Read some recent threads on this forum supporting gay marriage.
I support civil rights and employment benefits related demands by gay groups.
however that does not mean the concept of marriage is the same as gay civil union.
obama and clinton were political opportunists to jump on gay marriage bandwagon. They are following electoral needs.
Reasons why marriage is different:
(A) marriage was always between two humans of opposite sex.
(B)marriage is not an institution started by organized religion. If anything religion joined or used the institution of martiage.
(C) family formation from the tribal human times was crucial to societal formation and development. There is no evidence of same sex families in any society.
(D) the affinity of mother to its natural off springs is the strongest bond known among all living beings. That forms an integral base for family. Thus sex between partners becomes a part of family creation.
(E) the utopian idea of selfless sacrifice between human beings is practiced best in individual families. Show me evidence of another social structure where such sacrifice is repeated so many billions of times.
(F)

Cont fro earlier post:
(F) marriage is an institution that existed from several thousand years. It also resembles the natural behaviour of most of nature in terms of sex between opposite sexes. Most of the likely situations of such close relationships were experienced and reasonably well understood to formulate related rules and regulations.
(G) gay civil union is relatively new idea. No one had any real idea of what this means to individuals and any children involved. It may take a long time, say, a hundred years to study and define the civil union characteristics and its impact on children and society. Experimentation will continue. Civil rights should be protected.

But marriage cannot be equated with gay civil union. At least not yet.

I think public opinion is shifting towards acceptance of same-sex marriage. I agree with you that marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage -- or long-term committed relationships between consenting adults -- have been around in all societies, regardless of religious affiliations.

It is only recently that society has begun to accept long-term committed relationships between consenting adults of the same gender. But once you consider those relationships worth supporting, I don't see the need to invent a new term called "civil union" and wall off the old term "marriage" as not available to gay people. That sounds a little too much like the "separate but equal" argument that legitimized Jim Crow in its day. If straight people have the ability to enter long-term committed relationships that the state recognizes as marriage and confers tangible financial and other benefits on that relationship, I see it as discriminatory if the state refuses to give the same status and benefits to similar relationships that gay people have. What is good for straight couples is good for gay couples.

The institution of marriage is strengthened when more long-term relationships are formalized as marriages. Allowing same-sex couples who are eager to get married to do so will strengthen marriage, not weaken it.

truthbetold wrote:Read some recent threads on this forum supporting gay marriage.

(D) the affinity of mother to its natural off springs is the strongest bond known among all living beings. That forms an integral base for family. Thus sex between partners becomes a part of family creation.

What about a lesbian couple? If one of them has a natural offspring, the bond is not compromised in any way.

I guess the sex between them is not for procreation, and recreational sex is inferior to procreational sex.

Animal kingdom?

An,
are you suggesting an exclusion should be made for gay couple who have natural children and the natural children is part of the new family unit?
Except for sex, that family is no different than a person raising their children in a second marriage, or living with relatives.
The fundamental argument of marriage strength comes from natural children and parents drive to protect and provide them. In this case a portion of that strength is retained.

Tri,
public opinion can shift the otherway in 50 years from now. As i said it is not civil rights issue.
Your primary argument is that consenting adukt relationship cannot be discriminated against. If civil rights are not taken away and spousal benefits are given to gay couple, what other rights were taken away?
Marriage as an institution integral to family. The argument is for natural family vs gay family. As science makes advances, the idea of natural may change. But based on what we know same sex couple cannot procreate and create a natural family. Hence that family lacks the nature's instinct.
The natural family unit's success that was repeated billions of times over thousands of years cannot be compared with an experiment of few decades.
Let civil union earn its spurs by hardwork over long period of time to be compared as marriage.

truthbetold wrote:public opinion can shift the otherway in 50 years from now.

I don't think it will, but we will see.

truthbetold wrote:As i said it is not civil rights issue.
Your primary argument is that consenting adukt relationship cannot be discriminated against. If civil rights are not taken away and spousal benefits are given to gay couple, what other rights were taken away?

The same argument can be used for using separate restrooms for white and colored people. "Separate but equal" is not right, and marriage for one group and civil union for another is not right either.

What is separate but equal? Two different institutions. Instead of showing equality between institutions you are using liberal demagogary to push your point.

truthbetold wrote:What is separate but equal? Two different institutions. Instead of showing equality between institutions you are using liberal demagogary to push your point.

Why do we need two different institutions, one for straight people and another for gay people? Why is that not like one restroom for white people and another for colored people?

since you insist on restroom analogy, think of a demand by liberals who ignore all other physical characteristics but insist all people must be allowed to use women's restroom since all human beings have one pee tool. otherwise you call the opponents separate but equal types.

truthbetold wrote:since you insist on restroom analogy, think of a demand by liberals who ignore all other physical characteristics but insist all people must be allowed to use women's restroom since all human beings have one pee tool. otherwise you call the opponents separate but equal types.

It is possible that a generation or two down the line, unisex restrooms become the norm, and our grandchildren will think separate restrooms are sexist and weird. For same-sex marriage, that moment has already come. The majority of American people in recent polls support same-sex marriage.

There are two cases in front of the Supreme Court. Let me explain my position on each and my rationale. Then we can have a discussion on those specific cases.

The DOMA case is about blatant discrimination that clearly violates the equal protection clause. It violates the principles of federalism and states rights, and it financially hurts gay people. Legally-married gay couples cannot file their federal taxes together, and they cannot receive benefits when their spouses serve in the US military. This is discrimination against a small minority, plain and simple. Based on your opinions, it sounds like you agree that DOMA needs to be struck down. IRS (and the federal government in general) should treat same-sex married couples (or if you prefer, gay couples in civil unions) the same way it treats straight married couples.

The other case is about Prop 8 in California. Prop 8 was a removal of the rights of a minority group; it is like Jim Crow in that respect. Gay people were able to marry legally in 2008 in California, and several couples did so. Then the majority voted to strip away the rights of a small minority. This is a reason the California Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. I don't want the US Supreme Court to issue a "broad" ruling on this case that applies to all 50 states. I want the court to rule narrowly on just Prop 8, and dismiss the appeal of the supporters of Prop 8 without forcing states like Utah and Texas to move at California's pace on marriage equality. I am fine with states taking their own time to deal with this issue, as public opinion evolves. I don't want the Supreme Court to force this now on all states.

On both DOMA and Prop 8, what the Supreme Court does is not important in the big picture. In the big picture, 50 years from now, same-sex marriage will be legal in all places where large numbers of gay people live. Public opinion polls in California already show over 60% support for same-sex marriage, and the support keeps increasing as old people die and young people become eligible to vote. If the Supreme Court had not legalized inter-racial marriage, the legislatures would have. But because of the slow two-steps-forward-one-step-back pace of legislative progress, thousands of individuals suffer in the interim. If the US Supreme Court doesn't strike down DOMA and upholds Prop 8, then the decision will be irrelevant in 10 years. If it throws out DOMA and Prop 8 for California only, it will just accelerate a change that is inevitable, and provide benefit to thousands, while not hurting anyone else. If it legalizes same-sex marriage for the whole country (unlikely), then it will feed the GOP elephant for the next 40 years, like Roe v. Wade has fed it for the last 40.

So, coming back to our disagreement: you presumably agree with me regarding the DOMA case, and disagree on Prop 8. Why do you want the Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8? How can it be acceptable for the majority to take away the rights of a minority? How can it be right for a large majority (straight people) to deprive a small minority (gay people) access to rights that the majority itself enjoys?

The full formal name of California's Proposition 8 is: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

As you can see from the very title, the law was designed to take away some rights from a specific group. How is it right for the majority to vote and take away the rights of a minority group? If this is right, then what is wrong about white-dominated legislatures voting to take away the rights of black people in the south?

truthbetold wrote:Read some recent threads on this forum supporting gay marriage.
I support civil rights and employment benefits related demands by gay groups.
however that does not mean the concept of marriage is the same as gay civil union.
obama and clinton were political opportunists to jump on gay marriage bandwagon. They are following electoral needs.
Reasons why marriage is different:
(A) marriage was always between two humans of opposite sex.
(B)marriage is not an institution started by organized religion. If anything religion joined or used the institution of martiage.
(C) family formation from the tribal human times was crucial to societal formation and development. There is no evidence of same sex families in any society.
(D) the affinity of mother to its natural off springs is the strongest bond known among all living beings. That forms an integral base for family. Thus sex between partners becomes a part of family creation.
(E) the utopian idea of selfless sacrifice between human beings is practiced best in individual families. Show me evidence of another social structure where such sacrifice is repeated so many billions of times.
(F)

Agreed. Every time I see a gay lamenting, I hear these

Benefits
Taxes
Money
Taxes
Savings
Equal rights
Taxes

Give these gays all the above same as married couples, except the marriage label. Make gay civil-unions rights = marriage couple rights. That's what they want.

If gay-marriage opponents fight and focus on the above, they can save man-woman marriage.

southindian wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Read some recent threads on this forum supporting gay marriage.
I support civil rights and employment benefits related demands by gay groups.
however that does not mean the concept of marriage is the same as gay civil union.
obama and clinton were political opportunists to jump on gay marriage bandwagon. They are following electoral needs.
Reasons why marriage is different:
(A) marriage was always between two humans of opposite sex.
(B)marriage is not an institution started by organized religion. If anything religion joined or used the institution of martiage.
(C) family formation from the tribal human times was crucial to societal formation and development. There is no evidence of same sex families in any society.
(D) the affinity of mother to its natural off springs is the strongest bond known among all living beings. That forms an integral base for family. Thus sex between partners becomes a part of family creation.
(E) the utopian idea of selfless sacrifice between human beings is practiced best in individual families. Show me evidence of another social structure where such sacrifice is repeated so many billions of times.
(F)

Agreed. Every time I see a gay lamenting, I hear these

Benefits
Taxes
Money
Taxes
Savings
Equal rights
Taxes

Give these gays all the above same as married couples, except the marriage label. Make gay civil-unions rights = marriage couple rights. That's what they want.

If gay-marriage opponents fight and focus on the above, they can save man-woman marriage.

If opponents of same-sex marriage had offered what you suggest 10 years ago, they might have taken it. But that train has left the station. With the November victories for same-sex marriage and public opinion polls now in favor of fully legalizing it, I don't see the LGBT community settling for anything short of full marriage equality.

Tri,
i am not against striking down doma and prop 8. I am against right wing nuts who make gays a political issue and instigate extreme elements resulting in regrettable harm to individuals. I am also in agreement with you on the direction of american public opinion.
where i have a difference is
(A) gay sex is normal - i think it is unnatural experiment.
I am not sure if further detail is appropriate for this forum.
(B) today's topic: civil union is not the same as marriage. Gay civil union is an experiment. As most experiments do, they stay in limelight for few years and fade in to obscurity.
I have explained why the tso are different. Marriage the time tested institution will morph but will survive.

If you support striking down DOMA and Prop 8, then we are on the same page for the most part.

Homosexuality has been present in nature, and it occurs in several species beyond ours. So it is no more unnatural than any other naturally occurring phenomenon. As the poster says:

Of the thousands of species that i observe and read about i never came across gay sex. The only one species i know is sf humans ( just kidding). I would like to verify the factuality of 450 species claim.
I heard of khan saab jokes, afghan propensity for young boys confirmed by recent western news reports, and odd case or two in india.

Homosexual behavior among animals is a widely-accepted fact. Evidence of it was used by the US Supreme Court when it struck down laws criminalizing sodomy.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

This page lists numerous examples of homosexual behavior in nature. Note the last one I copy-pasted regarding the Bonobo (aka dwarf chimpanzee) in particular. That species is one of our two closest surviving relatives (the other is the chimpanzee), and it shares more than 98% of its genome with Homo sapiens.

Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various (non-human) species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairings. Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them... A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species... Homosexual behavior is best known from social species... One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries). "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."

For instance, homosexuality in animals was cited in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states.

In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species, from sheep, cattle and horses to cats, dogs and budgerigars.

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behavior, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season." Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle.

The Bonobo, which has a matriarchal society, unusual amongst apes, is a fully bisexual species—both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for female-female homosexuality in particular.

trofimov wrote:Homosexual behavior among animals is a widely-accepted fact. Evidence of it was used by the US Supreme Court when it struck down laws criminalizing sodomy.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

This page lists numerous examples of homosexual behavior in nature. Note the last one I copy-pasted regarding the Bonobo (aka dwarf chimpanzee) in particular. That species is one of our two closest surviving relatives (the other is the chimpanzee), and it shares more than 98% of its genome with Homo sapiens.

Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various (non-human) species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairings. Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them... A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species... Homosexual behavior is best known from social species... One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries). "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."

For instance, homosexuality in animals was cited in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states.

In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species, from sheep, cattle and horses to cats, dogs and budgerigars.

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behavior, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season." Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle.

The Bonobo, which has a matriarchal society, unusual amongst apes, is a fully bisexual species—both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for female-female homosexuality in particular.

animals also lick their own arse holes.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:animals also lick their own arse holes.

I would not advocate that you lick your own arse hole any more than I would advocate that you engage in homosexual behavior.

Here is another interesting thought.

Although there is good evidence that homosexual behavior occurs in nature, it is a widespread misconception that it is "unnatural." It seems to me that among humans, a small minority have always been homosexual, and always will be in the natural scheme of things.

Marriage, in its widely-accepted modern sense of a monogamous commitment for life, with financial consequences for walking away from that commitment, is not common in nature. In hunter-gatherer societies, serial monogamy is more common than commitment for life. Jared Diamond writes in his latest book, The World until Yesterday, about a wide range of social practices in this regard.

Marriage likely evolved in settled, agricultural societies, which had fixed assets that could be passed on to future generations. Monogamous marriage became the norm even more recently; the holy books of every major world religion document numerous instances of short-term relationships that did not involve long-term commitment, and numerous polygamous marriages. It therefore seems to me that marriage in the modern sense is less of a natural phenomenon than homosexual behavior.

The argument that "it is unnatural" makes no sense when applied against homosexual behavior; it makes more sense if one's purpose is to argue against the institution of marriage itself! I personally don't find much value in any argument based on a "state of nature." Not everything that occurs in nature is automatically good -- e.g. most animal species do not take care of their young. That doesn't mean humans should stop caring for their children. Not everything that does not occur in nature is automatically bad -- e.g. there is no state-run criminal justice system in nature. That doesn't mean state-run criminal justice is a bad idea. Whether something occurs in nature or not is irrelevant to the sociological debate about same-sex marriage.

what happens in nature is important because it helps one to understand instinctive predisposition. most species in nature take care of their young till they become capable of handling their affairs. in humans it is 20 years. if you add multiple children that will stretch and consumes most of a persons productive life. as most natural beings stay in a monogamous relationship during one child rearing cycle, that matches majority of a human life. while humans and societies were involved with many experiments within heterosexual sexual marriages, one form that survived in almost all religions is family type nucleus unit in most cases with one mom and one dad. the core reason is that this is the only arrangement among all social relationship a truly selfless parents bring all their physical and mental assets to support and shape children. they in turn take care of their parents in old age. no other relationship has powerful bond that is natural and stood the test of time. i am skeptical of your sources of natural homosexual beings. but even if there are species like rams, even within that species child rearing process is done through a family unit. do not confuse family and marriage for church ritual.

truthbetold wrote:what happens in nature is important because it helps one to understand instinctive predisposition.

I disagree, but I will humor you. Even if we assume that the state of nature tells us something relevant, your argument still doesn't hold. It proves the opposite of what you are asserting; it tells us that homosexual behavior occurs in nature.

truthbetold wrote:most species in nature take care of their young till they become capable of handling their affairs.

This is not true. The only classes (using the technical taxonomic term) of the phylum Chordata that take care of their young are birds and mammals. Outside these classes, the young are either left to their own devices, or they are even killed and eaten by adults. The vast majority of known species in the animal kingdom do NOT nurture their young like humans do.

truthbetold wrote:while humans and societies were involved with many experiments within heterosexual sexual marriages, one form that survived in almost all religions is family type nucleus unit in most cases with one mom and one dad.

This is also not true. The nuclear family unit is a product of the industrial revolution and the consequent urbanization of human society. Just 300 years ago, the majority of human beings lived in large, joint families where children were taken care of and nurtured by a large group of adults including uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents.

As for the point of "this one form survived" -- that goes against your original premise of trying to understand what is "in nature" versus
"not in nature." The nuclear family is the dominant model today not because of nature but because of human civilization. In nature, all sorts of models exist, as documented by anthropologists who studied hunter-gatherer societies.

truthbetold wrote:i am skeptical of your sources of natural homosexual beings.

Why? The article I cited has tons of references. The US Supreme Court cited homosexual behavior among animals as a reason when it struck down sodomy laws.

truthbetold wrote:but even if there are species like rams, even within that species child rearing process is done through a family unit.

The nuclear family unit is by no means the only, or even the predominant, mechanism for child-rearing in nature. Child rearing in most species is done by a group of females. There are, interestingly, several bird species where child-rearing is entirely the responsibility of males, with the females walking away after laying an egg. Here is a quote from Jared Diamond's The World until Yesterday, pages 186-187:

The investment of fathers in caring for their offspring varies greatly among animal species. At one extreme are some species, such as ostriches and sea horses, in which, after a male has fertilized a female and the female has produced eggs, the female goes off and leaves brooding of the eggs and care for the hatched offspring entirely to the father. At the opposite extreme are many species of mammals and some birds: after the male fertilizes the female, the male deserts her to pursue other females, and the entire burden of parenting falls upon the female. Most species of monkeys and apes fall between these two extremes but nearer the latter one: the father lives with the mother and her offspring, perhaps as part of a larger troop, but provides the offspring with little other than protection.

Among human societies, there is much variation in that involvement of fathers, partly related to a society's subsistence ecology. Paternal involvement is highest in societies in which women spend time obtaining most of the food. For instance, Aka Pygmy fathers furnish more direct care to their infants than do the fathers of any other studied human population... In much of the New Guinea Highlands, men traditionally even lived in separate communal men's houses, together with sons after the age of six, while each woman lived in a separate hut with her daughters and young sons.

truthbetold wrote:Read some recent threads on this forum supporting gay marriage.
I support civil rights and employment benefits related demands by gay groups.
however that does not mean the concept of marriage is the same as gay civil union.
obama and clinton were political opportunists to jump on gay marriage bandwagon. They are following electoral needs.
Reasons why marriage is different:
(A) marriage was always between two humans of opposite sex.
(B)marriage is not an institution started by organized religion. If anything religion joined or used the institution of martiage.
(C) family formation from the tribal human times was crucial to societal formation and development. There is no evidence of same sex families in any society.
(D) the affinity of mother to its natural off springs is the strongest bond known among all living beings. That forms an integral base for family. Thus sex between partners becomes a part of family creation.
(E) the utopian idea of selfless sacrifice between human beings is practiced best in individual families. Show me evidence of another social structure where such sacrifice is repeated so many billions of times.
(F)

>>>>TBT,

'Marriage' has a civil contractual component and a socio/cultural/religious component. The former is very much within the ambit of the law, the latter is not. The court can enforce and (and should) ensure no discrimination on the former aspect. However, the latter existed before the law and was merely co-opted by the law and was not something originally defined by the law. Therefore, the law does not have the right to re-define it. If it presumes that right, it is an usurpation of people's rights. That aspect should be thrown back to the people to vote on. Given the decentralized states' rights approach in the US, it has to go state-by-state and there could well be growing pains, but at least the process will have legal integrity. The idea of marriage has evolved at least from polygamy to monogamy in many parts of the world and it may well change again to accommodate other arrangements, but it has to be at a pace that society feels comfortable with. Throwing it back to the citizenry ensures that. If we go the route of judicial fiat, it opens up a can of worms, a huge one. Once the court says it can decide or implement a new defintion of "marriage", it opens itself to the challenge of why group marriages among consenting adults or blood relatives cannot be declared valid. "Because society is not comfortable with it" will not be a valid excuse then.