is the gay rights movement selfish?

[Flyndaran]

A reasonable perspective, but who will be the jury to say such has been reached?

Rapscallion

A jury of this non-human species' peers, of course.
Honestly, it's nice to imagine a time when our kind don't hate or have any animosity toward one another. But come on: that time won't be full of humans. That kind of massive change of basic thought processes requires a major change in our genome and a new species name.

[BlaqueKatt]

A jury of this non-human species' peers, of course.

oooo-Like the Mega squid on the Discovery channel special "The Future is Wild"-I like squids-ten arms to hug with.....Ok so the second link is Octopi but they're still cute.....

[Slytovhand]

BK - now, that's just being silly... made me laugh though

Flyn & Raps... how about AI? Ok - programmed by humans, but harder to hide one's intolerance and stupidity in logic.

[Rapscallion]

Logic has a place in decisions about human nature?

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

BK - now, that's just being silly... made me laugh though

we'll see if you still think it's being silly when Cthulu judges you......

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - the ferocity of a kraken, with the personality of a cat.... yep, judge humanity away, you jury of non-human species peer.

Tentacles and claws!

[Flyndaran]

Logic has a place in decisions about human nature?

Rapscallion

Of course logic can be used to express human nature.
For example, despite what actions may seem most appropriate to obtain stated goals, most people will instead go for the immediate gratification.
Logically, we may assume that desires have a time based component.

Logic doesn't mean smart.

oooo-Like the Mega squid on the Discovery channel special "The Future is Wild"-I like squids-ten arms to hug with.....Ok so the second link is Octopi but they're still cute.....

Ouch. Those supposed scientifically plausible discovery channel programs tick me off. They violate so many guidlines of evolution and even laws of physics just to get the cute visuals. They hurts me brain.

[Rapscallion]

Of course logic can be used to express human nature.
For example, despite what actions may seem most appropriate to obtain stated goals, most people will instead go for the immediate gratification.
Logically, we may assume that desires have a time based component.

Logic doesn't mean smart.

Psst! The fuse on your irony detector seems to have blown!

Just saying.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Psst! The fuse on your irony detector seems to have blown!

Just saying.

Rapscallion

I think that I've posted here long enough for regulars to realize that I will take any oportunity to lecture even if I have to respond to rhetorical or joking posts.

[Shards]

Well... I can't say I support what's being said here 100%.

I'm all for the fair and equal treatment of minorities, however, in my mind at least, there is a line of logic that says homosexual marriage should not be legalized. Now, before you flame me, I also think atheist couples and couples who don't want kids should also not be allowed marriage.

I believe this for semantic reasons. I support, 100%, the right of all parties listed above, to Civil Unions with equal legal rights to marriage (This hasn't happened yet, but this is a place to express our views on what SHOULD be, not what is). However, the fact is that, although it has degenerated away from such in recent decades, Marriage was originally a pact with the church that you would stay together with a certain person and create offspring for the benefit of the community and the church involved. Therefore, while I feel there should be no legal difference, I do not agree with the concept of anyone without a church to make such a pact to, or without the intent of children, should be honored with such a pact.

It may be important to note that this is said as an atheist, who therefore would not be benefiting from the honor of said pact.

Just my opinion, and it's been forged over the many years of development that I've gone through. Additionally, I feel I must say that while I've yet to see evidence on either side (Although statistics can be made to say anything by skilled researchers), I have never seen anyone who was raised by two members of the same gender turn out as a well-rounded adult.

Again, just my opinion, but I figured I'd put it out there. I'm not expecting a good response, but it is what it is.

[Rapscallion]

Marriage was originally a pact with the church that you would stay together with a certain person and create offspring for the benefit of the community and the church involved.

Are you certain about that? Isn't there a likelihood that marriage was a way of gaining fidelity from men for women and was taken over as a duty/control method by the church?

It's certainly become a religious thing, but did it actually start that way? I don't know, but I have heard the opposite view to what you've said.

Rapscallion

[anriana]

I also think atheist couples and couples who don't want kids should also not be allowed marriage.

What about agnostics? Or couples of religions that don't involve the church? How exactly would a couple prove that they wanted children and therefore should be allowed to marry? Would they have to stop using contraceptives? Would the woman be forcibly impregnated if she hadn't fulfilled her commitment to procreation after X years? Or would their union be dissolved if no children were produced after X years?

However, the fact is that, although it has degenerated away from such in recent decades, Marriage was originally a pact with the church that you would stay together with a certain person and create offspring for the benefit of the community and the church involved. Therefore, while I feel there should be no legal difference, I do not agree with the concept of anyone without a church to make such a pact to, or without the intent of children, should be honored with such a pact.

It sounds like your definition of original marriage is based off of the Catholic sacrament of marriage, and the church you're referring to is the Catholic church. Is that correct? If that's not the church that you're referring to, then I'm quite confused by your usage.

Why would you think they invented marriage? If you use the Bible as history (unlikely in your case), the Old Testament is full of people getting married before there was a Church to make a pact with. What church and community did Adam & Eve, the original Christian bride and groom, pledge their commitment to?

I'm curious how you explain the wide variety of marriages found throughout the world, specifically in cultures that had not had contact with "the church." Look at Japan in history for just a quick example - they were completely isolated from the Western world for millenia and had no religion that could reasonably be considered a church, yet they still had marriage ceremonies.

Additionally, I feel I must say that while I've yet to see evidence on either side (Although statistics can be made to say anything by skilled researchers), I have never seen anyone who was raised by two members of the same gender turn out as a well-rounded adult.

How many people raised by two people of the same gender have you known? What is your definition of well-rounded?

[smileyeagle1021]

Shards, would you be surprised if I said that I actually kind of agree with you. The ultimate compramise as I've started calling it is something I'm sure you'd like. Do away with the civil institution of marriage all together, have marriage be a strictly religious ceremony, then have civil unions open to all citizens who are legal age of consent.

[Boozy]

I have never seen anyone who was raised by two members of the same gender turn out as a well-rounded adult.

The problem here is not that you haven't met such a person, but that you are skeptical that they can exist at all. Why do you believe gay people are less capable of raising a child than straight people?

[Shards]

Shards, would you be surprised if I said that I actually kind of agree with you. The ultimate compramise as I've started calling it is something I'm sure you'd like. Do away with the civil institution of marriage all together, have marriage be a strictly religious ceremony, then have civil unions open to all citizens who are legal age of consent.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, and I suppose that is a better way of putting it, as mine just comes out needlessly complicated. Thank you for that.

Again, my opinions are formed based on my own life experiences, and my experiences with the definition of marriage, and with interactions with various churches are where I pull these beliefs from, not any specific gospel.

@Boozy: Again, this is all based on personal experience, what little I have, but I am skeptical of such a person's capacity to exist because of the people I have known. I know several people who are growing up in double-mommy or double-daddy environments. (Many of these are products of a bi parents with full or close to full custody settling down with a same-sex partner.) Most of these people are lacking in certain basic areas of development, and the ones who aren't, have developed overcompensation methods that hinder their ability to function on a normal level in society. I've seen single parents work, but when they do, it is almost invariably with the help of opposite-sex friends or family who fill a missing role in the child's life. I have learned things from my father and grandfather, and seen them taught to those I know by their fathers and grandfathers, and even seen them handed down from male role-models to those who are children of single mothers, that I have only once seen successfully handed down by a mother. It's important for a child to have both male and female role models in their life as they develop, and all too many of the homosexuals I have met who want to adopt have given me the distinct impression that there will be no maternal figure in any child they raise's life, or that there will be no paternal figure. It's not that I don't think a homosexual couple COULD raise a fine young person, I just feel, from the experiences I've had, that it would be the exception, not the rule, and I'm not comfortable with that idea.