Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

It's a phony misuse of the word.Kind of like saying that normally we lock our doors with a male bolt that fits into a female recess, but it would be discrimination not to allow some to try to lock their doors with two female recesses or two male bolts if they want to.The fact that there are in nature two quite distinct sexes rather determines the right combination of them. But emotion is everything these days, we make laws based on feelings rather than objective realities or even the near-universal practices of millennia. If the feeling contradicts the objective physical reality, we just go with the feeling. This is considered "progress."Marriage has to do with the objective physical fit of male and female. If people want to have relationships based on their feelings they can do that, but changing the normal meaning of marriage should not be their right.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In other words it's an oxymoron.Yes I've been married.

One's personal experience of marriage has nothing to do with a question like this, but it's very telling that people so often try to make it a personal issue. Like what I said about feelings being the way things are determined these days. Marriage is an institution, a social institution, it is not defined by any particular marriage as you all want to make it out to be, it is defined by society. And until recently society defined it as between a man and a woman, as the Sixth Dist. Circuit Court said. If there were not two distinct sexes there would be no marriage. It's ABOUT the uniting of the two sexes. It doesn't make sense for two of the same sex.

My little analogy to a bolt lock seems to have raised all sorts of weird ideas about what I'm saying about the experience of marriage. RAZD thinks I'm saying sexual variety must not be a part of marriage in my experience and now here's dwise saying it must be all about sex and not about love.But I'm not saying anything about the experience of marriage, mine or anybody else's. I keep trying to say I'm not talking about marriage as a personal experience at all, in fact I'm objecting to the way people so often treat this whole issue of gay marriage as being about personal experience. No, it's about the social institution of marriage, a more abstract objective concept.I used the bolt lock example just as a way of emphasizing that it's about uniting the two distinctly different sexes, for which a physical analogy is simply the most accessible, and it's being about two different sexes means it has no relevance whatever to two of the same sex because it's about bringing together the DIFFERENT sexes.I am not saying anything about sex in marriage or love in marriage or feelings in marriage or any such thing. This is not about the personal experience of marriage.I knew when I was asked if I'd ever been married that this typical misunderstanding was in the person's mind, as if it's about MY marriage, etc. I'm just not going to answer any more questions about my personal experience because I am not talking about personal experience.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now you and jar are raising a whole other subject. If you want to talk about the practical matters you have to explain why marriage is the only solution anyone can think of, when surely there must be legal solutions possible that don't require changing the concept of marriage. Single people raise their children outside of marriage all the time. Single aunts and uncles and grandparents raise children the parents have abandoned for one reason or another. Happens all the time, so why is this situation a special case? I rather suspect you are way overdramatizing this. How about giving some evidence?

Since one of the two is the natural parent in these cases, or the legally adoptive parent, that is also naturally covered by the laws you mention cover aunts and uncles etc;. Why are you -- or they -- making this sound like such a big problem, I really don't see it at all. Seems to me they could live as a couple, and make use of the legal benefits automatically conferred on the natural parent, etc.I also don't see why the pertinent legal advantages of marriage couldn't just be applied to the gay couple as a block without the marriage part. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This thing about the "wrong" parent being there in an emergency getting the child taken away from them? This sounds like hysteria to me. Sometimes a friend or neighbor or babysitter has to stand in for a parent, what's the big deal?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I've said many times, it has nothing to do with anybody's marriage, it's not a personal thing. It's about the social concept of marriage, the definition of marriage, the meaning of marriage as such, which needs to be preserved as the uniting of a man with a woman.

Because gay marriage is a travesty. Marriage is only for a man and a woman.

The point dear RAZD is that my analogy had absolutely nothing to do with anybody's personal experience of marriage, sex or love or anything on that level, it was an objective abstract analogy to illustrate the complementarity of the differences between the sexes that marriage is intended to unite. It was intended as a definition of the parties involved, had nothing whatever to do with personal experience.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, then you're all for people marrying their dogs, their siblings, etc. if you want to let people make this decision for themselves.When I was fifteen my best friend and I thought we were very clever to imagine that she and I and our boyfriends, who were nonexistent at the time, could marry all together into a little group of four to live together forever. We wrote creative little stories about our "married" life together. We didn't have the slightest lesbian inclinations but we wanted to be the closest possible friends forever. She told her mother about our idea, who was a very progressive woman who had been an anthropologist before her own marriage, and her mother informed us that the idea wasn't original, that people think up those things all the time.Much later I came to the conclusion that:Marriage is for the purpose of uniting the two different but complementary designs of human beings known as male and female. And yes, reproduction is definitely a major reason for the uniting of the two.

No I don't wonder, I understand why bigots would call me a bigot.

Posted earlier answer to you too soon. No, not in any sense that allows your phony misuse of the word, only in the sense that marriage is meant only for the two legitimate natural sexes. Which is what I was answering in the other post that didn't quite get finished when I said you would then favor people marrying dogs, siblings, groups of friends or whatever.Marriage is an objective social institution for which people have to be qualified, it isn't something people are allowed to determine for themselves. No, I'm thinking objectively about this and you are not, I am not deciding any of it on emotion as you are doing.Marriage is an objective social institution for which people have to be qualified, as I said above. The basic qualification is having been born male and female. It is the definition of the two parties who are qualified for marriage.

Have said no such thing, have said absolutely nothing about love, keep saying that I'm not talking about feelings or personal experience at all, but defining marriage as an objective social institution that people have to be qualified for. Period.

I haven't mentioned the religious definition of marriage for some pages now, I'm talking about the universal social definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with my feelings about it or anybody's feelings about it, it's an institution whose roots are very ancient and cross cultural, it's an objective thing.Gay marriage is a travesty. If you want to provide for the unrelated "parent" to have legal responsibility for the child you'll have to do it some other way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.