarian government, that disregards our rights to freedom and privacy, and intrudes excessively into everyone’s lives, is the ONLY plausible means of regulating this practice, then late-term abortions may be the lesser of these two evils. At some point, the government’s measures to protect human life must step aside in favor of maintaining a certain standard of privacy and freedom. This is a whole other discussion, beyond the scope of this comment (which is already too long).

        **********

        So, again, I apologize for calling you a fascist imbecile, etc. But I ask that you thoroughly considered all of the implications of all of your views and assertions, and hopefully revise some of them.

        Also – did you seriously copy one of your blogs, in its entirety, and paste it to the comment-page of Stak’s previous blog? This strikes me as a breach of internet etiquette. If you want me (and others) to subscribe to, read, and comment on your blog, then post a link, and I will do that. You and I seem to disagree on many points, but if you want, I will read your blogs, and respond to your ideas as rationally as possible, without getting emotional or attempting to label you.

        Finally – I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been depressed and frustrated, and I’m sorry if I’ve contributed to that. You made a statement that I found offensive, and I reacted to it in a short-sighted and emotional manner. So again, I’m sorry.

        • Leo

          thankyou4beingcivil

          social constructionsits? essentialists? what is sex, or gender, or identity? is it genetic, a disease? is male sperm an anti-depressent and if used appropriately cause pregnancy?

          give me an analogy, give me your experience, give me a recount and tell me yours is not unique, tell me how much it means to be part of or belonging, tell me…

          Or not, this is not an atheist petting zoo, however occassionaly I will feed the haters.

          there has been so much said, this week…we all anticipate reform and change for the better (in 90 days we’ll know)…how the majority votes, but not what it means for each one of us and in our lives.

  • Logic

    “unnatural” kind of means whatever someone wants it to mean. (definitions from the book “Everyday Morality”)
    1 “reproductive”–Thomas Acquinas apparently thought homosexuality was more of a sin than heterosexual rape b/c at least rape could result in reproduction.
    2 “healthy”–the assumption that gays are mentally ill or otherwise unhealthy
    3 “common” or “usual”–non-deviant. But left-handed people are not common or usual either, does that mean they’re immoral?
    4 “if it feels natural”–totally subjective. Straight sex doesn’t feel natural to a gay person, obviously.
    5 “conforming to gender roles”
    6 (and this is the best one) “geometrically complementary”–basically, men’s and women’s genitals “fit together”. In other words, “the body is made up of in-holes and out-holes”!

  • Leo

    Kudos!

    Big Gun’s is getting at the root issue here: the negative connotations words carry. How could it NOT be difficult to navigate these issues when they are so dynamic?

    IDK about a fertility test, but in Montana we have blood tests before you get married to prove that each doesn’t have an STD, namely syphilis…which is highly contagious and easily passed from the mother to child…sorta implies that marriage ought or does lead to procreation (for those who are physically capable.)

    Maybe marriage laws should be changed to mean for procreation…grant them procreation licenses. If it’s just about friendship and attraction then why be married at all? Why not simply say you’re in a passive relationship or in an active relationship? What’s wrong with boyfriends, girlfriends, being a couple? Oh yeah, they want tax breaks, health coverage, and the things married people take for granted. Maybe non-procreating heterosexuals shouldn’t get those benefits either?

    • http://Shaunphilly.wordpress.com ShaunPhilly

      Leo, that is either great satire or pathetic thinking.

      • Leo

        Why? Homosexuals want to change marriage laws because they feel their entitled to receive domestic partnership benefits. If its about entitlement, then we should carefully consider who gets those benefits, right? If marriage carries a theistic and sexual orientation (stigmatisms), then lets change the legal interpretation of marriage so that it doesn’t. Maybe you don’t want to talk about the Chinese, how about welfare?

        • admin

          Marriage was a legal contract in which a father gave his daughter to a worthy gentleman as if she were property. In order to attract the best gentlemen, the father would sweeten the deal with a dowry. Women were property! But in the 20th century, the definition of marriage changed and now women are people with rights and they can choose who to marry. Now, love has changed the definition of marriage. So now, I think love should be a factor again. procreation is no longer the only reason why people marry. Many people marry today because they love each other and and choose to be intimate with each other exclusively. I know many married couples who either can’t have children or don’t want children. Children weren’t on their mind when they got married and had nothing to do with their love. Marriage is a commitment of love between consenting adults. And I don’t see how it affect you. So why shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to express their commitment to each other?

          And for the record, PA has no such blood test for marriage and I doubt that they do in many southern states either, lol.

    • admin

      So if someone can’t have children because of infertility, you don’t think they should be allowed to marry? And if a couple simply doesn’t want to have children, you think that they should be legally forced to have children if they are married?
      -Staks

      • Leo

        Okay ok, that was funny. I was trying not to bring in the south, but what the hey!

        And I agree totally with your statements above, love/intimacy, that marriage has evolved (thank GOD!)-not actually him but the exclamation!

        It is evolving, so why not reflect that evolution by dividing marriage? Add a category, don’t blanket it. In fact remove the word marriage in its entirety. Couple-license : Family-license?

  • Leo

    Wait, what? Yes: kinda. Marriage should be divided into procreators/adopters and non-family type marriages; If two people can’t have children or are deemed unsuitable to adopt then they wouldn’t be issued a marriage-permit of this sort. Instead, couples who don’t want to have children or are incapable of adopting would still have the same rights to domestic partnerships, such as medical coverage, but they would be considered under the non-family marriage permit. If their status changed then they would be able to apply for the other license. The status would change for couples who have raised a family and whose children have left their care.

    And yes, that would lift the family unit above mere couple bonding. The only difference in treatment would be those towards child development. But, I’ve been wrong all week, so rip it up.

    • admin

      So I guess now marriage we need Marriage Police! “I’m sorry ma’am, you said that you weren’t interested in children, so you were given a non-family marriage permit and now we see that you are pregnant. I’m afraid you will have to come with us.”

      “I’m sorry ma’am, you said that you wanted to have kids so we gave you a marriage permit. It has been 6 months and you have yet to become pregnant. You are under arrest.”

      Sounds like a great plan to me and just think of the jobs it will create, lol. Leo, I have to say that this is a pretty retarded argument you are making here. What the hell happened to you?
      -Staks

  • Leo

    I should take some of Sam’s advice and stop wasting my breath…who said anything about marriage-police? This would be an incentive program (hello taxes and welfare). I didn’t say the details would be easy to work out, but hey, I’m trying. What are you doing? Putting people on the defensive? Out one side of your face you preach of love and exalting family, then out the other you say marriage isn’t about family. If my interpretation was reality, then the first five years of my marriage would have been considered Couple-licensed, when we decided to have children and raise a family we should have put in for the Family-license (incentives), then when our children are all grown up we’d revert back to Couple-licensed standing. Doesn’t sound too far fetched as for how marriage would be defined legally.

    As for a retarded argument, the whole notion of marriage is retarded: Cling to it if it makes you feel like your doing something positive for homosexuals. But then I have to ask, what about the couples who never get married? What about the people who don’t buy into the entitlement argument?

    What happened to me? Disrespect, arrogance, comments like it doesn’t involve you…you’re sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, that’s what happened to me. If that’s the message you’re preaching then it’s no wonder why theists don’t come around here much. You claimed it yourself, Mr. Big Gun distracter.

    • admin

      Leo, when you talk about licenses, you are talking about more than just incentives. You are talking about laws. Laws need to be enforced. Therefore marriage police.

      To me, a family is two or more people who love each other and care for each other. That is what family means to me. Family isn’t exclusive to marriage. And marriage doesn’t make a family. Your claim that I am putting people on the defensive because I ask people to justify their view that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry is odd. It seems that you put yourself on the defensive when you claimed that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral without being able to justify such a position. So because I have defended homosexuals, I am putting you an the defensive? Okay.

      I don’t think I “disrespected” you in any way and like I said before, I am not responsible for how others treat you. I have told you before that I value your opinion, but now I am starting to question that since as of late you have really been pretty far out there. I really don’t understand how you can call homosexuality immoral and push to restrict them from getting married. I really do think that is a ridiculous view and one which has been heavily influenced by the evils of Christianity.

      BTW, The “Big Guns” comment was a light hearted joke. You think I am arrogant, but you are the one who thinks that I wrote an entire blog because of you. It is not disrespectful for me to point out that the world doesn’t revolve around you Leo.
      -Staks

  • Leo

    I’ve been married for 13 years now, Stak’s and I have a marriage license. Yet, I’ve never seen the marriage-police enforcing that license, of course I’m not committing adultery either: Marriage police; mute-point, come on.

    How would you describe calling my argument retarded? If there’s no need to think then why bother defending any thought? When did I start saying homosexuality is immoral, if only to justify my point that the numbers don’t add up to being the NORM? Maybe it is the norm in LA or Boston, but not in Montana, not nationally, and not globally. Immoral?

    Exactly, family isn’t limited to married folk. So, why would homosexuals want anything to do with this ancient tradition of property/dowry? For that matter why would any atheist? I only suggested that since marriage has evolved, then we should guide it…even get rid of it and substitute a better practice.

    WTF! Again all about Leo? Me, really? I feel so fucking special right now I could spit.

    Get over me and get into the argument. Matter-o-fact where’s Mr. X with his beneficial contributions to the human species by homosexuals?

    • admin

      Leo, have you been watching the news today? That is what the whole thing in California is about, marriage policing.

      Your argument is more than just that there are only a minority of homosexuals. That is not what you seem to be suggesting with the claims of “normalcy.” The term doesn’t apply to simple statistics but is also meant to suggest some sort of moral component. When someone says that a particular behavior isn’t normal, they are usually not merely suggesting that less than 50% of people participate in that behavior. The claim is that such behavior is deviant or twisted. That such behavior is unacceptable. You said so yourself:

      “I claimed: That when homosexuals forfeit the natural process of reproduction then they are committing unnatural acts. That what they are really doing is turning sperm / egg into commodities that can be easily bought and sold: This is not usual, not normal, not ordinary, nor accepted (by me at least), not innate or whole by any means, but rather twisted for their own device, abnormal, and deviant to the natural course of reproduction. Kind of perverse when you think of it like that, huh.”

      So don’t try to pretend that you just meant that homosexuality was a minority. That is not what you meant and you know it. Now, you can simply say that we have made some good points here and that perhaps you were wrong to claim that homosexuality was immoral or unacceptable or you can continue to try to defend your ridiculous position that homosexuality is immoral. The third option might be what you tried to do here which was to continue to pretend that he don’t think that homosexuality is immoral when you very clearly do.
      -Staks

      • Leo

        every second well all three hours worth anyways and keeping an eye on the press too. As for policing? I don’t see it. They have rights. Where are the police…

        Now your twizting my words for your own devices. Is it normal or morally correct for all people to artificially inseminate themselves? If we are all holes to fill…then fine.

  • Leo

    Prop 8 clearly states it’s intent in 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and woman is valid and recognized in the state of California.” Opponents may say this goes against homosexual rights, proponents say homosexuals have domestic partnerships: I say the homosexuals are acting like women who want to join an all male club. Why can’t we have male clubs, or female clubs, or heterosexual-marriages and homosexual-partnerships?

    • admin

      Why can’t we have white water fountains and black water fountains? Why do black people have to drink from the same water fountains we do? Why are black people allowed to go to the same schools as white people? Why can’t they just have separate but equal schools, Leo?
      -Staks

      • Leo

        Because what you’re asking for is discrimination. Is there no brotherhood any more? Would you close down the Boy and Girl Scouts of America?

        Sure, why not atheist schools as well? Aren’t you all about enlightening the fundamental Christian schools?

        • admin

          Why yes, I do want to open up the Boy and Girl Scouts to everyone because as they stand now, they are discriminatory. That is what “Scouting for All” is about.

          As for atheist schools??? What would atheist schools teach? I support secular education for all and if some people want to supplement that education with bronze aged mythology, I am all for that. But that should be voluntary and open for anyone and most importantly supplementary to secular education. But that has nothing to do with this discussion so why don’t you get back on track and defend why you feel that Separate is Equal and that discriminating against people on grounds of who they are and not what they believe is cool and equal opportunity is immoral.
          -Staks

        • Leo

          I will defend why I feel that Separate can be Equal, and as for “…discriminating against people on grounds of who they are and not what they believe is cool and equal opportunity is immoral,” I’ll divide into; one, actions speak louder then words, and two, equal opportunity has limitations. (1-2-3) First, I’m no conformist when it comes to human creativity I believe that a rainbow of unique relationships can be fostered in meaningful ways: HELLO even homosexual relationships, Scouts, book clubs, Christians, ect. Second, you’re alluding to thought-policing here. Third, how about some equal opportunity with your wife, just me you and her? Come on Staks…you draw a line somewhere too.

        • admin

          First, now you seem to be changing your tune about. Personally, I am cool with that. Before you thought that homosexuals were twisted, abnormal, freaks who are a danger to society and who make sperm and egg commodities to be bought and sold and now you support the rainbow of unique relationships. Good for you Leo. I am glad you have realized the error of your ways.

          Second, “thought-policing?” Isn’t that a slippery slop fallacy? Besides, I’m not advocating arresting you for being a hateful bigot, just reasoning with you, arguing with you, and pointing out how wrong you are.

          Third, Hey I am open to a threesome. Probably not with you though. I don’t think my wife would go for it, but hey if it floats all of our boats, sure. We certainly should have the right to have a threesome if all three of us are consenting adults. I totally, 100% support that. But I don’t think we should be forced to have a threesome against someone’s will. That would be rape.
          -Staks

    • admin

      Oh, and now gay people are acting “like women?” Tell us Leo, how do women act? How dare women wish to be treated as equals to men, right Leo? Hell, a hundred years ago we wouldn’t even let them vote and now we have to treat them like equals? How dare they? lol. Are there any more groups of people you wish to insult this week, Leo? Any more groups of immoral people out there who are “unacceptable to you?”
      -Staks

  • Leo

    If you’d rather wear the “pants”, fine. The analogy fits.

    Dude, you don’t treat your wife like that, do you? If you want to discuss my relationship with my wife, then she should be present: come have a personal chat with us if you like…you won’t find any of your accusations here.

    Of course I don’t want to insult any other groups, only Christains. (huh)

    • admin

      First, I didn’t say anything about “your wife” so again the world does not revolve around Leo and his wife. But you did say that gays are acting like women implying that women should be all uppity about joining men’s clubs and being treated like equals. Clearly I was being sarcastic since you seem to think that women wanting to be equal to men was some how being whiny.

      Second, I don’t think I have ever insulted the entire group of Christians as people. I do criticize their beliefs and I do laugh at their beliefs. But I have also stood up and defended their right to have whatever ridiculous beliefs they want. You are telling gay people that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry and that being gay is unacceptable to you and hence immoral. You are calling gay people twisted and unnatural. Then you have supported the Separate but Equal doctrine which black people in America have fought so hard to overturn and then to top it all off, you claim that women shouldn’t try to be treated as equal to men. You are coming off very poorly in this discussion, Leo.

      And finally, you are telling me to “wear the pants?” Wow, why not just call all women whores while you are at it, lol.
      -Staks

      • Leo

        No, but she is a woman and you did insinuate that I somehow treated her unequally, so if I cannot rely on my background to bring forth reason then who should I glean this from, your history?

        I laugh at you, is an insult, if I laugh with you that is not insulting. Get it?

        And if all my analogies are lost upon your deaf ears…fuck you, you’re not worth my time.

        • admin

          Actually, you were the one saying that gays are acting like women who want to be part of a men’s club. That wasn’t my words. I simply pointed out in a sarcastic way how ridiculous that comment was. Second, I don’t laugh at Christians as a group, I laugh at what Christians believe. If they don’t want me to laugh at their ridiculous beliefs, then I would suggest not believing in such ridiculous things. I have covered that in more than one blog already. Third, don’t get all snippy and over emotional just because you can’t defend your position with logic and reason. That just makes you look petty. While I have had disagreements with you in the past, they have always been respectful ones. This time however, I lost respect for you but I have still treated you with respect. Your view that homosexuality is immoral is just indefensible and you know it. You can be like most Christians and hold to your conclusion despite the evidence to the contrary or you can learn and change your view to fit the evidence.
          Finally, I find it sad that since you really can’t defend your position that you have to resort base insults like, “fuck you.” That is how you should know that you have lost this argument. You can no longer defend your position with logic or reason.
          -Staks

  • Leo

    Thank you Brother Sam, youknow: Fuck it.

  • existential blues

    How about if the government gets out of the marriage business altogether, and do it like they do in France? In order to be married and obtain the rights of marriage as recognized by the state, you must have a civil ceremony (often performed by the mayor of the town). At that point you are married. If you want a religious wedding, you are free to do so. The state doesn’t care. It has no legal effect.

    Leo, discrimination is one thing in private life (golf clubs, etc.), but it doesn’t fly for government institutions. By your logic, why can’t Mississippi keep blacks out of their state universities?

    Of course homosexuals who get married want the benefits of marriage. Why does that seem so strange and bad to you? Why should one group arbitrarily be deprived of legal rights?

    And finally, should a man who had penile cancer and had his penis surgically removed be allowed to marry? (Marry a woman, I mean.)

    • Leo

      I obviously don’t know how rights are being withheld from homosexuals in a marriage setting, enlighten me…I was under the impression there was no distinction except for who gets to carry the title of legitimate marriage or domestic partnership.

  • Leo

    actually, talking till your blue in the face…trying to reason with all available analogies, tackling the big stereotypes and lables without resorting to “the books” was almost an effort in futility here. Call me a cultural-conservatist if you must, but the thing of it is with the homosexual role, (Richard Morh, Mary McIntosh)nobody has the answer. Legally, though? The government sticks it’s fingers in everything…more people equals more regulations.

    I cursed you…You curse me…the light ,may pass through the droplets but it produces a variety of colors.

    Peace.

  • Carrie

    Right on!!