Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:

Jun 2, 2012 -- 1:46PM, fodaoson wrote:

there are suggestions of homosexuality throughout history and not always closeted some suggest. I have heard friends relatives and other refer to themselves and others as a “confirmed Bachelor” In Victorian and earlier literature, the term “confirmed” bachelor was reference to a homosexual. Marriage may have been confine to KNOWN male/ female , but cross dressing and impersonation have a long history and often only revealed after and later. Liberty and civil rights are not about tradition but about “all men created equal” and “pursuit of happiness”. We no longer not include women in th “all mean created equal” so traditions fall by the wayside for good reasons,   

Fod you seem to be implying that male/female marriage is some sort of custom or tradition that has outlived its time.  Further that there is something equally natural about the attraction of a man to a man or woman to a woman as opposed to the natural attraction of a man to a woman.

It nonsensical.

There is no bloodline, no kinship in a ss relationship.  It is doomed from the start and this country isnt becoming more civilized or progressive by some legislative attempt to legalize it.  You are moving in the opposite direction in your thought.

As a general rule, I find that criticicizing a thing by calling it "unnatural" is not very helpful and tends, on deeper inspection, to be more often an expression of squeamishness than an objective evaluation of a thing.  The meaning of the term "natural" gets very muddled the way that we use it.  Broadly speaking, "natural" would seem to mean "that which occurs in nature," but that is not how the term is used because, of course,  everything that happens on the planet would then be "natural" and it would not serve as a meaningful distinction.  If everything occurring on the planet is "natural" (which I think it is), it does not mean anything to say that some things are better than others because they are more "natural." 

In common usage, we tend to understand "natural" as meaning something like "that which occurs spontaneously without human interference."  That is, there is a distinction made between what is "natural" and what is "man made."  An apple plucked from a tree is natural but a twinkie is "unnatural" because it must be synthesized by human processing that occurs no where else in nature.  If we choose this understanding of the term "natural" we had better be careful because in doing so we are condemning virtually everything that humans do in modern societies.  If homosexuality is "unnatural" by this definition (and I think it is not even by this test) then so is driving a car, wearing clothes, cooking food, taking a shower with heated water, and watching television.  So people do not usually use this highly restrictive definition of "natural" either.  Most commonly, people who criticize behavior as "unnatural" seem to resort to a nebulous, ill defined feeling -  a kind of squeamishness and a feeling that "it just isn't right."  I would argue that this is a dangerous basis for judging our fellow human beings.  If we are going to restrict the rights of people (or worse punish them)  we had better have a better basis for doing so than our "gut feelings" that what they are doing is "just plain wrong."  The difficulty in clearly defining what we mean when we say that an activity is "unnatural" makes it a useless criterion for judging human behavior.  I'd suggest that it is much more useful to judge behavior on whether it causes harm than whether it fits into the nebulous definition of "natural" or not.

And by any of these definitions, I see no viable criticism of homossexual relationshps.  Does homosexual activity occur outside of human beings?  Absolutely - homosexual behavior is well documented in a wide variety of other species.  Indeed, homosexuality is FAR more "natural" than is eating a twinkie. 

I note you also suggest that marital relationships are only legitimized by there being a "bloodline" and "kinship."  I assume you are saying that marriage is only legitimized if the union has the potential to create children and thereby to extend "bloodlines"?  But surely we are not going to use this as a basis for recognizing marriages.  Should we deny heterosexual couples who cannot or do not wish to have children of their own the ability to marry?

Jun 2, 2012 -- 11:47PM, fodaoson wrote:

The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could.

Probably the most poignant post in the thread.

Jun 3, 2012 -- 10:29AM, TENAC wrote:

.

Why you cannot see that as a dilution of what marriage has been and stood for I cant grasp.

Because you are talking about 'marriage' in the abstract rather than actual marriages.

Unless you can show how SSM 'dilutes' actual HSMs, you are just blowing smoke.

What effect will SSMs have on my marriage?  Be specific.

Jun 3, 2012 -- 10:29AM, TENAC wrote:

Why you cannot see that as a dilution of what marriage has been and stood for I cant grasp.

I cannot see it as a dilution of marriage because it is not.Simple as that. WHEN, capitalized and bolded for emphasis, you can show how your marriage is somehow less than what it was before gays could marry, you will have a valid point. But not until then. So, to ask the question I have asked a number of times already without anything resembling a reasonable answer, please explain how YOUR marriage will change if gays can get married. Please explain how in the future in which gays can get married, heterosexuals will be "less" married than they are now.Please explain how your children will not be as married when the gays can marry also as you were when gays could not marry. This is your problem. You make  nebulous and meaningless statements about the dilution of marriage, but never can offer even the beginnings of an answer to the question of how your marriage, or any other heterosexuals marriage, will be diluted.Or how you and other heterosexuals will be "less" married (the meaning of dilution is to water down  and make a less concentrated product than the original) when gays can marry also.

You have failed miserably to offer anything to answer this.I cannot see why you continue with this claim when you repeatedly fail to offer adequate answers when asked. Allowing others to marry only dilutes your marriage if you lose some rights ,or a part of your marriage is lessened somehow.This will not happen,and you repeatedly fail to explain how it will when asked.

Twp other points. I do not see or claim homosexuality as  the norm. Homosexuality is not the norm, heterosexuality is.But so what? There is no harm in 2 people of the same gender that for some reason are wired to be attracted to the same gender  pursuing such a relationship. For most who oppose this,they do so because their religion teaches them this is a sin. My position is that any such issues are between God and those He made, without God needing me to sit in judgement of them on His behalf.

Second,the claim that gays cannot engage in a pure monogamous relationship is nothing less than a lie.You should learn more about the situation than the propaganda your religious leaders tell you is the truth.I know a number of homosexual couples who were together in a monogamous relationship long before I knew them and are still together  decades later. When you have to misrepresent the "facts" about the other side, it is a sure sign that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:

Fod you seem to be implying ... that there is something equally natural about the attraction of a man to a man or woman to a woman as opposed to the natural attraction of a man to a woman.

It nonsensical.

No it not. ;{O)

The attraction of a man to a woman (and v.v.) is only natural for heterosexuals. Not every one is.

Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:

There is no bloodline, no kinship in a ss relationship.

And hopefully there isn't "bloodline" between opposite-gender couples either. (Can YOU say 'consanguinity'?) And, of course, the very purpose of marriage is to ESTABLISH kinship where none existed previously. That's what marriage DOES - it does it for two previously unrelated people of the opposite gender just as much as it does it for two previously unrelated people of the same gender.

Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:

 It is doomed from the start

How so, exactly? My husband and I are now in our 28th year. Doesn't sound terribly "doomed" to me. That's just more empty, (and typicallly dismissive) fear-mongering on your part to suggest such a thing.

Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:

and this country isnt becoming more civilized or progressive by some legislative attempt to legalize it. 

That's nothing but your opinion. Again. Y-A-W-N, as the kids used to type.