QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnai think everyone here starts off from their tolerance to homosexuality or suspicion of the viability of homosexual-friendly societies and why government tries to regulate homosexuality. I think the root of the question is elsewhere and it could be in understanding what marriage is and why governments are so involved in it, and whether they should be.As far as I can see, there are two fair options. One is to leave marriage on a pedestal as the highest form of commitment, something to be highly valued in society. If you're going to do this, then one shouldn't distinguish between the genders of the participants. The other option is for marriage to be essentially a religious sacrament, and defined as between a man and a woman. But if you do this, it isn't fair to then raise marriage to a higher legal or moral status. For example, it is unfair to distinguish between married and unmarried couples for tax purposes, and it is inappropriate for Bush to be telling people that they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage.

yeah, whatever. I want to sleep and not in the mood to argue with anyone tonight. Here is a question for you wisemen. Suppose a gay marriage is allowed. If then someone clones himself and marries himself to pay less taxes, is this tax avoidance or gay marriage?

QuoteOriginally posted by: LongThetaI think I agree with MP this time (which is proof of how tolerant, pragmatic and open minded I am ). This is not about "their" (gay community) freedom. This is about "our" freedom. I think there is an element of cultural terrorism here: Society is being pushed to change its norms, to accommodate theirs, on their own terms. I really couldn't care less about their sexual habits (for as long as, as MP also pointed out, 100's of millions of dollars of tax payers money are not being channeled into AIDS research, but that's a different story), but I don't see why the norms of a society should be officially and formally, black ink on paper, changed to suits their needs for recognition on their own terms. I think that society is more than the sum of the people who make it. Society is a living, complex organic structure. Traditional marriage plays a fundamental role in the functionality of that structure. Playing around with that is a very risky exercise in social engineering. It's like playing around with the structure of the genetic code. You have to really know what you are doing to do things like that. I think we probably understand the way that society functions even less than we understand how the genetic code functions.I have no pretentions of being thoughtful and deep. I'm simply writing down my gut feelings about this.what is a "traditional" marriage? you mean man and woman, right? surely marriages are not necessarily traditional on religious grounds. I, a Christian by upbringing, married my ex-wife, a Muslim by upbringing, in city hall San Francisco (coincidentally). Marriages for a great portion of the population simply boil down to a verbal contract of sharing. If you don't believe that, all you need to do is speak with someone who is divorced. Finally, all of this grand appeal to tradition just doesn't hold water....I am pretty sure divorce rates are hovering around 50% in the States, so, what is the big deal about a tradition if it is not treated with any kind of "until death do us part" seriousness.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Noniuswhat is a "traditional" marriage? you mean man and woman, right? surely marriages are not necessarily traditional on religious grounds. I, a Christian by upbringing, married my ex-wife, a Muslim by upbringing, in city hall San Francisco (coincidentally). Marriages for a great portion of the population simply boil down to a verbal contract of sharing. If you don't believe that, all you need to do is speak with someone who is divorced. Finally, all of this grand appeal to tradition just doesn't hold water....I am pretty sure divorce rates are hovering around 50% in the States, so, what is the big deal about a tradition if it is not treated with any kind of "until death do us part" seriousness.FDAX,Yes, I understand, and I can see your point. I still suspect that "the institution of marriage", as we currently know it, with all its problems in modern society, has a fundamental function, and that this function is so fundamental that it's no longer visible. I think that we talking about functions at the interface of society and biology. Example, women no longer breastfeed their children. I think it's established that that is one of the causes of breast cancer. It's as if breastfeeding has a biological function that is much deeper than anything that we have suspected.I know I'm expressing myself very badly, but I hope you can sort of see my point.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: gjlipmanQuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaI think the root of the question is elsewhere and it could be in understanding what marriage is and why governments are so involved in it, and whether they should be.One is to leave marriage on a pedestal as the highest form of commitment, something to be highly valued in society. If you're going to do this, then one shouldn't distinguish between the genders of the participants.why then is it permissible to distinguish between them in other ways ?...The point is that at some point, government will regulate who can get married to whom.Someone, somewhere will draw the line.Those who support gay marriage just want the line drawn somewhere elseI agree with you completely - in each of your cases, I am suspect that a majority of society is happy with the reasons for governments regulating against marriage being allowed, and in the case of gay marriage, I suspect a majority of society can't see sufficient reason to regulate against marriage being allowed, so perhaps the line should be drawn somewhere else (if we are leaving marriage on the pedestal for tax and social moral reasons).

Those who believe that we were anatomically made to have anal sex, raise your hands, please. Thank you.

We weren't made to do anything we evolved as a set of compromises and random events.We evoved to live to 30. Hands up all those who want that ?We evolved to have sex of any quite quite rarely, and with few partners. Hands up for this ?It is not coincidence that human arms are exactly the right length to masturbate. Sex amongst our ancestors was rare enough that sperm usuallu died without leaving the body. This means that on the rare chance that men got to screw, they would have fired blanks. Thus a mechanism was evolved that at the prospect of having sex, men would get rid of old dead sperm.Hardly a lifestyle that appeals to most modern men.As to the evolutionary role of homosexuality, it is observed in practically all warm blooded animals including birds.Amongst early females it was probably a bonding ritual, similar to the way that many primates pick parasites from each other.Males exhibit homosexuality as basically going in under the radar. By exhibiting female behaviours, larger males fail to see them as a threat, and thus smaller/younger males get to pass their genes on without having to challenge stronger males.We observe in contemporary Western human groups that gay men frequently exhibit the ability to form relationships with women more easilty than straight ones. It seems to be the case that being exclusively homosexual is more to do with social pressures amongst groups of gay men than base biological urges. Men who choose to sleep with both seem to run into far more hassles from both groups than men who stick to one type of partner.It is ambiguous whether the human anus evolved to be used as a sex/bonding facility. Certainly it seems to cope with it rather better than wouild many other animals, and it may not be coincidence that you can fit a penis into it. Certainly we do know that human buttocks are a sexual attractive feature. Other primates have vastly smaller buttocks and breasts than humans. It is mainstream anthropology that the way women arrange their breasts pushed together and up is to resemble buttocks. No human females spend effort opn making their buttocks look like their breasts even though the technology exists.All human behaviours are complex.We are to a large degree artifacts of our own choosing over generations., this includes both our gross physical shape, hair and brain.

QuoteOriginally posted by: LongThetaThis is about "our" freedom. I think there is an element of cultural terrorism here: Society is being pushed to change its norms, to accommodate theirs, on their own terms. I really couldn't care as long as, 100's of millions of dollars of tax payers money are not being channeled into AIDS research,I don't see why the norms of a society should be officially and formally, black ink on paper, changed to suits their needs for recognition on their own terms. Society is a living, complex organic structure. I have no pretentions of being thoughtful and deep. I'm simply writing down my gut feelings about this.You have no pretensions? You do not need to pretend LT. It's clear as mud. The one intelligent thing you've said is about society being a complex organic structure. Wow! You know that organic structures change and evolve in order to survive. Things that refuse to change die, become extinct or get broken up. It's the natural law of existence. Even the universe does not stand still.My tax money is spent on benefits/medical bills for fat people, blind people, lame people, junkies, old people, straight people, prisoners, gay people, reckless drivers, people who go fishing when they know a storm is coming and have to be rescued by the emergency services, philosophers in universities who have made no contribution to my welfare, roads to pollute the environment, military hardware that kills babies, the EU and it's colossal accounting waste, women who can't have babies but are helped by alternative treatments, refugees, starvation victims, lying politicians, space programs when children/people are homeless on the streets etc etc. I am cool with my tax money even being spent on you. You deserve a place on the planet, too.You're starting to come across as blinkered - what happened to you?

QuoteOriginally posted by: LongThetaQuoteOriginally posted by: Noniuswhat is a "traditional" marriage? you mean man and woman, right? surely marriages are not necessarily traditional on religious grounds. I, a Christian by upbringing, married my ex-wife, a Muslim by upbringing, in city hall San Francisco (coincidentally). Marriages for a great portion of the population simply boil down to a verbal contract of sharing. If you don't believe that, all you need to do is speak with someone who is divorced. Finally, all of this grand appeal to tradition just doesn't hold water....I am pretty sure divorce rates are hovering around 50% in the States, so, what is the big deal about a tradition if it is not treated with any kind of "until death do us part" seriousness.FDAX,Yes, I understand, and I can see your point. I still suspect that "the institution of marriage", as we currently know it, with all its problems in modern society, has a fundamental function, and that this function is so fundamental that it's no longer visible. I think that we talking about functions at the interface of society and biology. Example, women no longer breastfeed their children. I think it's established that that is one of the causes of breast cancer. It's as if breastfeeding has a biological function that is much deeper than anything that we have suspected.I know I'm expressing myself very badly, but I hope you can sort of see my point.Everything gives you cancer LT..Everythiing....Joe Jackson sang that 25 years ago....anyway, WTF? Tying lack of breastfeeding to marriage and the breakdown of religiosity? If we wanted to respect tradition, plantation owners would still be swooning to the calls of "massah", women would be really boring and cooking stew in their man's houses (ok, mine still does this), and F=MA would be state of the art.

Hi: Every try to "cut" individual rights is a really bad,bad idea.The US Constitution is just excellent as it is right now (well, not that I could give a suggestion or two but given the fact that any cahnges to it coould result in a "chaotic" response..even my idaes would need a little more refining).Nice weekend!!

BTW:Would the real "nonius" stand up please?Nonious: You have the msot severe case of multiple personalities ever in the history of mankind!! I do not even know if you actually are: FDXhunter or Nonious or Beavis or Hamilton (not that you cannot be, no one can be HAmilton...even HAmilton himself)..You remind me of that movie last years about a cop and a killer and I don't now who else that were the same person and I was so confused after I saw that movie...(saem feeling with you)

Are you talking about "Identity"? Awesome movie.