Your false perception.IJ wrote:
You lay out a case, Bill, and then you shoot it down
It's called a discussion, Ian. I'm not afraid to consider many points of view. It's called empathy, and it's considered a sign of emotional intelligence. After all, it isn't all about me. Ponder the thought.
Same sex couples can only procreate outside the boundaries of their sexual union. It's a fact of nature that will remain so until science jumps that hurdle - which theoretically is possible.IJ wrote:
... if marriage is about procreation, ok, but then you assume that same sex couples don't want the same
This was an intellectual discussion about what makes heterosexual unions unique, Ian. Rather than demonstrate heterosexual union envy, why not focus on what makes your brand of union unique?
No.IJ wrote:
You even give the example of your friend who procreated within her same sex marriage.
She procreated outside her same sex marriage, Ian. And she will raise her beautiful son with her same sex union partner. And I'm very happy for the two of them, and feel hopeful for their son.
And you completely failed to see the good in my love for and tolerance of them.
To start with... This may be a matter of semantics. It may be slaves. It may be servants. What-ever... It was that society's cultural norm for dealing with childlessness. And given the absolute need for procreation back then - a matter of survival - *I* don't have a problem with that. Back in the day when we didn't have to put up with tax-suking, wealth redistributing central governments, children were your social security. It was a matter of survival when the ravages of old age set in. The adults cared for both their elders and their children. It's a wonderful model, Ian. I live it. You sometimes display contempt for it.IJ wrote:
thanks, Bible, for the slave rape suggestion
Lacking a sense of anthropological perspective, you chose to call it "rape." Did you interview all said participants in these unions? Are you so certain that ALL said unions weren't consensual? (Ever notice how many kids NBA players seem to spawn???) May we see the criminal files? Given the ugly language used by some to describe same-sex intimacy (need I go there???) I'm left dumbfounded at your characterization. It was a big reason why I chose just to leave this thread for a day. Perhaps you want to re-think all this. Or do you have that much venom for Judeochristian thought? I'm beginning to wonder, Ian. I see it again and again. It may be a big reason for your apparent mental logjam when it comes to same-sex unions.
Don't expect to get rights if you aren't willing to give a little. This is the nature of living with others. Fair is fair.
I'm so sorry I gave them permission, Ian. I'll send the letters of revocation in the mail post haste.IJ wrote:
I'm not clear on why you let infertile heterosexuals marry.
Do you really know what I think, Ian?IJ wrote:
I'm not sure why you won't let gays marry with the plan to adopt.
Is this about *Me*?? I think not. It's about what will work. I choose to step out of my own selfish views and wishes, and consider the desires of all parties. You keep making it personal. To wit...
I rest my case.IJ wrote:
Anyhoo, this is all not because of kids, religion, any of that; it's just what you're comfy with.
The best way to tackle that is to continue the dismantling of the Great Society programs which came close to destroying traditional marriage as we know it - PARTICULARLY in black households. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.gmattson wrote:
Rather than wasting time worrying about couples having children, I would spend lots more energy on the problem of unwed mothers. This, I believe even Bill will admit, is not a problem for our homosexual population.
Who knew that liberal thinking would be so viciously discriminatory? Don't believe me? Look at the prison stats. One would think that our judicial system itself was discriminatory until one polls said prisoners and discovers the ugly consequence of fatherless households. An understanding of the difference between association and causality yields a result that few liberals want to admit. I give credit to Bill Clinton for partially addressing this catastrophe.
We can't stop men and women from engaging in intimate behavior. But we CAN hold BOTH participants responsible for their actions. A society that cares less about giving handouts and cares more about personal responsibility and accountability is a society which finds ways to self-regulate. That's my personal preference.
- Bill