Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Brokenman123, Sep 19, 2018.
I'm not gonna keep an open mind, as I said before, it's not my cup of tea.
Civil partnership just wasn't enough for the LGBT community.
We live in a weird society now.
When AI becomes common place and there are robots walking around, people will start marrying their robots.
The end is nigh
Keep in mind that people in general remain largely the same. Its their options that changed.
Judging by your comment, this robot is smarter than you:
If you have the right to marry, why shouldn't he?
Eh, who cares. Honestly. If consenting adults want to get married, then let them. If people don’t want to participate in other people’s beliefs, then let them.
Freedom and liberty goes both ways.
Marriage arises out of human nature, which -- if you accept the theory of evolution -- is the product of millions of years of development. Humans, like all mammals and most animals, and even a lot of plants, have developed with sexual dimorphism. Male is made for female, and vice versa. The reproductive system is the only bodily system in each of us that is incomplete; it requires the complement which is found in a person of the opposite sex.
Marriage is how human society normalized and ritualized this reality. Of course marriage is about procreation; that doesn't mean it doesn't include more, but it arises out of this reality. Society has an obvious stake in how men and women mate and procreate, so of course society would create rules and norms regarding this. Society always has, and still has, an interest in regulating men and women copulating, for obvious reasons. Do I need to spell them out?
To call a legal or emotional union between two men or two women "marriage" vitiates the word of its historical meaning. For one thing, society does not have the same reason to normalize or ritualize the emotional/sexual attraction between people of the same sex. Procreation is a non-issue.
Also, while two men or two women can perform sexual acts on and with each other, this at best mimics true sex, which is male-female intercourse. No one likes to talk about this, but many of the sex acts that take place between people of the same sex are harmful, both physically and emotionally. It is an "open secret" among gay men that their sex lives are radically different from those of heterosexuals, and one reason isn't hard to see. Male-female sex is all in the context of two sexes -- each of which has evolved, over endless ages, to be oriented toward the other. As a result, you can't just mix-and-match. When you do, things essential to a successful recipe, if you will, are absent, and things go wrong. In the case of male-male sex, it tends toward extreme promiscuity and away from fidelity (and yes, of course there are exceptions, but that proves nothing).
Now, someone will say, but there are men and women who marry each other who cannot -- or even choose not to -- procreate. That's true. In the latter case, I would agree that a couple who marries with a complete intention against procreation is really not marrying in the true sense. But in the former case, the fact that someone is incapable of procreation is not the same thing as saying the person lacks the intention and desire for procreation. In other words, lots of people marry with every intention to make a family, and it doesn't happen. On the other hand, sometimes people marry who believe they can't have children, and lo and behold, they end up conceiving. So what society has traditionally done is take a hands-off approach.
Further, even if a couple cannot conceive, their marriage still possesses the essential quality of complementarity, which no union of two men or two women can possess. That alone disqualifies a same sex "marriage" from the longstanding understanding of what marriage is.
Just take note: none of this has anything to do with religion. Religion sanctifies and ritualizes marriage, and ascribes meaning to it, but it didn't create marriage.
I'm hurt so bad.
I think that's essentially the opinion of Obama's opponent in that debate, better worded (except the harm in same-sex intercourse part - I'm not gay and have no clue what did you mean by that).
I've lived with a devout Muslim for a while who believed in Sharia law. I had a conversation with him about the brutality of it and he agreed with me that it was barbaric but then proceeded to talk about the deep meaning of physically cutting off thief's hand. In his mind, that act and that act only was the way to justice, by definition. I think you'd agree that we should be more objective and real-world oriented than that.
In the video posted, Obama said, "...things like marriage express the community's concern and regard for a particular institution...". That's my opinion as well. Marriage is whatever society agrees upon. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no need to bring up philosophy or history.
First, what I mean by harms of same-sex intercourse: anal sex is pretty damaging. That part of the body is not designed for that, and that activity can cause lasting damage over time. If you care to, do a search on "anal cancer" with the word "gay."
Second, "history" matters a great deal, especially when you include natural history. What do you think you are? Are you a human being? What does that mean? Can you escape your "history"? Can you transcend your 23 chromosomes? Who you, I and the other 7-8 billion souls on this planet are is a product of millions of years of evolution -- including our sexual identity as male-female. People can choose to be ignorant of these things, and pretend they don't exist, or that they don't matter, but reality has a way of asserting itself. As in the case of what happens with the first point I made.
No doubt. Every action is a function of past events plus random noise. I'm not questioning that.
What I meant is that given our current knowledge and attitude of the public, there's no need to hold on to traditions in their original form. In fact, we have to change them or get rid of them completely if those traditions don't match those two things.
Homosexuality is not unnatural - gay animals exist. There is no satisfying evolutionary explanation yet but that may change.
If anal really causes cancer then that would be an argument against anal, not marriage.
I do not think that's true. I think what you mean to say is that sometimes, a male animal will mount another male. That is not the same thing. Can you cite examples of animals that pair up with mates of the same sex persistently? I doubt it.
Like other swans, the black swan is largely monogamous, pairing for life (about 6% divorce rate). Recent studies have shown that around a third of all broods exhibit extra-pair paternity. An estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...
Giraffes have been called "especially gay" for often engaging in male-male sexual behavior more than male-female (heterosexual) sex
“While male sheep do show lifelong homosexual preferences, this has only been seen in domesticated sheep. It's not clear whether the same thing happens in wild sheep, and if LeVay's explanation is right it probably doesn't. Domestic sheep have been carefully bred by farmers to produce females that reproduce as often as possible, which might have given rise to the homosexual males.
So LeVay and Vasey still say that humans are the only documented case of "true" homosexuality in wild animals. "It is not the case that you have lesbian bonobos or gay male bonobos," says Vasey. "What's been described is that many animals are happy to engage in sex with partners of either sex."
There’s a reason why animals cannot be considered true homosexuals is because animals operate on instinct only. Because they lack a rational mind they cannot have an identity nor can they ascribe to themselves a sexual identity.
At best you can say animals are bisexual. Which in my opinion is what all humans are as well, however, societal pressures have created within humans a desire/need to be identified as homosexual or heterosexual in order to feel like they have a home/group they can belong to.
Match what two things?
I think this debate has fallen down the rabbit hole but whatever.
From the article YOU provided:
I don't feel qualified to argue about this since I'm not a biologist but I think you're dead wrong. Animals seem to form opinions and have personalities just like humans.
I don't know about everyone being bi unless it's an undetectable subconscious thing. The only reason I'd mind being called homo is that I'm not. I don't find gayness disgusting, I'm just indifferent. I feel zero attraction to men.
This would be incorrect. If animals could form personalities and identities like human beings then this would make them rational beings that we could also label as murderers, rapists, adulterers, etc which we don’t do because to do so would be ridiculous. Just like how it’s ridiculous to label animals homosexual.
This also dispels the myth that there ever was such a thing as “marriage inequality” according to the traditional meaning of the word. There were no laws forbidding homsexual men from marrying heterosexual women or even homosexual women. In fact plenty of times a homosexual married a heterosexual. The term “marriage inequality” was a clever way play on people’s sentimentality in order to introduce a new definition of marriage that had never existed. Oddly enough the generation so concerned with avoiding appropriation did the biggest appropriation move in human history.
My attitude to LGBT couples is good. I know that first LGBT wedding ceremony was in Denmark. I know some LGBT couples that are going to get married in Denmark, where same sex marriage was legalized. One of my friends got married in the Denmark here https://daenemarkheiraten.de On the 15. June 2012, it became possible for gay couples from abroad to get married. Since then Denmark has been a preferred place to be wed by gay and lesbian couples from around the world.
I have zero belief in everyone supposedly being born bi like a lot of people claim, society may pressure and ultimately end up repressing things but that doesn’t mean it 100% determines or controls our sexuality. We are definitely on a spectrum.