Same Sex Marriage

c.i
As defined in websters your answer would be yes. Does that make it acceptable? Of course not.

Absolutely for it. Marriage, as some North Americans/Westerners choose to define it, is a fairly new concept - in terms of the history of humans.

There's no reason we can't add to/modify that definition.

Call it a union, call it pair bonding, call it marriage, call it partnership. I think it's all good and strong and healthy.






<pssssst New Haven - identifying something as being from the APA isn't necessarily going to increase its value>

Ofcoarse it's acceptable. Only the religious and bigots believe it is wrong. c.i.

On the nerd side of things, we could call a heterosexual marriage an ionic bond and a homosexual marriage a covalent bond. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nerd alert! Nerd alert!

anyone familiar with Kate and Anna McGarrigle's NaCl song?

au, I do not understand why two humans that love each other cannot live in peace. c.i.

New Haven - For me the issue of whether homosexuality is "normal" is a non-starter. It doesn't matter.

Some of those who it "abnormal" point to the Bible. This assumes the Bible is an authority all accept, which it is not. Some others point to the fact that it serves no procreative function, which assumes that romantic love that lacks the procreative act as its basis is abnormal, which seems an untenable position.

Some who call it "normal" like to claim that acts of homosexuality are seen throughout the animal kingdom, and that this "fact" makes homosexuality normal. Well, many animals kill within their species out of rage or over mating disputes. Would these same people argue that murder is "normal" upon the same basis? Again, an untenable position on its face.

It does not matter whether homosexuality is "normal". (I would hazard a guess that it is normal to most homosexuals. :wink: ) What matters is that we share our society with people who are attracted to their own gender, and that within some fairly obvious boundaries the behaviors these people engage in are consensual and cause no harm to others.

Same boundaries and conditions should be placed on those attracted to opposite sex.

Agreed.

trespassers, Yes, killing in the human family has occurred since man was 'created.' That's normal - meaning it occurs. c.i.

and we have only gotten better at it!

amen.... c.i.

c.i


Neither do I.
The question is not whether it is "normal" whatever that means but whether it is acceptable.

au1929- Acceptable to whom?

au, I answered this in a previous post. Only the religious and bigots do not accept this lifestyle. c.i.

While I don't disagree with you, that's a somewhat, er, what's the word? Damn. I'm not up on my, er, whatchamacallit -- rhetoric. It's a circular definition of bigot: someone who is intolerant of homosexuality is a bigot; bigots are intolerant of homosexuality (and not all are, and some are but are not bigoted in other areas).

Er, yes, here I sit...

Definiton of "bigot - A person of strong convictions or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him." c.i.

and of course my favorite in illogic "i hate bigots"

Ok - another cat to chase the pigeons.

While I am, of course, in favour of marriage for any homosexual people who want it, I am intrigued by everybody's apparent acceptance of the notion that promiscuity is bad.

Why is it bad? (Assuming that those practicing it are scrupulous about safe sex; which is I guess, one reason to call promiscuity bad, but I digress, and also that their choices are from those legally able to give informed consent.)

Promiscuity is not uncommon amongst non-gay people too - but its zenith is, at least popularly, thought to be reached amongst some gay males. On what basis are people judging this to be wrong?