Jun 3, 2012 -- 7:05PM, fodaoson wrote:

Lets take a moment to look at some of the “reason/facts” being tossed around.

Norm/normal; in statistics that number that occurs the most.

Deviant: statistics distance numerically from the center of the norm

Normal:medicine/medically , biology: free from infection , a natural occurrence

Psychology: Normal : Approximate average of intelligence, behavior, social adjustment free from a mental disorder.

Homosexuality and lesbianism are are deviance because they occur in minority of the population. They are normal because they are a natural occurrence .

Marriage has differing meanings. Civilly it means the state regulation and licensing for establishment of a familial unit for all pertinent legal purposes.

Religiously it is a rite that sanctifies sexual activity.

Gays and lesbians are more concerned with the state family unit.

Religions are concerned with the sanctification of sexual activity.  

Fod .. that is a reasonable post.

As you say, Gays and Lesbians are NOT the "norm", yet homosexuality happens.  The "why" is still up for debate, but as most people think, which is the norm by our definition, the relationships of homosexuals are more characterized by sexual activity, not family.

I take issue on this issue when it comes to "family".  In the "ideal", homosexuals, male or female, would never have children, ie., a family.  Granted, lesbians can have babies, but only thanks to modern technology, or if they go ouside of their relationship, which once again, defines their relationship with their partner more about sex, and less about family.

As far as the "State" goes on this issue, there will always be an unsolved problem ... that problem being .. privilege vs rights.  Supporters of gay marriage speak in terms of rights, whereas, supporters of traditional family speak of privileges.  Just as in the abortion issue, pro-choice speaks of a "woman's rights" ... pro-lifers speak of the "child's rights".  In BOTH cases, you have a scenario where neither side is "discussing" anything, but rather, are speaking right past each other, because BOTH groups reject the other sides premise.

I tend to view "rights" as more basic that leftist do.  For example ... I think it is a right for homosexuals to exists in their unions unhindered and free of harassment, ie. I don't support bans on homosexuality, or stringing them up from trees, or discrimination in the work place, etc.  In contrast, the "privileges" that are associated with Marriage and the Family, IMO, don't extend to these types of relationships beyond legal property and executorship.

Like I said, ... it's about "privilege" vs "rights". .. and since both groups are speaking in different terms, the issue will never be solved.  As has happened in ALL scenarios, including this one, when the LEFT has the political power, they will try to find a loophole around the "will of the people" to implement a policiy that they see as a "token" to a special interests group to gain votes.  In other words ... they will Dictate their view into existence.  Not once, not a in a single nation or state, has SSM been approved by the "people".

.... thus, by your own defiinition of "normal", the normal is to reject elevating SSM to the status of MARRIAGE.

Jun 3, 2012 -- 3:09PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

 

Because gay people are not de facto inferior to str8 people. We do not "dilute" an institution by our equal participation in it, any more than the fact that heterosexual bigots can still get legally married "dilutes" the institution of marriage.

I don't know that I can agree with that DUO.  I'm not going to say that "all" SSU's hold to what is the "norm" for SSUs, but, as noted in earlier references, monogamy is not a strong point of average SSUs.

Traditional Marriage is all about monogamy.  This is why polygamy was banned from recognition.  Allowing relations that do not value monogamy to the extent of traditional marriage, does indeed "dilute" the original "ideal" of a monogamy, ....mother/father ... that leads to a family of children.

As I've noted before on this subject, the left's perspective of "free love", self gratification, etc etc, starting with the sexual revolution of the 60s, has already "diluted" the ideal of Marriage with values and perspectives that oppose the "ideal".  The left's welfare policies have also weakened the "ideal" as it has become financiall advantageous to not be married for the purpose of receving government perks.  For the State to recognize SSM, would further dilute the topic.  It would also set the precedent that Polygamy should be revisited, because SSM itself tends not to value monogamy.

There are no perfect people, no perfect relationships, and that includes a marriage between a man and a woman. If same-sex unions can offer something better, or even if they can not, why can't they be bit more creative and start something new? Is it their insecurity and push to be accepted by 'you' for without it they do feel inferior?

'Marriage' has its roots in religion. Why do those without religion want to join the tradition they dispise or do not want any part of? Is it perhaps masked with conscious or unconscious desire - destruction of religion?

It's not a quesion of how marriage should be defined...it's a question of who should be doing the defining.  Those who claim that they want less government and that getting the government involved in anything just screws it up...these are the same people saying that the government needs to keep marriage limited to their desired definition.

No church has to recognize a same sex marriage as legitimate.  But if the government is handing out financial benefits based on a legal union between two people, they need to be equitable about it.

Jun 4, 2012 -- 8:59AM, Bodean wrote:

Jun 4, 2012 -- 8:51AM, Cesmom wrote:

It's not a quesion of how marriage should be defined...it's a question of who should be doing the defining.  Those who claim that they want less government and that getting the government involved in anything just screws it up...these are the same people saying that the government needs to keep marriage limited to their desired definition.

No church has to recognize a same sex marriage as legitimate.  But if the government is handing out financial benefits based on a legal union between two people, they need to be equitable about it.

But ... is this really the issue??

As I've heard it, most all people support the "civil aspects" of SSUs. Property rights, executorship.

The quesiton I see opposed, is if SSUs should be elevated to the status of Marriage.  Marriage carries privileges, for example, a citizen can petition on behalf of their non-citizen spouse for application of citizenship.

As for "who" is defining "Marriage", how can you make this statement when "marriage" has been defined in almost all cultures to be the very same meaning??.  A man and woman in the context of the family unit?   This happened Thousands of Years ago.

Those are legal benefits.  If married people are benefiting in the eyes of the law, then why should those benefits be limited?  The legal commitment being made is no different, regardless of gender.

I'm all for marriage being a private union, and civil union being a legal contract, but every civil union needs to have the same legal benefits attached to it.