|
Post by Griffey on Apr 6, 2004 20:16:50 GMT -5
Yes Auntie, even birds that are "biologically monogamous" aren't really. For the most part, they stay with one partner, although they have outside affairs on a fairly regular basis to stir up the gene pool. The "monogamy" part refers to which birds raise which offspring; the male bird may have fathered many other chicks, but only cares for those that his long-term mate has lain.
I don't actually think that human beings are biologically oriented into strict, lifelong monogamy; it's been pounded into us culturally. Rather, we're more into serial monogamy. (Even if people have many different partners, they appear to be 1 at a time.) Apparently though, with the current divorce and extramarital affair rates, we don't "mate for life."
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 7, 2004 0:34:28 GMT -5
I don't actually think that human beings are biologically oriented into strict, lifelong monogamy; it's been pounded into us culturally. Rather, we're more into serial monogamy. (Even if people have many different partners, they appear to be 1 at a time.) Apparently though, with the current divorce and extramarital affair rates, we don't "mate for life." I agree, Griffey. This is actually an issue that has cropped up a few times in my marriage. Basically, as we age, our needs, desires and ideas change. It is ridiculous to expect that a mate you chose when you were, say 20, would still be as fulfilling (and I'm going to expand my responce beyond sexual relations here). I have formed bonds with many men over time, each seems to fulfill an aspect that my husband can't. I haven't had sexual relations with any other men for a couple of reasons, 1) I am currently satisfied with my husband and 2) I would never do anything to hurt him, because I respect him. We have discussed what would happen if one of us has a change in needs in that area, and that is still something that we haven't resolved. Fortunately, it is also something we haven't had to resolve (and the internet has played a HUGE role in this not becoming a bigger issue than it is now. I am a flirt, he has no problems with me flirting on-line, as long as it doesn't lead to a RL relationship). However, intellectually and philosphically, he isn't on the same level as I am. He isn't slow or dimmer than I am, its just that our natural interests differ. He is very much interested in the natural sciences, especially horticulture, I am not (though I have learned a lot about nut trees so we can talk about topics of interest to him). I find it difficult to tell him about the things I am learning. He is an atheist, but his level of involvement differs from mine. He is content with not having a belief, I feel the need to do more. On the other hand, there are aspects of his life that I can't fulfill as well. He has a couple of female friends that he does activites with when he knows that I am either not interested, or not capable. Now none of these things have to do with sexual activity. But they are important aspects of our lives and they are things that have changed in the past 12 years. We have found a way to accomodate each other's growth and diverse interests through trusting one another and keeping an open dialogue. I believe that this is working for us. We have very strong communication and a willingness to compromise when we know that something is of particular importance to the other. I will admit though, my mind often goes to other places when I lay down in bed at night. This is where I have my 'other relationships' ...
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 12:59:41 GMT -5
First i just want to say WOW okies bible aside for a second, my major problem with homosexuality, the pieces dont fit...IE its not natural, nature did not intend for 2 men to mate or 2 women sex is ment for reproduction in this sense, lol for some reason i just thought about the peg game... you place the different shapes into the appropriate holes...same idea. you dont put two pegs together nor do you break the playing board to place two holes together. Now biblically if you want the verses i have them, and YES it does say its wrong, i know it sounds like the only arguement comeing from a biblical stand point but its a truthful one. The idea of a homosexual couple having a kid is wrong, i think it can be very socially hurtful for a kid growing up in a straight society to be raised by a gay couple, not only is the kid gonna be missing the influence of both parents which is most of the time needed to bring up a kid, but what is gonna happen when hes 13 with friends and they want to come and sleep over. I remember being that young i was embarrased so quickly i would hate to have same sex parents. The kid would lose friends... Not to mention like i said before ITS NOT NATURAL. BTW im not homophobic i have serveral gay friends 1 of which lives 2 doors down (im in the ODU dorms) another is a long time friend back home. The definition of marrage is union between a man and a woman, funny how the people performing gay marriages had to change the wording... "I now pronounce you spouces for life" instead of "Husband and wife". Auntiesocial - You can be married in either a court house or a church, with either a judge or priest as the overseer Just to point that out As far as the tax breaks go, they are ment for heterosexuals for the simple fact they are TAX breaks for the couples kids. The goverment gives tax breaks to allocate more money for the children in the family. BAAL- Humm i would like to see scripture for all this, especially the part about Jesus and insest love to hear that one. And i think your getting Judaism and Christianity mixed up also, Christians hold the old testiment in high regard but Jesus came with a new set of laws, and said that he makes the NEW law. Regarding to what you hear in the media, uh its all over the bible...Just wondering have you ready the Bible intirely? (not ment as an insult but its easy to pick out one part and leave the rest out to make it fit the meanings of stuff) To talk about familys all throughout the bible are examples, also to talk about marriage specifically for a second Proverbs 31:10-31, Colossians 3:18-21, 1Corinthians 7. BTW Yaw RUSH Limbaugh is great I think that just about covers it...
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Apr 19, 2004 16:45:24 GMT -5
Liv, are you not willing to break a gameboard and retype a definition to make half the nation happy?
First of all, the government shouldn't be going by the bible's rules, so I think we can put that aside for now. The issue is whether or not it's legal; if the church doesn't want to marry the people then that's their decision.
Just because it wasn't MEANT to be doesn't mean that it can't be. If we stick with old traditions and don't even consider anything new, our country will never move forward.
Since 2 homosexuals can't have kids, then they have to adopt a kid. I guess I can't speak for everybody, but I'd rather have homosexual parents then none.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 16:57:39 GMT -5
My biblical references went more towards marriages and stuff, sorry if i did not clarify, yes i did throw some in as my point on homosexuality, but i also gave another whole host of reasons why i feel it should not happen. The same idea follows with the adopted kid i feel he could become mentally hurt due to the lack of acceptance in todays society for homosexuals. For kids getting adopted who are 13 or 14 that presents the problem of them accepting the parents.
I also feel that its not 1/2 the population that i would be "breaking the gameboard" over either. Homosexuality is still a minority if it were half they would not have a problem passing a law for it. Also it would be a gateway opening up to allow other marriages to happen. We had this debate in our English class so bare with me for a second
Okies Gay people are now allowed to marry, well you know I love my dog so much, i care about it and i want to marry my dog so now im gonna protest for human animal marriage...Sounds crazy right...(sure just like gay marriage sounds to me, but to some people it sounds ok), The gay person would say that calling them crazy and tell them they are not allowed to marry is discrimination so it would apply also to the man and his dog. This is one of the problems with passing that law it opens alot more things up. That is why slavory in the states was not solved for a long period of time. Simply because they knew it would lead to a whole host of problems.
Now i am willing to say that all the people including myself are fighting a losing battle. Eventually that law will pass and it will happen.
(just so no one says something dumb no the dog thing was made up so dont get any stupid ideas)
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Apr 19, 2004 17:09:32 GMT -5
Didn't I already address this point earlier?
livinitup
Simply put, no. There is no comparison between a consensual relationship between two adults, and a relationship with an animal that is incapable of giving consent. Since the comparison is false, the whole argument falls apart. This is what really galls me about the homosexual marriage argument -- people opposed to it insist on lumping homosexuality in with all sorts of other abusive relationships, then rejecting the whole based on the false analogy. It doesn't work. If you can't argue against homosexual marriages on their own merits, then that just shows you can't argue against homosexual marriages. (Besides which, slippery slope is a well-known logical fallacy.)
livinitup
So it's ok to keep people oppressed for long periods of time because doing the right thing would be difficult? That may be a politically expedient argument, but I don't think it's an ethical one.
pieisgood
The other aspect of this is that adoptive parents have to jump through a lot of hoops, to confirm that they would be good parents for the child they are adopting. What is far more important to children than whether or not their parents are heterosexual is whether or not their parents genuinely love and care for them. If a homosexual couple can prove that and a heterosexual couple can't, then the child would be far better off with the former.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 17:54:35 GMT -5
I was looking for that word slippery slope but could not get it out, Fallacy no i disagree. I think the Human animal arguement is a fair arguement, there are some people out there that hold their animals in that high of a regard. If you said the animal is incapable of showing concent all he would say is thats discrimination. Its obvious the animal likes me. Back to the slippery slope regarding the slavory issue. Why do you think slavory was resulved clear after the civil war, the founding fathers new it was an issue as well as many presidents leading up to lincoln, they knew it would cause a whole new rash of problems if they let that bill pass, so they just left it to be resolved later on. You dont think slavory was an Ethical arguement? Regarding the point about homosexual adoption, I just feel its ethically wrong, if they want a kid get it naturally, else dont plan on getting one. Would you not agree that having both parents influence IE man and woman influence helps to grow a healthy child. Say for instance two gay males adopt a girl, now the girl is about to start her period, honistly whos gonna know best a woman or a man? ok 2 lesbians adopt a male, now the guy gets beat up in school, do the ladies teach him how to fight to defend himself or tell him to run? ok now the parents of the adopted kid decide to set up a suprise party for the kids 11th Bday, now you know and i know most places homosexual couples are not accepted, so what will happen when the parents of the kids friends find out about the couples will they still let their kid go? Also what happens if one of his friends thinks its funny and decides to laugh at the 11 year old...at this age it can be quite tramattic (sp) I am a bad speller so keep this in mind i appologize if any clarification is needed just let me know Tell me what you think thanks
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Apr 19, 2004 21:34:56 GMT -5
livinitup
I will let you use your imagination to fill the blanks with this next statement. It seems to me that homosexuals have either found ways to make the peices fit their own lifestyle or don't care much for the peices.
livinitup
Let's be honest with ourselves. Heterosexual couples do not always have sex to procreate. I don't see any good reason why sex should be limited to procreation alone. If we limit sex to procreation, we'd have to ban the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples as well as homosexuals.
livinitup
Wouldn't a foster child with gay foster parents fare better than children with one parent? After all, more than one person would be invested in the parenting process.
What will happen when the kid has sleepovers at 13? His friends, who probably already know that his foster parents are gay, will either choose to accept the kid or not. There are many different issues that children make fun of each other about. Should we ban every possible difference between children to prevent them from ever experiencing painful comments from someone else?
livinitup
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway. No, I haven't read the entire Bible. Have you?
livinitup
Then wouldn't it make sense to work for tolerance of homosexuals in our society?
livinitup
How does discrimination become acceptable when the people being discriminated against are few in number?
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 19, 2004 21:42:08 GMT -5
Humm i would like to see scripture for all this, especially the part about Jesus and insest love to hear that one. And i think your getting Judaism and Christianity mixed up also, Christians hold the old testiment in high regard but Jesus came with a new set of laws, and said that he makes the NEW law. I could give you a list of links relating to incest, rape etc, but I don't see the point, since you have obviously read your Bible and I'm sure you are quite aware of the many, MANY references to these activities. I can send you a Word document listing some of the more prevalent passages via e-mail. I will, however, give you two quotes from the NT ... Luke 20:35 ~ But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (heaven), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage ~Heaven is only for the unmarried, according to Jesus Matthew 5:17-18 ~ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. As far as divorcing the OT from the NT, you just can't do it. I'm sorry, it isn't possible. As noted above in Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus did not come to change the laws of the OT. He came to fulfill them. Actually, in Mark 7:9-10, Jesus criticized the Jews for not killing their disobedient children, according to the OT laws. Also, and this is a more difficult point for many to understand, Jesus is 1/3 culpable for the atrocities committed in the OT. As part of the Triune God, he is equally responsible for the actions of the OT God. Some Christians believe that Jesus is an incarnation of the OT God in flesh (as his "son"), this would make him the same God who committed the vile acts in the OT. As Jesus himself is reported as saying "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) I have read the Bible in its entirety in three translations. When I read the King James, I had a notebook and three coloured pens. Blue denoted questions that arose during my reading, Black was for the answers to those questions, Red represented the horrible things that I could not rationalize with a loving God. I had far more Red than I did Black (answered questions).
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Apr 19, 2004 21:50:02 GMT -5
The same idea follows with the adopted kid i feel he could become mentally hurt due to the lack of acceptance in todays society for homosexuals. For kids getting adopted who are 13 or 14 that presents the problem of them accepting the parents. Then maybe it's high time we started changing society's ideas of what is acceptable. It is because of closed-mindedness and unwillingness to accept anything that is different that we ended up with the Civil Rights problems in the 60's, the gender liberation issues in the 70's, etc... If these people had not tried to attain the right to be an equal citizen under the law, racial minorities and women would still be seen as second rate citizens. Anyone who is involved in an activity that is consentual and harms no one should be afforded the right to do so. This is the meaning of equality. We can't throw around phrases like "... and liberty and justice for all" then qualify that statment with exclusionary provisios. It either applies to all equally, or no one has the right.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 22:57:06 GMT -5
Okies this is the first point i wish to comment on. In nature will you agree that Sex is used for reproduction? Nature uses sex to procreate. The other thing comes with morals should a couple be together (sexually) if they are not married? My answer is no, not just based on my religious ideas but due to the fact of how i was raised...italian home in a back woods town... IE *you'd better be a southern gentleman* environment. As for the case with the couple not being able to produce ofspring due to complications the point is that they can when everything funtions procreate. Homosexuals will never be able to.
Good point however, like i said in the previous post if a kid needs both types of parents, a single parent is no better off except for the fact that its possible for that parent to date a member of the opposite sex thus balanceing the equation. Perhaps its just me but i still think kids needs both parents (opposite sex that is). I have a problem with single parents anyhow, i dont think divorse is appropiate except under special conditions IE abuse ect. I guess my problem is my morals...
Perhaps or perhaps not what are the odds the kid told them alrdy? Im not saying we need to ban every possible difference however the problem comes of social acceptance the laws are made with the social acceptance at the time. So give it a few years and everything will be socially acceptable and my points will become NULL.
Quite simply Yes, more complexly i never read from start to finish, i dont like that style, i read differnent books at different times untill i comleted it, it made it more interesting. What i was tring to conclude there is if you read just 1 verse you are likely to miss the main point.
This is def a loaded question. Yes tolerance lvls need to raise dramatically for there to be a social acceptance Regarding the last part, you know i ask myself the same question everyday, why would a Asian Girl get into college over me when i had the Same GPA and i scored better on my SATS, affermative action, I think its crap and discrimination but society deems it ok. Same thing with homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Apr 19, 2004 23:17:16 GMT -5
So you admit that society is discriminating against those small in numbers, but since other people do it you will, too??? I think it's protest-worthy when something like that happens. Just like the pledge of allegiance, we have to fight for fair treatment in the world to get a say in making justice happen.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 19, 2004 23:52:31 GMT -5
The problem comes with the idea of freedom, at what point will one no longer be discriminated against, discrimination is going to happen no matter what, Its human nature. So what is one going to do, allow everything? Thus Anarchy?
This is what i admit too, Society discriminates whom ever it deems worthy, discrimination to you and discrimination to me are two seperate things,
for instance women want equal rights but not equal treatment OR an even better one this goes back to my whole college deal to the Asian it was equal rights shes the minority all that the affermitive action thing is doing is making it more fair...Well in my eyes they are discriminating against a white person. My Point No matter what you will always have discrimination... Its a fundamental flaw in human society.
Do you follow or need something clarified?
|
|
|
Post by Narninian on Apr 20, 2004 0:36:48 GMT -5
LivinitUp - It seems you're having problems seperating your moral issues - with what you think should legally be ratified.
Its clear you are morally against gay couples - but I dont believe we're discussing whether its morally right. There are obvious differing opininions on this - as their are differing religons.
You believe that homosexual marraiges should be illegal - Its a discriminiation that needs to happen. Legalizing Homosexual marraige is a step towards Anarchy?
Let me just put my opinions forth:
I'm a christain - I have definetly questioned some Christian staples - and I'm unsure what to think of the homosexual issue - I'm definetly still searching for answers there.
I'm not questioning. however, my opinion on gay marraiges. I think they should be legal. It is discimination to not allow homosexual marriage. I also agree that the asian girl who didnt have the same SAT scores as you got in is discrimination- I think we should wane off Affirmitive Action.
Its the church's perogative to ban or allow gay marraige - they have the right to not marry someone under religous laws- but thats an issue that needs to be taken up with the church - not the state. I believe the government should allow Gay marriages.
I don't believe that gay couples raising an adopted child will traumatize the kid. If you believe that single parents shouldnt be raising kids - should there be a law to 'ban' single parents? If not then why make a law - to ban gay marraiges? I think that gay couples can raise a healthy family - or they could do poor jobs in raising the kids just as heterosexual parents can.
Lastly - I thought I'd apologize for the rambling nature of my post - its bedtime - and I don't feel like proofreading/rewording things to make sense.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 20, 2004 0:58:40 GMT -5
Yes partly, however is it not our opinions that form what we think on the laws. The ancient Myans believed in some pretty messed up things, thus their laws are reflective of that.
same as above my morals make my thoughts my thoughts make my opinions
Anarchy is no system of goverment IE we are free to do what ever we please. So the more stuff we deem ok the closser we come. That is with everything not just homosexuality.
Well Yehaw, however if you were black or asian you would not be saying that. That is the problem DISCRIMINATION is based soly on the fact of whom its comming from an Asian would see it as normal *affirmitive action wahoooo* but the person that is screwed over thinks of it as discrimination
This then stems the problem of which Communism is based, to make everything as neutral as possible...we learned that did not work...Like i said before there will always be discrimination who decides it is the problem there will always be a majority and minority. So what do you do about that?
DENOTE i said that single parents should not happen, which yes do span back to my morals. However i think this also spans back to what we think of how kids need to be raised.
|
|