equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AEON

Actually, I guess what I should have said is that nobody can discuss morality in a purely secular manner.

In one way or another, your belief system is what you eventually turn to when you are asked "why" you believe what you believe.

Again this is plainly wrong, please pick up a book on ethics and observe how grown ups treat issues of right and wrong.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by melon

somehow belittling homosexuals it is not going to make that so ever again. The days of women taking a supporting role to her leading man's life are over--gay marriage or not.

interesting

[Irvine511]

why are vaginas important to marriage?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

please pick up a book on ethics and observe how grown ups treat issues of right and wrong.

Charming.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

why are vaginas important to marriage?

Irvine, please define vagina and explain to us why it is different than a penis.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Irvine, please define vagina and explain to us why it is different than a penis.

you are not answering my question.

again, why is a vagina critical to marriage?

[melon]

Originally Posted by AEON

interesting

Your thoughts?

Perhaps you take exception to the specific language I used, but I think you can agree that assigning specific traditional gender roles to heterosexual men and women is an exercise in futility, even if you completely remove sexuality from the equation. Not even Sarah Palin can fit into those roles.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

Irvine, please define vagina and explain to us why it is different than a penis.

Why won't you answer the question?

If people can get married and not have children, why is a vagina so important for marriage?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you are not answering my question.

I am trying to (again). However, before we can continue the discussion I think it's wise we agreed on some of the basic terminology.

If you won't define vagina - would you at lease concede there is a difference between a vagina and a penis?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I am trying to (again). However, before we can continue the discussion I think it's wise we agreed on some of the basic terminology.

If you won't define vagina - would you at lease concede there is a difference between a vagina and a penis?

yes, of course there is a difference. a penis is the male sex organ, a vagina is a female sex organ.

now, why is having one of each absolutely so critical to the definition of marriage?

i'm trying to actually give you something here. both Sarah Palin and Hillary Cilnton are always going to have their vaginas, no matter how untraditional (or traditional) they may define their own gender roles.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

yes, of course there is a difference. a penis is the male sex organ, a vagina is a female sex organ.

You asked...

i would like to know what it is about our relationship that lacks in comparison to any and all other heterosexual relationship

I implied that one critical difference between your relationship (a homosexual one) and a heterosexual marriage is that in a heterosexual marriage - there is a man (as defined by having a penis, a male sex organ) and a woman (as defined by having a vagina, a female sex organ).

At this point, I am not saying either relationship/marriage is right or wrong - just different. Will you concede that?

[Irvine511]

[QUOTE=AEON;6524391]You asked...

i would like to know what it is about our relationship that lacks in comparison to any and all other heterosexual relationship [/i]

I implied that one critical difference between your relationship (a homosexual one) and a heterosexual marriage is that in a heterosexual marriage - there is a man (as defined by having a penis, a male sex organ) and a woman (as defined by having a vagina, a female sex organ).

At this point, I am not saying either relationship/marriage is right or wrong - just different. Will you concede that?

so what is it about these not right or wrong but different relationships that enables one to have a privileged status over the other?

you notice that you're now moving away from sex to just gender -- again, what is it about a male/female relationship (no matter who the people are) that makes it better than a same-sexed relationship?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so what is it about these not right or wrong but different relationships that enables one to have a privileged status over the other?

Irvine, thank you for your patience. Unfortunately, I must ask for even more patience from you - so please bear with me as we walk through this. One of the problems in our past discussions is that we make some assumptions and points get missed, questions go unanswered (or misunderstood), and we go off on yet another tangent. I seriously believe I have something to learn from you - a beautiful, wonderful human being that is obviously very intelligent, thoughtful, and downright funny. If nothing else, we both love U2 so we have that to build on.

Also, I am sometimes pulled away from the blue crack and can't answer as quickly (or as thoroughly) as some would prefer. Believe me, I know the feeling of posting a pertinent question and it isn't answered for hours - or sometimes never. It just happens. The thread moves on - topics change - and when that person returns they pick up from the last page. Please believe me when I say that I do try to answer each and every question. However, I am sometimes forced to pick and choose which questions I answer more in depth than others. More than anything, this is a time constraint issue. Also, it seems I am mostly going at it alone this time around...with the possible exception of Barack Obama video clips

Thank you for understanding.

Since we cannot productively discuss my spiritual views on this particular matter (I'm not belittling that - you wish to keep this tangent on a social, legal, and biological level and I will try and respect that), I would like to ask you - which would you consider more important to the health and survival of any given human society, successful biological reproduction or personal sexual fulfillment?

[martha]

Wow. We have a winner. I don't even want to count the number of words you used to make it look like you were actually answering the question. And then you didn't answer the question. You haven't yet. You never will. You'll just type out a lot of civilized words and articulate-sounding thoughts, and poof! A pseudo-answer.

But I think I know where you're going with this, and if you go there, I'll have another question for you not to answer.

Originally Posted by AEON

Irvine, thank you for your patience. Unfortunately, I must ask for even more patience from you - so please bear with me as we walk through this. One of the problems in our past discussions is that we make some assumptions and points get missed, questions go unanswered (or misunderstood), and we go off on yet another tangent. I seriously believe I have something to learn from you - a beautiful, wonderful human being that is obviously very intelligent, thoughtful, and downright funny. If nothing else, we both love U2 so we have that to build on.

Also, I am sometimes pulled away from the blue crack and can't answer as quickly (or as thoroughly) as some would prefer. Believe me, I know the feeling of posting a pertinent question and it isn't answered for hours - or sometimes never. It just happens. The thread moves on - topics change - and when that person returns they pick up from the last page. Please believe me when I say that I do try to answer each and every question. However, I am sometimes forced to pick and choose which questions I answer more in depth than others. More than anything, this is a time constraint issue. Also, it seems I am mostly going at it alone this time around...with the possible exception of Barack Obama video clips

Thank you for understanding.

Since we cannot productively discuss my spiritual views on this particular matter (I'm not belittling that - you wish to keep this tangent on a social, legal, and biological level and I will try and respect that), I would like to ask you - which would you consider more important to the health and survival of any given human society, successful biological reproduction or personal sexual fulfillment?

[INDY500]

This. This is the question I keep coming back to in this whole debate. So far it's gone unanswered. Why deny two consenting adults the protections of the state afforded to others who also want to join into a monogamous, committed relationship?

AEON?

Indy?

Bueller?

Some of us have come around on civil unions or domestic partnerships because we agree that equal protection should apply to same-sex unions. Doesn't mean we want to call that union a marriage however.

But who's stopping gays from entering into a monogamous, committed relationships?

Aeon? No
Indy? No
The citizens of California, Maine and all the other states that voted in support of traditional marriage? No

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

yes, of course there is a difference. a penis is the male sex organ, a vagina is a female sex organ.

now, why is having one of each absolutely so critical to the definition of marriage?

i'm trying to actually give you something here. both Sarah Palin and Hillary Cilnton are always going to have their vaginas, no matter how untraditional (or traditional) they may define their own gender roles.

Because the number of spouses may have changed with time. The method of arrangement as well. But gender has never, ever been irrelevant to the structure of marriage until the current debate.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Irvine, thank you for your patience. Unfortunately, I must ask for even more patience from you - so please bear with me as we walk through this. One of the problems in our past discussions is that we make some assumptions and points get missed, questions go unanswered (or misunderstood), and we go off on yet another tangent. I seriously believe I have something to learn from you - a beautiful, wonderful human being that is obviously very intelligent, thoughtful, and downright funny. If nothing else, we both love U2 so we have that to build on.

that is very kind of you, thank you, same back at you.

which would you consider more important to the health and survival of any given human society, successful biological reproduction or personal sexual fulfillment?

firstly, i reject that either of these is critical to a marriage, or that they are mutually exclusive.

however, i would actually say that sexual fulfillment is more important. why? sex creates children, and sexually fulfilled people are likely to be happier people, and happier people tend to be better parents, citizens, etc. the earth is overpopulated as it is, and as people tend to become wealthier and more educated, they tend to have fewer children. quality over quantity, imho.

as another thought: we all agree that children do best in stable households. would it not be an unambiguous positive if there were more gay people, unable to have children of their own, who are in stable, committed, protected marriages who might then be more inclined to adopt children in need of homes.

in fact, don't we all benefit when adults -- especially, dare i say it, adult males -- have an investment in their own stability?

(this is not to say, however, that one can't be perfectly happy and productive as a single adult, or that one can't be the same without children -- there are many, many ways to live, and there are many for whom societal conventions aren't a good fit).

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Some of us have come around on civil unions or domestic partnerships because we agree that equal protection should apply to same-sex unions. Doesn't mean we want to call that union a marriage however.

But who's stopping gays from entering into a monogamous, committed relationships?

Aeon? No
Indy? No
The citizens of California, Maine and all the other states that voted in support of traditional marriage? No

why do you want more government in our lives? isn't this the opposite of freedom? isn't this more tyranny, the creation of an entire second class set of relationship?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Because the number of spouses may have changed with time. The method of arrangement as well. But gender has never, ever been irrelevant to the structure of marriage until the current debate.

i'll first point to the Jefferson quote, and i'll also point to the fact that the financial independence of women and the untethering of marriage to childbirth has changed "traditional" marriage far more dramatically than same-sex marriage ever will.

also, we're dealing with a small minority -- 5% or so of the population -- who were all but socially invisible even a generation ago.

it is new. i understand that. but i also haven't seen a single argument put forth that references anything other than "that's the way it's always been."

it's intellectually indefensible, and that's why the opponents go for the gut -- your children will be taught how to be gay in schools! -- and they put it up to a popular vote, something to which african-americans were never subjected.

minority rights are a very, very tough sell to the majority, and it could be seen as rather remarkable that nearly 50% of people in ME and CA were on board with same-sex marriage. further, clear majorities endorse either SSM or a civil union, and the younger you go, the clear the support for SSM is.

ask yourself -- why are you on the wrong side of history on this? why don't the kids agree with you?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Because the number of spouses may have changed with time. The method of arrangement as well. But gender has never, ever been irrelevant to the structure of marriage until the current debate.

So now we're back to INDY's favorite: STATUS QUO...

Life must be easy for you.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Some of us have come around on civil unions or domestic partnerships because we agree that equal protection should apply to same-sex unions.

Similar to the health care debate, this is one good thing that is coming out of these debates, you're SLOWLY coming around to doing the right thing.

Originally Posted by INDY500

But who's stopping gays from entering into a monogamous, committed relationships?

You still want seperate but equal, well actually in most cases seperate and unequal.