American Psychological Association is officially endorsing same-sex marriage

Re: Considering Evolution...

Mother nature makes creatures which are asexual, dual sexual, and transexual. She doesn't seem to have the hangups we do.

 

Re: Considering Evolution...

Meant by whom? Evolution by natural selection--as opposed to guided evolution, a subcategory of intelligent design--is based on the principle that traits are more likely to be carried on by offspring if there are offspring to carry them on. Gay sex doesn't produce kids, so it follows that homosexuality wouldn't be a desirable trait from the standpoint of gene propagation.

But you know what? I'm not sure gene propagation is everything it's cracked up to be. Evolution by natural selection is a wonderful explanation of biological diversity but a terrible metaethic (when we base ethics on it, it literally produces social Darwinism--something Darwin himself would never have condoned), and one that we now have the power to transcend. Heterosexual men (well, some of us, anyway) transcend it by marrying one woman instead of trying to impregnate as many women as possible, but homosexuality is also a way of transcending that imperative--and, if you prefer to assume a sentient Nature, it could be her way of solving the overpopulation crisis. If gays and lesbians want to carry on their own genes, there's always IVF and surrogate parenting...or, in the case of lesbian couples, David Crosby.


Cheers,

 

Hemaphrodites don't propogate...

That is assuming that a specie becomes asexual, dual sexual (unless abnormality) in reproduction. There is no proof that the human race has ever been that. As far as we know it has always been heterosexual according to the schema of mother nature for the human race. If we ascribe Divine powers and a pesonality to "mother nature" she apparently won't do the dual sex organ thing on humans. That should say something.

 

Re: Re: Re: I do....

Tom - Be verrry careful here. You're beginning to sound a bit like a Libertarian (who might take the position that the state has no business becoming involved in any way in any kind of marriage.)
Just another perspective.
Jack

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: I do....

Actually, that's pretty close to where I stand on this issue; I think the government's involvement in marriage should be strictly secular, and that any religious or sacramental dimensions should be left to the churches. If that means that all marriages are called civil unions for government purposes, and marriages qua marriages are things that churches perform and governments only acknowledge, I'm not sure that'd be such a bad thing...


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: I do....

I kind of resemble this remark! I do believe that marriage is best defined as the union of a male and female, however, such definition is better left to the church community than to the governmental community.

 

Be very, very careful here gentlemen. You are treading dangerously close to the position that people, not the government, should determine the course of their lives. Setting precedents in this realm has far reaching implications for issues that might seem to be far removed but when examined in terms of the consistency of the underlying principles are really quite close. In any case, it's interesting to talk about it.
Jack

 

Interesting thought. You mention the added expense of social benefits. I feel it's a moot point, because if these individuals married an opposite sex partner, their would still be a net increase in the number of marriages, and therefore benefit payments would still exist (and increase). Therefore, financially to the government/employer, they still have to pay out to a spouse. All that changes is the gender of the person receiving the check in the mail.

Just a thought.

-JassenB

 

Re: Considering Evolution...

I wouldn't see it as proof. Ever seen a $5,000 bull that refused to mount a cow, but would only mount the other bulls? I have. The bull is obviously of no use to the rancher for producing calves, but there's nothing he can do about the sexual orientation of the bull (except use in vitro methods). It ain't the bull's fault...It's the way it thinks/is/behaves/acts.

-Jassen

 

Uhhhh....people *should* determine the course of their own lives, not the government.

Similar to how my phone bill, my mortgage, my retirement, my health care, my education, my employability, etc., are all my responsibility to provide for myself and, by my choosing, my family. Last time I checked, it's not your responsibility to take care of me, and therefore it isn't the government's job either.

However, if you would care to *volunteer* to pay my mortgage next month, let me know.

-JassenB

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own, and don't necessarily reflect the views of the Libertarian Party of Colorado nor the views of my campaign staff.

 

Re: Re: Considering Evolution...

I'm an old farm boy and that sounds like a lot of bull.

 

Who cares?

I won't say to much about this other than to say that maybe God does, for it was "God" who created marriage, between one man and one woman.

Rich Hartel

 

Or maybe God wants us to give the same rights to gays and lesbians, and is full of righteous answer towards us for blithely excluding modern-day Samaritans on the same sorts of technical doctrinal grounds the more upwardly mobile first-century Pharisees used.

Really, this question can be turned the other way remarkably easily given the relative silence of Scripture on the issue of homosexuality--we've got one verse in Leviticus (a text that also calls for lynching Sunday laborers and smart-aleck kids), a few offhand doctrinal statements by Paul (who only used it to illustrate larger points, usually having to do with not judging others), and the dubious old assumption that what really ticked God off about a town full of violent rapists was that they used the wrong orifice. Hardly enough for an ironclad case against gay marriage, if we're to assume that even heterosexual marriage in its modern-day form is doctrinally pure enough to even recognizably qualify as marriage by biblical standards, or even that a Christian God expects us to obey the 613 at all. Two words: Britney Spears. Two more: Joe Millionaire. If Sodom and Gomorrah really were applicable today, Las Vegas would be a crater by now.

Something tells me that if God's ticked at us about something, it probably isn't that we're too accommodating towards gays and lesbians. No, I suspect the God Jesus talked about would be much more annoyed about the fact that we're a bunch of rich fatcats who let the rest of the world starve, and that by the standard Christ himself used, we've got about as much chance of making it to the Great Beyond as a camel passing through the eye of a needle--maybe the same camel we're swallowing when we strain out all those gnats. Heck yes, we fine heterosexual Christians should be tolerant and forgiving and "Yes, darlin', of COURSE you can get married; why do you think we'd stop you? We're no great shakes ourselves." It's the least we can do to save our own pathetic hypocritical necks.


Cheers,

 

Very well said Tom. I can think of nothing more American than standing up for one of the minorities our society likes to attack.

 

Actually, Tom, I can imagine an even more ironic form of hypocrisy: a live-and-let-live world where homosexuality IS tolerated (pace the Supreme's decision in Lawrence over a year ago, June), but gays are just too upitty to accept that very few religions embrace their lifestyle - or, alternatively, that they themselves have been notoriously negligent in creating mystical traditions accepting of themselves (since religious gay marriage IS NOT illegal - only state sanctioned gay marriage is), preferring instead, almost to a man, the greedy secularist Holy Grail - and then proceed to project HATRED (where there is none) and pernicious exclusion since society supports the maintainence of procreative families but not unprocreative ones - and the radical gay lobby takes umbrage at nature, blaming the rest of us "unsympathetic" bastards! - forcing a change of tradition (of 10,000 of years standing), that could instead be fixed by passing alternative laws instead (but won't)!!!

(Actually, it's worth noting - parenthetically - that most homeosexuals do not support "Gay Marriage," and based on the Dutch experience, there's very little real demand for it.)

Tom - you roll over too much for pacificistic "toleration" when sensible criticism is called for - even here. As G. K. Chesterton said, "'Tolerance' is a virtue to the man without convictions."

--Orson
(Who himself remains childless, never married, and not yet officially Gay.)

 

Well, you know, this could have been the problem with the Samaritans, too--they just couldn't accept that their syncretic form of Judaism wouldn't fly in Roman or Jewish terms. But the truth of the matter is that LGBTs are included in Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Metropolitan Community Church (an outright gay church from the beginning), Unitarian Universalism, and the Episcopal Church, and will soon be included in Conservative Judaism, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and very probably the United Methodist Church as well. There's also a strong gay constituency in Advaita Vedanta, the best represented form of Hinduism in America--Christopher Isherwood, a well known Advaita writer and translator (as well as author of The Berlin Stories, upon which Cabaret was based), was openly gay (and was at one point W.H. Auden's lover). American Buddhism also has a strong LGBT constituency. The only religion where LGBTs are completely excluded is, ironically enough, Islam, though there is some work being done in this regard.

Actually, there is a very clear tradition of gay and lesbian mysticism--see Andrew Harvey's Dancing with Shiva for a nice anthology of same. The Judeo-Christian tradition is also full of what many believe to be gay figures, from David and Jonathan to St. John of the Cross. Heck, some folks even say Jesus was gay (per the non-marriage and references to the Beloved Disciple); I don't buy into that theory myself, but it certainly qualifies as a religious belief. But in any case, I don't see why LGBTs should be expected to start their own religions when nearly all were born into perfectly acceptable faith traditions, particularly when so many forms of those traditions do accept LGBTs.

True enough.

It's bizarre to hear this coming from an atheist. As you should know better than anyone, secularism can be quite altruistic--and, in any case, I have seen no evidence that LGBTs abandon religions that don't exclude them.

There is sometimes hatred, as you should know; not necessarily any on this forum, but more than enough in the real world.

Actually, society supports the maintenance of plenty of unprocreative families--as long as they're heterosexual. Pat Buchanan and his wife, for example, have borne no children (and unless we're looking at a repeat of the Abraham and Sarah scenario, that isn't going to change).

Well, I'd say it is pretty unsympathetic to say that a significant portion of the population should have its relationships marginalized and its rights denied simply on the basis of sexual orientation.

Actually, if conservatives were to stand up and propose civil union laws in all fifty states, that probably would throw a monkeywrench in the gay marriage movement. But since they aren't, LGBTs are well served to go on and try for equal rights rather than separate-but-equal rights.

If that's true, where's the harm in making it legal?

There have been times when I might have rolled over for the sake of toleration, Orson; this isn't one of them. I stand pretty firm on this issue.

Chesterton also said "I owe my success to having listened respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite." But I don't really want "tolerance" for LGBTs; I want full inclusion.

But if you were officially gay, the law as it stands now would still place you in the other two categories whether you wanted to be or not.


Cheers,

 

Being gay is not the same as being black so the two shouldn't be compared. I agree that everyone should be treated fairly but to try to say that gays are going through the same type ordeal as blacks is simply a lie. I could never hide being black.

I don't recall (the scripture) off the top of my head but I know that the New Testament doesn't advocate homosexuality either (everyone always focuses on the O.T.). <--And for that matter, the O.T. has nothing flattering to say about homosexuality.

Marriage is God's instutution and as such, I believe He should have the say so as far as who participates and who doesn't (in His institution). I honestly believe that God knew what He was doing when He made Adam and Eve. I think that there was a reason why He spoke of the bride-groom and bride-maid in the N.T. (male/female).

From what I've read about God, He never changes and He destroyed Sodom and Ghomorra (SP) for whole-heartidly embracing what some people consider an "equal right". I wonder whether or not He would do the same to the U.S.

 

Wow. Another cause that has God on their side. How unusual. You're so lucky!
And yeah, I'm sure he'll kill us all over this. It's so important .

 

Sarcasm will get you nowhere, Khan. Debaters shouldn't be childish. Yes though, I do believe I have God on my side (and yes, that is enough).

 

Please. This from the poster of: "Marriage is God's instutution and as such, I believe He should have the say so as far as who participates and who doesn't (in His institution)."

Maybe he lives in MA, and your ears aren't as fine-tuned to god as you presume.