Same sex couples receive marriage applications in Massachusetts

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Sunday, May 16, 2004 | KEN MAGUIRE

[livianne]

Natural means occuring in nature. If gay sex occurs in nature (and humans are part of nature), then it is natural.

Yes, and my two male neutered puppies still seem to enjoy humping each other. But they can do that the rest of their lives and nothing will come of it. The reason for marriage is the creation of a family through procreation. You show me ONE same sex couple that can naturally procreate without the introduction of a third party, then I will change my position right now. Just one.

[Dimensio]

I always have to laugh when you people resort to comparing yourselves to the incapable-of-reasoning-animal-kingdom in a desperate attempt to justify your sordidness.

Oh, knock it off. The "animal" comparison is almost always (as it is in this case) in response to a claim that homosexuality does not occur in animals. Of course, when the statement is shown to be false, rather than admit error on that one point, the subject is suddenly changed to "so you want to behave like animals!?"

Then again, you weren't even responding to my notification that it occurs in animals. I was pointing out that "natural" simply means "occuring in nature", and if it occurs in humans it is natural because humans are a part of nature. And, for at least the third time, I will note that "natural" does not equate to "good" or "bad", it's just a stupid buzzword misused and misstated for use in meaningless condemnation.

Typical. I knock down one of the mindless claims with no thought behind it, so another one -- one that contradicts the foundation of the previous one -- is thrown up to replace it.

[Dimensio]

Yes, and my two male neutered puppies still seem to enjoy humping each other. But they can do that the rest of their lives and nothing will come of it.

Factually true. What's your point?

The reason for marriage is the creation of a family through procreation.

Well, there was the time when it also essentially transferred ownership of a woman from her family to her new husband. But I suppose that you won't want to get into the real history of marriage, because you already have your own fantasy about how marriage has been absolutely the same for the last 5000 years.

You show me ONE same sex couple that can naturally procreate without the introduction of a third party, then I will change my position right now. Just one.

Does this mean that you also do not support marriage between opposite sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to do so?

[livianne]

Yes, and my two male neutered puppies still seem to enjoy humping each other. But they can do that the rest of their lives and nothing will come of it. Factually true. What's your point?

My point is simply that just because something naturally feels good to you doesn't mean it's what will naturally lead to the continuation of the species. And the creation and protection of the next generation is the only good reason in my mind to get married. If I wanted to be with my husband but never have children, we might not have gotten married. People who say marriage is about the rights of the people getting married have lost the real meaning of the promise that marriage SHOULD be.

Well, there was the time when it also essentially transferred ownership of a woman from her family to her new husband. But I suppose that you won't want to get into the real history of marriage, because you already have your own fantasy about how marriage has been absolutely the same for the last 5000 years.

Actually, I have no fantasy about what marriage used to be and what it is now. But in any definition of marriage, the purpose was for the woman to bear children and for the man to protect the woman and children. There were times when it was permitted for women to be treated horribly, and a time when women were simply property, and I wouldn't go back to those days. Don't pretend you have some sort of intellectual superiority to me simply because you deem your views superior to mine. Just because changes that have been made are positive changes for the family doesn't mean EVERY change is positive. Heard of reaching a point of diminishing returns? Well, we're past it. Way, way past it.

Does this mean that you also do not support marriage between opposite sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to do so?

That one gets a mixed answer. Do I support marriage for those who don't want to create a family? No, not really - I don't see the point if you aren't going to have children. Would I change the laws to make it so they cannot marry? No, because people change their minds all the time. As for people who can't bear children, some do end up with a miracle baby (often after adopting), and those who don't can offer a baby with nowhere to go a loving home and a mother and a father, which every child needs. By definition, a same sex couple can't offer a mother and a father.

[Dimensio]

That one gets a mixed answer. Do I support marriage for those who don't want to create a family? No, not really - I don't see the point if you aren't going to have children. Would I change the laws to make it so they cannot marry? No, because people change their minds all the time. As for people who can't bear children, some do end up with a miracle baby (often after adopting), and those who don't can offer a baby with nowhere to go a loving home and a mother and a father, which every child needs. By definition, a same sex couple can't offer a mother and a father.

Okay, you've established that you believe that marraige is for the purpose of bringing children into the world and raising them. If that's what you want, I won't argue it. However, your answers above don't make sense.

You say that we should not prevent couples who do not desire children from marrying because they might change their mind. Why not prevent them from marrying? If they do change their mind, then they can get married, and until then they don't need the marital benefits because they're not planning on raising children. Same with "infertile" couples who have a miracle baby. Why not withold marital benefits from the government until a couple demonstrates that they're about to raise a child, either through declaration of intent or proof or pregnancy (with a system in place to cover adoption as well). Moreover, once they're no longer raising children (ie, all children are no longer considered dependents on a tax form), remove all federal and state-level marital benefits. They can still be "married" according to their church and religion, but if they're not raising children anymore, then they don't need those benefits, right?

Well, okay, you can make an argument involving grandchildren, but that wouldn't address witholding marital benefits until children are in the picture.

Moreoever, what of same-sex couples who are raising children? I already know that you don't like it, but the fact is that they do exist. What do you plan to do with them, organize a ballot initiative to have the state revoke custody and put them all into foster care?

BTW, if you're going to claim that children raised by same-sex couples are less well-adjusted, do have something to back it up apart from "because I said so". I'm sure that you can find at least one study on the matter to support your opinion (I already know that I can find at least one to counter it).

[livianne]

You say that we should not prevent couples who do not desire children from marrying because they might change their mind. Why not prevent them from marrying? If they do change their mind, then they can get married, and until then they don't need the marital benefits because they're not planning on raising children.

I say we shouldn't prevent them from marrying because you simply do not know on the day of applying for that license if you will have kids or not. Plenty of people who think they never will find the drive to become a parent far too strong to deny. Unless you are both the same sex. THen it's quite obvious that you will not, because it's not possible. It doesn't seem so complicated to me.

Moreoever, what of same-sex couples who are raising children? I already know that you don't like it, but the fact is that they do exist. What do you plan to do with them, organize a ballot initiative to have the state revoke custody and put them all into foster care?

if you'll point out where I said that same sex parents should have their children taken away, I'd really appreciate it. The fact that I know children to be better off with a mother and a father rather than two of one kind doesn't mean I would take children away from the people raising them. You mistake my wanting to prevent this from being seen as just as good as a mother and a father for wanting to abolish it completely. My sister and her partner plan to make a baby (with help) - I won't stop them or even try to stop them. But I will try to stop any changes that break down even further the idea that the traditional family is not the best possible environment for a child to develop and grow.

BTW, if you're going to claim that children raised by same-sex couples are less well-adjusted, do have something to back it up apart from "because I said so".

Do you really need a study to tell you what is best for a child? I don't, because I understand how people grown and develop mentally and emotionally, and what influences are important for them to develop to their best potential. It's simply impossible for any study to prove anything one way or another on this because it's all far too subjective to be studied scientifically. I'm sure there are a plethora of studies that "prove" both your point and mine repeatedly. What does that prove? I took research methods in college - you can prove anything you want to with a study, without even fudging the data. It's just a question of the setup. So no, I am not going to get into a study swapping debate, because I'm not impressed by them.

[jla]

Oh, knock it off.

LOL --- No.

The "animal" comparison is almost always (as it is in this case) in response to a claim that homosexuality does not occur in animals. Of course, when the statement is shown to be false, rather than admit error on that one point, the subject is suddenly changed to "so you want to behave like animals!?"

Not at all. Any so-called 'homosexuality' in the animal or plant kingdoms is merely a biological event, occurring without any thought, or reason and occurring not for sexual pleasure. Not so with human homosexuals.

[Dimensio]

Not at all. Any so-called 'homosexuality' in the animal or plant kingdoms is merely a biological event, occurring without any thought, or reason and occurring not for sexual pleasure. Not so with human homosexuals.

You're saying that absolutely no animal apart from humans experiences pleasure from sexual activity? From where did you derive this information?

Moreover, what does this have to do with the claim that "homosexuality is not natural". That was the claim that I was addressing, and my response was the springboard for your non-sequitur attack.

[jla]

You're saying that absolutely no animal apart from humans experiences pleasure from sexual activity?

I did not, as you are well aware, say "no animal". I was referring to those anomalies in the animal/plant kingdom that might have a biological disposition towards same-sex mating, of which none are mammals, and the mating is done strictly for propagation, not for any sexual pleasure.

Moreover, what does this have to do with the claim that "homosexuality is not natural".

It's not natural in human beings. If it were then you'll have to explain how you folks intend on propagating...within your own means, i.e., without borrowing from the heterosexuals.

[Dimensio]

I was referring to those anomalies in the animal/plant kingdom that might have a biological disposition towards same-sex mating, of which none are mammals, and the mating is done strictly for propagation, not for any sexual pleasure.

I think that I'm confused between your claims and the claims of others.

Are you saying that no mammals engage in same-sex sexual activity, or that none do it for pleasure?

It's not natural in human beings.

It occurs in human beings, therefore it is natural in human beings. Once again, this has no bearing on its moral value -- the morality of an action or condition has no bearing on whether or not it is "natural". If you disagree, then explain your definition of "natural".

If it were then you'll have to explain how you folks intend on propagating...within your own means, i.e., without borrowing from the heterosexuals.

1) I have never stated that I am homosexual. In fact, I am not.

2) What does propogating have to do with whether or not something is natural?

[Claud]

What about pair-bonded female seagulls? Or pair-bonded male penguins?

Very well then. Point me to one study that shows homosexuality occurs in nature. My undergrad training is in ecology, so I won't be afraid to dive into any peer-reviewed journal articles. So don't be shy.

You guys are BOTH off on the definition of "natural." Natural means "of or according to nature"--not in the sense of Mother nature but in the sense of "what is proper or essential to a certain thing" (Latin natura). It is in the nature of water to float when it freezes. It is in the nature of man to breathe air. It is in the nature of protons to repel each other.

Let's get Darwinist for a moment shall we? The reproductive system evolved for reproduction. Period. The materialist who holds to Darwinism has to believe that everything that evolved evolved because natural selection selected for it. Now I want you guys to give me a scientific model as to how exactly homosexuality got "selected" into human evolution.

[FormerLib]

Also in the news, the state of Massachusetts has begun issuing licenses for pigs to fly sans aircraft.

They are working on licenses for making silk purses out of sows' ears as we speak.

[longtermmemmory]

Notice how the media has been super careful this time to avoid images of homosexuals kissing?

Notice how this judge intentionally selected May 17 to allow the seamless fitting of the Brown Aniversay with this.

Black Civil Rights is not equal to hoosexual private sex rights.

But the media is running silent and running deep on this because they know this will sift swing votes.

Hey single women swing voters, who are you going to marry if the homosexual men are trying to recruit your straight men? (s) Not so fun being a **g hag anymore.(/s)

[Clintonfatigued]

And to think, people thought a Constitutional Amendment wasn't necessary. These liberal judges think they're accountable to no one. There's something that's been forgotten: impeaching the foreign-born judge who put this mess in motion.

[Claud]

It occurs in human beings, therefore it is natural in human beings. Once again, this has no bearing on its moral value -- the morality of an action or condition has no bearing on whether or not it is "natural". If you disagree, then explain your definition of "natural".

Arguing naturality on the basis of what humans historically do is a tremendously bad idea. As one small example, the minute you admit homosexuality as natural because some humans do it, you have to admit killing homosexuals as well--again, because some humans do it.

C.S. Lewis makes a great point (I think in Mere Christianity) that the one thing everybody around the world agrees on is "we are not what we should be". If you don't accept that idea, then there is no reason for humanity to strive for its own betterment--we're fine the "natural" way we are--and that's the end of it. Yet humanity has been strangely afflicted with this sense that whatever we are now, it is actually "unnatural"--not our true nature.

Morality in the human being is the attempt to recover/restore the nature we indeed SHOULD have had all along. All the religions, ethical and political systems around the world try to do precisely that.

It is our contention in Christianity that homosexuality is outside that original nature: a fact that appears ever more clearly the more one researches the testimonies of those who actually lived it.

[Dimensio]

Arguing naturality on the basis of what humans historically do is a tremendously bad idea. As one small example, the minute you admit homosexuality as natural because some humans do it, you have to admit killing homosexuals as well--again, because some humans do it.

Who said that I disagreed?

I've had two points here. First, that homosexuality is "natural" unless you are using a nonstandard definition of "natural". Second, that "natural" has no bearing on moral value. That homosexuality is "natural" does not make it inherently good, bad or indifferent.

C.S. Lewis makes a great point (I think in Mere Christianity) that the one thing everybody around the world agrees on is "we are not what we should be"

I'm not really sure where this is going...

If you don't accept that idea, then there is no reason for humanity to strive for its own betterment--we're fine the "natural" way we are--and that's the end of it. Yet humanity has been strangely afflicted with this sense that whatever we are now, it is actually "unnatural"--not our true nature.

Really? Why isn't it natural for us to strive to become more than what we are? Unless we start becoming things that exist outside of the natural universe, we remain "natural" entities in a "natural" environment no matter what we do. Again, this has no bearing on the moral value of our actions. Something that is "natural" can be good, it can be bad or it can have no moral assignment at all.

Morality in the human being is the attempt to recover/restore the nature we indeed SHOULD have had all along. All the religions, ethical and political systems around the world try to do precisely that.

And how, exactly, do you determine this "nature we indeed SHOULD have had all along"? What is your method of measurement?

It is our contention in Christianity that homosexuality is outside that original nature: a fact that appears ever more clearly the more one researches the testimonies of those who actually lived it.

Explain.

[Dimensio]

Notice how the media has been super careful this time to avoid images of homosexuals kissing?

People complain when they see images of same-sex couples kissing, now you're complaining because you don't see images of same-sex couples kissing?!