I want to apologize for my tone last night. I was tired and snippy, so I am sorry for that.

Replace 'purpose' with 'use' or 'goal' if you would like. However, I clearly disagreed with the statement that the 'primary purpose of the reproductive oragns is reproductive.' That is the primary biological purpose, not the primary purpose for most people who have sex.

Why does the biological goal have anything to do with marriage?

It may be ordered toward it biologically, but that isn't what most people use it for. And again, I don't understand what any of this has to do with whether or not somebody should be allowed to get married.

I would say people should have the right to vote on marriage being allowed or not. So im not sure it would be human right.

Hum... i found my own contradiction of sorts.

This seems to be the problem. As has already been pointed out, gay people can reproduce (by means of a surrogate mother for males, and artifical insemination, or just having sex with someone else, for females) so that isn't really an issue. However, the problem seems to be that marriage, for you, is a breeding ground. But it isn't for most people.

Let us try this another way: let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and that marriage is currently limited to breeding. Why should we not change that?

I like your friend's view, but it's kinda gay. Homosexual couples want to get married for the same reasons other couples do (and the only real reason to get married).. so that they're legally bound to each other. This allows them the perks, or downfalls, of being buried (I mean married).

In this case, if the vote goes against gay marriage, are you okay with that result?

Bigotry ordained by God is still bigotry.

Ok as in i would say they are suddenly morally right in not giving equal rights to homosexuals. No.

Ok as in i think they should have the right to their discrimination against homosexuals by voteing. Yeah.

Are you sure about this? My roommate is going into the marines right now, and a lot of his family are in the marines as well, and he says this isn't true. Sex in combat is, but not sex in general.

That's all well and good, but how are you applying this to your own belief systems?

Why are you (or others) really supporting gay marriage? Because you have reason on your side? Because you were taught it by the state? Because it's the expected belief in polite company? Because you absorbed it like a sponge from your life long social circle? (the last answer is usually the reason - history proves me correct on this).

At the end of the day it comes back to reason, and to invoke bigotry in others who disagree but not look for the subtle and not so subtle forms in yourself is a poor habit.

Adultery in the Military

"(Many folks will be surprised to learn that in the military, a single person can be charged with the crime of adultery)."



I guess sex between signals might be allowed so i could be wrong.

Not that any of it prosecuted.

This is total nonsense. Gays are not happy with civil unions that give all the rights of marriage. They want "marriage". Why? Because it gives legitimacy to their lifestyle/preferences. That is what they seek.

Not all of course (gays are diverse as non-gays), but that is what the strong political push is about and why it occurs even in places where marriage-identical civil unions are available.

Wat. Just list one please? Start a new thread if you have to? Fine, PM it to me. I don't understand the JJ Abrahms level of secrecy for what we all know is just your run-of-the-mill monster movie.

Yeah i am wrong. Signal people are good to go unless you have sex with someone married or are in a combat situation.

Still seems all ****ed up.

I never said civil unions. I don't even use that word nor do I know exactly what it entails. So I'm sorry if I think your post is total nonsense. I was talking about marriage, like straight couples have/get/whatever. Am I missing something? Don't you get married so that you're married? Isn't that legally bound to one another?

Oh yeah, I knew adultry was not allowed (at least as far as troops are concerned - not sure about a troop having sex with a married woman whose husband is not a troop).

Adultry with troops is prosecuted (like if a marine has sex with another marine's wife while he is deployed). I think the standard punishment is to dock their pay (by a lot).

Already posted in the thread on that.

You can not be serious. You just told me I can't respond to this line of discussion in that thread?!? So you now have a vague unassailable position that can not be discussed in either thread. WTF. How is this OK? And from a mod?

Also that is a terrible post, I will repeat it here since I can't talk about it there:

Is false. The rest of your post crumbles from there.

I'm against legalising gay marriage for secular reasons I think...

I think 'being married' shouldnt confer any legal rights because a religious rite should have no legal power in principle.

Similarly I don't think the state should be telling a religious institution how it should conduct its rites and ceremonies (provided they dont contradict the laws of the country).

Rather I would prefer that there be a new 'civil union' (or whatever) which confers all the rights currently conferred from being married. (Rights to inheritance, treatment under tax laws, legal protections regarding confidentiality, etcetera...)

People who go and 'get married' are then operating under the auspices of their chosen religion. It has the same legal ramifications as a christening or any of the various 'coming of age' ceremonies around the world.

If some church wants to conduct marriages between people of the same sex, that's a religious matter for them and they can do whatever they like provided they dont contravene any laws. If no church wants to, well that's their prerogative.

Is this "not okay" feeling one of mere disagreement, as in "I think it would be better if measure X had passed" or is your disagreement at some deeper level, such as there being some sort of "moral" violation that is taking place.

Wow

Why am I really supporting gay marriage? Well, basically, because I think that gay people are fundamentally equal to me and one of the ways we indicate that is by letting them have the same rights I have.

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just like a straight man does.

Aaron, you do realize that when Anatole France said rich people had the same right to sleep under bridges as poor people, it was satire, right?

More importantly, Loving v. Virginia rejected that same argument when the state argued miscegenatiom laws were nondiscriminatory because blacks could still marry blacks.

to clear things up itt (my post was partially moved as was pc's)

The question of "race" is not as ambiguous as the question of "gender." Some can even argue (quite successfully) that "race" is an insignificant biological distinction. I doubt the same can be said of gender.

I welcome you to present an analysis of the actual ruling (not the conclusion, but the reasoning) and demonstrate that the argument can be applied in the same way to the question of gender.