Traduweise :

Defining terms is so old school. Like Socrates old school. And they're always so tenuous anyway. Ugh, I hate philosophy...

Biological Compatibility: The state in which one organism is built to be harmonious with another.

Think of enzymes, specifically lock and key model. The substrate has to match the active site. If it doesn't, nothing happens. If that doesn't work, think of locks and keys. Keys are for locks and locks are for keys.

My claim: Genders work the same way. Males are built for females and females for males. If a male wants a male partner or a female wants a female partner, they're like broken enzymes. They have a biological flaw, and it shouldn't be embraced.

And, btw, I haven't really avoided your question or lacked term definition. I just answered all these things on page 14.

https://www.vizzed.com/boards/thread.php?id=37786&ppp=20&page=13#991309

Txgangsta: Defining terms isn't something I normally bother with, but when you introduce your own personal term, it is necessary. Unfortunately, your definition isn't very useful as "harmonious" is open to interpretation. Harmonious just indicates that things fit together well. Heck, a dagger is harmonious with a person's ribs because it can slide between them so smoothly. When you use such a vague definition, it allows for subjective interpretation. There is no reason two people of the same sex cannot be harmonious together.? Enzymes don't cause reactions; they just facilitate them between other compounds. Try to compare an intimate relationship between two complex organisms to a simple key inserted into a lock is insulting to hetero and homosexuals alike. It's more a rough parody of a relationship than a satisfactory description of one.

Now let's return to the question of marriage as you laid on page 14.

First of all marriage is a political, or at least legal matter. It is about a transfer or joining of property. That's what it was invented for, and that's what it has been for most of human history. This concept of marrying someone you love is very new. Look at cultures all around the world: they've all had marriage for thousands of years, and for most of that time, it's all been arranged. 500 years ago you didn't ask some pretty girl on a date. When you were old enough, your parents set you up with another family's daughter, probably a family yours was on decent terms with. Marriage was many things: a way to reinforce and even improve social status, a way to get rid of your daughter and ensure she was with a family that would take care of her, a way to make some money. But marriage for love? That was the exception, not the norm.

And indeed, it made sense. Love is a fun past-time, but marriage is serious business. That's why so many people, especially men of status married whatever dull noblewoman of whatever powerful family his parents wanted to stay on good terms with, then took on second wives or concubines or had mistresses. No responsible adult would jeopardize his or her parents' fortunes just for sex and romance. Even today, though we typically marry for love, we still understand that marriage is a heavy commitment. In the United States, there are over 1100
provisions giving rights and responsibilities to married couples. These are a requirement of marriage. Love is not, though it certainly helps.

That being said, it is assumed that couples would not get married if they did not love each other. So, to return to your question: are homosexual couples capable of love? Yes. Well that was easy. I'm saying love, since that is the usual term, and ignoring your definition of "romanticism" since it was obviously invented by you to be self-serving. You may as well define it as a giant space casserole full of pineapples.

Lastly, I would appreciate it if you would stop abusing the field of biology so blatantly. Simply put, it doesn't work like that. You are anthropomorphizing natural instincts which have no interest in your prejudices. If two people love each other and are happy together, who are you to say that their love isn't real because they are the same sex? Homosexuality exists both in human society and nature. It is, by necessity, beneficial from an evolutionary point of view. Or are we going to tell pygmies that they are inferior to other humans due to their size (note: the genes that make pygmies so small is an adaptation to their immediate surroundings)? Believe it or not, people who are different from you are still people, and I doubt the many loving same-sex couples in the world would appreciate you telling them that their love isn't real because 'the key doesn't fit the lock'.

Incidentally, it's rather telling that the only thing you are basing this off is your one silly anecdote based on where you live. No doubt your description of Montrose could be applied to any college campus around the world, but I wonder what people in that area would say if you were to poll them on whether or not homosexuals are capable of love.

Traduweise : I really enjoyed reading that and agree 100%. But I will say that technically, he did answer the question on the contract thing. Earlier in our back and forward posts, he said that he is against marriage contract recognized by the government altogether, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. I brought up that whether he agrees with it or not, it is established and not changing, and is unjust to deny a minority the right to it. His response to that, and this being a direct quote, was "the whole thing is ridiculous, lets not expand it". So even though it is unjust to not allow it, he is against it on a political level because it just further supports a concept that he does not agree with. I personally don't see the justice in that logic, but he did answer it.

And it was nice to see someone touch on the fact that marriage did not start out as a love thing, and it was not invented by God. Despite that 2nd part, Christianity feels they have the authority over it, even though it was around long before the religion.

As I have stated as well, the biology arguments don't really work without the use of ethnocentrism. Comparing apples to oranges. The embracing disorders thing is also mute because there are TONS of disabilities we support and embrace. Heck, there standard wheelchair laws now, and that is for a minority even smaller than homosexuality.

rcarter2 :   Hm, yes, he did say that. The problem is that his ideal of marriage is not the way that marriage works or has ever worked; it has been a contract recognized by the government for ages, and abolishing that would be impossibly difficult to enact from a legal standpoint. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that.

Ultimately, you can have your own personal contract between two people in the way he describes, and you can call it whatever you like, even marriage, but it won't be the same as legal marriage. When we discuss same-sex marriage, I think it's reasonable to assume we are discussing legally recognized marriage. If you want your own personal marriages without government recognition, that's fine, but it's obviously something that could be applied to anyone or anything as you see fit. It has no defined parameters except as any given individual chooses to define them, so it isn't a very productive discussion point.

Traduweise : Don't get me wrong. I agree with ya there. No arguments whatsoever. When I talk about gay marriage, I am purely on the legal standpoint too. In no way would I stand behind forcing any religious group to accept it, recognize it, or allow it in their building. That is their choice, and would be equally as oppressive to try to force it on them. Ironic thing is, you are not going to find very many people who take the stance that any religion should be forced to accept/allow it.

Traduweise:

If we want to talk about the history of marriage, that's a whole different topic. Were marriages originally just about property? Yep. And the woman being married was generally property exchanged. This has absolutely no impact on what I've said thus far though. I'm not making an argument of "lets go back to the original form",  I'm asking "what is marriage supposed to be?" and moving from there. Nothing but the human person really plays a factor in answering the question. So, as for a legal marriage, I think it's trash. What's the point? Sure, there are tax breaks and the like, but why do we even have tax breaks for it? The whole system is a work in futility. "If I'm married, I get their insurance!" So I get married and get lower insurance costs. Did the marriage do anything? It's just a magical sheet of paper that gives me benefits. I'll be really blunt this time: legal marriage is nothing more than a remnant of ancient barbarism. Yet, at the same time, because of all the arbitrary benefits, the system perpetuates.

So, what should marriage be? That is a totally different question.

Also, I have never claimed that God "invented" marriage, "created" marriage, or that my religion has a monopoly on it (although my Catholic/Orthodox friends will). I do not invent terms to be self-serving. Biology works in a specific way. I am not anthropomorphizing (is that a word?) anything. I am taking our species, analyzing, and pointing out oddities.

Finally, it doesn't matter what people think about homosexual abilities. If I polled and asked "can gays love each other?" There'd be 99% of people that would say yes. If I polled "what's your age?", "how many relationships have you had?", "How long have they lasted?", and "are you straight, gay, or bi?", we'd come up with the results I have already suggested. Homosexual relationships are more volatile.

rcarter2 :  

The paralyzed person example you gave doesn't quite meet what I'm getting at, but I'll take the example. Human beings are meant to have motor skills in their legs. Person A does not. If we were to "embrace the disorder" as I have put it, we wouldn't attempt to help the person walk at all. They could just stay in the wheelchair, and they don't need to walk. Instead, what we do is see how we can fix the disorder. Instead of embracing the inability to walk, we attempt to overcome the biological error.

Txgangsta : You specifically said earlier that we should not embrace disorders. You said embracing paralysis would be to not make accommodations to allow them access to buildings and whatnot. So therefore, your opinion is that we should not make any accommodations for people with paralysis?

Along with many other disorders, what we ACTUALLY do is make as many reasonable accommodations for them to do as many of the same things someone without the disability has. Making ramps, handicap parking, special wheelchair access points, etc for paralysis is NOT an attempt at fixing the disorder. It is an attempt to accommodate for it. Instead of out casting them, we try to bring them more into society. That is EXACTLY what legalizing gay marriage is. Making a very reasonable accommodation to allow them the same opportunities everyone else has.

Txgangsta : You cannot adequately understand what marriage is if you don't understand its history. The question you are asking is not "what is marriage supposed to be", it is "what do I think marriage is supposed to be", or perhaps "what definition of marriage suits me best". Marriage to this day is a legal contract. It to this day is about property. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. When people discuss same sex marriage, they are discussing legal, government-recognized same sex marriage, not your idealized fantasy marriage. You don't like government-recognized marriage? Irrelevant. The topic has already been established as government-recognized same sex marriage. If you want a discussion over what marriage should be and what role, if any, government should play in it, start a new thread. Legal marriage has been around for since prehistory and won't be discontinued any time soon. And while marriage continues to be a legal contract, it is unjust to allow only heterosexual couples access and deny homosexual couples. That is the issue being discussed.

And yes, anthropomorphizing is a word. Biology does not "work in a specific way". It is a discipline of study that falls within the scientific field. Trying to argue that homosexual is wrong or inferior because of "biology" makes no sense. You may as well say that rain is bad because of 'meteorology'. Or that the gulf stream is bad because of 'oceanography. If you want to analyze, then analyze and drop the vague moralizing declarations. As for the volatility of same sex relationships, you are literally basing this on one person's (your) personal opinion after having talked to one or two people. You want to talk about biology then present the most laughably unscientific conclusion possible. Incidentally, whether or not same sex relationships are more volatile is irrelevant to the matter of same sex marriage, but nonetheless I will believe it when I see satisfactory peer-reviewed papers on the matter.

Traduweise :

"The question you are asking is not "what is marriage supposed to be", it is "what do I think marriage is supposed to be", or perhaps "what definition of marriage suits me best"."

See, I'm not. This is why I was being a bit ridiculous earlier. I said things like "what barbarism!" and whatnot because you won't take my argument at face value. When I say "What is marriage supposed to be?" I do not mean your interpretations. I mean exactly as I say. Nothing more. Nothing less. If we're only talking of legal marriage, I have already given my belief: marriage in government is irrational. Birth certificates have father and mother, and we can have all of the necessary legality that is currently contained in marriage attached to that. Paternity and maternity never changes, but marriage is just unnecessary paperwork.

You're touting a philosophy called "expressivism" or "emotivism". It's wrong. At the very least, it means your conclusion of "gay marriage is just" is as meaningless as my statement "homosexual activity is wrong". In this line, it's absurd to continue discussion because there is no truth.

So, we can continue the discussion of "what should marriage be" or we should simply admit the nihilism you're driving your argument into.

rcarter2 :

I liked your post about deafness better =)

To embrace the paralysis disorder would be to say there's nothing wrong with him. I have a friend (John) who has only one arm. Is he worth less as a person? No. Is there something wrong with him? Ya. He's got one arm. I have six lumbar vertebrae. There plenty of issues with everyone, but denying the issues is kinda ridiculous. I'm only supposed to have 5 lumbar vertebrae. Overcoming (not embracing) my vertebrae flaw doesn't require anything because it doesn't affect me at all. Overcoming (not embracing) paralysis, which does affect nearly everything, would be giving them a wheelchair for mobility, creating ramps, etc. Embracing paralysis would be to say they're fine as is and do nothing. Embracing would say they don't need mobility, they're just fine.

I'll address the deafness post that you removed too. The deaf community is extremely strong, and last I heard they're growing. And that's totally fine. They have their community. Many do not opt for hearing repair because of community, and I have no problem with that. I would have a problem with someone saying "make me deaf". Hearing isn't as necessary in our very literate culture, but intentionally removing it would be that "embracing disorder" thing.

Equally, I don't think homosexuals should "pray the gay away" or something like that. They're born gay. They shouldn't embrace it, but there is no obligation for them to opt for a "treatment" (it doesn't exist now).

Semi-related, I doubt a magic pill will ever be created. People are wired a specific way. Homosexuality is not a hormone imbalance, it's how the brain is built. The only thing that really changes that is long-term psychological therapy, and that is horribly costly, both in time and money. Plus, even if there was magic to poof a homosexual straight, there's still the exact same lust issue that is the real issue at hand. I don't dislike gays anymore than my one-armed friend; I don't want extra-marital activity regardless of sexual orientation. 

Txgangsta : As I've already said, your interpretation of marriage is not relevant to this discussion. This is about legal marriage because legal marriage is what's relevant to society. And while legal marriage exists, the extent to which it can be applied to people is important. If you want to argue about what marriage should be, start a new thread; it's pointless here.

Secondly, while we may have some points in common, I am neither an emotivist nor an expressivist. Furthermore, I at no point made the claim "gay marriage is just". If there is one thing I really do understand, it's the importance of not basing one's arguments on vague and undefined adjectives. Don't make assumptions about what I believe.

Now, since you've managed to avoid all the points I made, I'm going to assume you admit they are right. And unless you have something new to add, like your biology argument against homosexuality, it seems you have nothing left to contribute.

Traduweise :

"Furthermore, I at no point made the claim "gay marriage is just"."

You said, "it is unjust to allow only heterosexual couples access and deny homosexual couples." It follows that to allow homosexual marriage (the opposite of the current state) would be just (also the opposite of the current state). You're right in that you never made the claim that "gay marriage is just", but it's rather easily inferred from that previous statement. I'm sorry if I strawman'd you. 

"Now, since you've managed to avoid all the points I made, I'm going to assume you admit they are right."

Pretending I haven't commented on your position is a victory via ignorance. You said this thread is about legal marriage, and my response to legal marriage has been given multiple times. It's ridiculous and should be abandoned. That is an on-topic statement you've decided I haven't made. I stated it many pages back, I stated it with rcarter, I stated it with you, and will state it again. Your solution to the problem is to allow homosexual marriage. My solution is to abandon the system altogether. The system is arbitrary/meaningless/absurd; it should not be in government. The beneficial things in marriage laws can be applied in a much more meaningful way through the birth certificate.

You've told me I'm only allowed to comment on legal marriage. I did. There is nothing left to contribute because you've demanded I am not allowed to relate this to other disciplines. What other "points" would you like me to comment on, my intolerant and disrespectful friend?

Txgangsta : This may seem like a quibble over semantics, but there is a distinction between those two phrases. When you use quotation marks, you are quoting someone word for word, not inferring into what that person may have meant. I don't think same-sex marriage is necessarily just, but to allow for marriage between opposite sexes and not same sexes is unjust.

And yes, I get it. You don't like legal marriage and want it gone. But, for the third time, since legal marriage isn't going anywhere, the discussion focuses instead on appending legal marriage, in the United States I am assuming, to include same-sex marriage. 'Let's get rid of legal marriage' is meaningless because it doesn't address the issue. This is a matter of ensuring equal rights - in the real world. However, you have made it clear that you don't think same-sex marriage is valid, which is something you then refused to explain, since it all seems to rest on random definitions (ie: "romanticism") you made up on the spot. In a similar way, your comments on biology are not only nonsensical but unexplained. I may be intolerant and disrespectful, but I don't make stuff up.

Traduweise:

This is probably my last post in discussion with you

I also am attempting to ensure equal rights. One group has the right and the another does not. You want to add the right to the group that lacks it. I want to take the right away entirely, which is also ensures equality. Both our solutions work for equality and both address the issue. And we've already discussed reasons for each.

All words are simply symbols. If I create my own words, it's not any different than any language. The words don't matter, the definition behind them does. The question I asked is "Can homosexuals be married?". This is not a question over legal contracts, but a question of love. To avoid confusion with familial love, friendship, or the like, I defined this particular requirement as "Romanticism". There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, because the English language does not have the exact word I want to use, I could invent an entirely new word to describe it if I wanted.

And just because you don't understand my comments on biology doesn't mean they are "nonsensical" and "unexplained". I've taken things that are essentially human and applied them. Do you agree that human beings are meant to walk? Do you agree that, if someone is paralyzed, it is due to a biological deformity? Whether you do or not, paralysis is not supposed to happen. It is a biological deformity. As is my 6th vertebrae. As is homosexuality. And none of these are worse than the other. However, we shouldn't deny the flaws.

My mom teaches kindergarten and, generally, she gets a one kid that has a mental disorder. About 50% of the time, the parents deny the disorder. "My child is NOT autistic!". They refuse the paperwork, and the child gets passed on until they can't get past 2nd grade, then the school district no longer needs parent consent for the special class. This denial is nearly the same thing. Autism and homosexuality are obviously not the same thing, but both are, in a very general sense, deformities. As we move from this definition of the human being towards human ethics, we can understand much of what we ought to do based on our own species.

That is my claim. There is the human species, the is, and we derive our ought directly from it.

My opinion is that if someone loves each other they should be able to get married. Other peoples private actions and beleives have nothing to to with me and will in no way affect me. I do not like golf. Does that give me the right to protest and try to get golf banned? It does not make and logic sense for it to be such a big up roar. Live and let live I say.

Txgangsta :   Since I can finally post a response, I may as well explain a little more clearly.

Your solution of abolishing legal marriage is simply unrealistic and unnecessarily messy. When tens of millions suddenly lose all benefits and legal privileges you are only creating far more problems than you solve. That is why I don't take it seriously in a discussion on the extent of existing legal marriage.

Languages have relevance because populations of people use them. If you invent your own words, they have relevance only to you. Trying to answer a question defined in common language with your own made-up words is like begging the question. You've just defined your term "romanticism" in such a way that it corresponds to your personal feelings. Ridiculous.

As for your comments on biology, perhaps I should not have characterized them as nonsensical. They are simply wrong. You do not understand what a deformity. If you are born paralyzed, ie because of an error during development such as your vertebra, that is a biological deformity. If you fall off a building, break your back, and wind up paralyzed, that is an injury. Paralysis is not necessarily a deformity. And homosexuality is not a deformity. Trying to equate it to paralysis is silly: paralysis is a disability and sexual orientation is not. Homosexuality is no more a deformity than heterosexuality. And no, some deformities are clearly worse than others. A cleft palate is a deformity as is being born without legs. You'd have to be crazy to think they are equally bad.

Autism is not necessarily a deformity either; it is a broad-spectrum of conditions some of which are clear deformities (like Down's syndrome caused by an extra 21st chromosome) and some of which are not . As sad as your story is, you simply cannot compare a range of conditions like autism to homosexuality. You could perhaps compare it to the range of human sexuality (like the proposed Kinsey Scale), but I think that opens up more difficulties. Simply put, human sexuality is not on par with mental disorders. That was established some 40 years ago.

I personally feel that people have the right to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in a negative way (other than them being irritated by it, it has to go to the level of actual antagonism before it needs to stop), and I think that if someone tells another person to do otherwise, they are being arrogant, because they think that your feelings matter more than theirs. This means that, not only do I support gays and their marriage, I am disgusted by the people who think that they can tell homosexual people what to do with their lives and be in the right just because they are not doing things their way. Not only are these people just living their lives, they aren't affecting anybody! Now some of you people may not be in the US, but if you were, you would know how much Americans talk about freedoms, yet, despite that, it's okay to take away homosexual people's freedoms? Now that is something that I don't understand. These are people too, with the same rights as you. It shouldn't even be a discussion. They can do whatever the hell they want! That's what my brain says.

I say let em get married. I am Christian (I am actually not sure at this point because as I get older I see more flaws in Christianity. But that is for another thread I suppose). There is a very clear distinction known as separation of Church and State. This was meant to block any religious beliefs from infiltrating political decisions (it obviously didn't work to well). Many nay-sayers  of gay marriage is due to the influence of their religion. Another force or reason that drives anti-gays is that it is "unnatural", yet it is simply a change in the dna that affects your sexual orientation. Being anti-gay for that reason is like being someone who casts away anyone who has cancer. Cancer isn't natural. It is a defect in the dna that causes your cells to divide uncontrollably. 
Please no I did not make that comparison to try to show that homosexuals are "sick" in any way, I did that to show how similar both of those situations and how one person is helped and done everything possible to cure, while the other is ridiculed and denied some of their rights.

Hoochman : Well,if god is that bigoted than he does not deserve to be called god,it is no one's business,not even god's,of who should get married,regardless of race,religion,or sexuality.People are not god's toys who should bend to his will.Gay people have just as much of a right to get married as any straight  person.I don't know where you live,but in America there is a separation of church and state as it should be,you can't deny rights just because a religion says no.

Okay the fact that gay marriage in the US is against the law just ticks me off! If two people want to be together for the rest of there Life's the let them. I mean come on people man and women,women and women,man and man whats the difference other then there private parts. I swear some people I am a bisexual and I am more then happy to admit it but me and my boy friend have to hide the fact or we will get wedgies and swirlies every day. Sure that is bullying but the government is basically doing the same thing to fully grown men and women and it stinks just let them get married if you don't care then just ignore them.  And all those homophobes in the world need to go to h e double hockey sticks.

I'm bisexual, so when people who are gay/lesbian can't get married because of the stupid law, that really makes me mad. If people love each other, just let them get married, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I hate that kind of thing so much.