Defending the Truth

The word has a significance to me as a human...And as a human I "know" that humans are supposed to partner "male and female". To pretend, even legally, that the homosexual union and the heterosexual union are the "same" under the word "marriage" is unfathomable to me civilly, religiously or any other "ly"..

It's more a like the difference between a herd of elephants, a pride of lions, or a gaggle of geese. Different names for different groups.

In my opinion, the religious aspects should not be the focus of the legal sense of marriage...And for those inclined to not only have their marriages recognized legally, but spiritually too? Then nothing is stopping them from having their legal marriages sanctified by their choosen house of worship, as long as that house of worship approves of that marriage...

FX, I might agree with you in principle.. but "it just doesn't make any damn sense" isn't always a good reason to keep something illegal.

Would there be demonstorable harm to society by making gay marriage legal?

If so, we still should take into account the possible benefits.

What would be the potential benefits of legal gay marriage?


Would the benefits outweigh the negatives?


These are the questions we need to be asking, IMO

The same thing we did with abortion is what you are saying? The benefits of allowing women to have safe abortion outweighs the risk of death from their having to seek unsafe alternatives. Even though we, as intelligent humans, know that it's tantamount to killing/murder/homicide.

I think the benefits of calling the union "marriage" vs. "civil union" aren't strong enough. I do think the benefits of allowing "civil unions" are strong enough to allow for that though.

I invite you to use your questions on my other "favorite subject" and PM me your result.

What doesn't make "any damn sense" is the idea that gay families aren't equal to straight families. Of course they're not the same - but, they are equal. Just as a black man is not exactly the same as a white man - but they are equal. A woman is not the same as a man - but they are equal...etc.

I'm actually surprised that in 2007, we are still arguing the definition of the word 'equal' in America...while we go around the world spreading freedom and democracy.

Bravo, Tris.

I do agree with you FX. The fact is a pride of Lions, herd of elephants or a pair of Geese do not partner with the same sex. It simply is not natural.

Giving credence to same sex marraige is a downgrade of our society of humans. Heck even a Gay Lion or Gay Elephant is shunned from the Pride or Herd. Wild Geese do not pair up for life in the same sex, it takes male and female.

Equal before the law? Sure, Tristan. At the end of the day, I have no problem with that.

But homosexuality still doesn't make any real sense to me. Trying to make it "make sense" -- in the sense that it's "equal" to hetrosexualty, IMO, requires gymnastics in rationalization. I will always veiw it as a dysfunction. A relatively harmless, victimless dysfunction, yes. A matter between consenting adults that's really nobody's business, yes.
But a dysfunction nontheless, and one for which I think there will eventualy be effective treatment. (Although, as I've said before, the current "reperative therapy" is a sham to be avoided, IMO.)

And I don't think you can compare it to race or gender. Yes, you can cite the fact that gays have suffered in ways similar to how other minorities have suffered -- and hatred of gays often does go hand-in-hand with sexism and racism.


But past that, you're simply trying to rationalize something that ultimately doesn't compute, IMO.

You can't directly compare a person's ethnicity or gender to something that gives some people what I consider to be odd, dysfunctional sexual proclivities.


Freedom and democracy have nothing to do with "equality," btw, unless you're talking about equality before the law.

If you're going to argue total, across the board equality, then by that reasoning there's no reason a person with Downs Syndrome shouldn't be President, for example.

Gambling, the recreational use of marijuna and prostitution also downgrade humans, and in much more immediate and sharp was than loving, committed homosexual relationships do, IMO.

Yet I think consenting adults should be able to legally gamble, smoke pot or buy the services of a whore if they so choose.

For that matter, the consumption of alcohol, viewing pornographic material, smoking and poor nutrition also downgrade people, IMO -- and those things are legal.

The crucible for whether something should be legal is almost never if it's "moral." Nor should it be, IMO.

Morality is a matter of individual choice and religious law, IMO... not secular law.