Right - it all depends on how things would evolve beyond this point........
I personally don't see anyting good coming out of this....
I have no problems with Gays or even Gay Marriage, but to me it appears the whole thing is being used as a tool to advance other agenda.
As some of you know and as I already predicted, every political Sunday show here was about Gay Marriage!! What happens next week? I don't know, but stay tuned, they will come up with something!! That is the only art the Obama gang has mastered!!
I personally don't see anyting good coming out of this....
I have no problems with Gays or even Gay Marriage, but to me it appears the whole thing is being used as a tool to advance other agenda.
As some of you know and as I already predicted, every political Sunday show here was about Gay Marriage!! What happens next week? I don't know, but stay tuned, they will come up with something!! That is the only art the Obama gang has mastered!!
It was just a personal stance concerning certain social issue not an executive order. It still remains as state matter. North Carolina just amended state constitution declaring marriage being between a man and a woman only and will not recognize any other from of it while same sex marriage is legal in 8 different states.
Of course Obama is for gay marriage. They have been solidly behind him. He owes them and he pretty much said that.
Otherwise, no, gays do not have any inherent right to get married. That right should be granted to them by the general population. If the population of say a state do not wish to grant them this right, then they should not be able to get married. This is not an individual's right. It is a social matter.
Marriage is a social matter; this is why it is a publicly declared contract. Otherwise, two people can live together and have sex with each other, cheat or not cheat on each other all they want. Why make it a social matter?
The idea, that has been utterly lost, is that this is one of very few areas where individual's right has huge interaction with that of the society. No society can survive without getting new members. New members are predominantly through children. Children must be cared for and trained. A society has to decide how this is done. You can for example, as many would like but are too coward to explicitly say so, create new children then give them to social institutions to be trained the "right way," essentially what Hitler liked and many other socialist like.
Marriage is about this issue. It says that a family unit is formed and publicly declared, the contract is not just between the individuals, but between the individuals and the society, and then the unit is entrusted with raising children and the society will support them for the valuable service they are providing. This is called marriage. This is why a breach of this contract, i.e. cheating, is society's business. Otherwise, why should the society get involved if a man decide's to cheat on his wife. Whose business is it anyway? What right do I have to get forcefully involved if a man breaks a woman's heart?
People instinctively know this but have in general lost the higher order understanding of it, so they make incorrect abstract arguments that are inconsistent with how they instinctively are behaving.
Now you have to decide on what the family unit is. Society grants this status. It is not an individual matter.
As far as the argument that one is born gay or not, it is the same as with anything else. Similarly a person is born with a propensity to steal, cheat, or lie, but that does not necessarily make stealing, cheating or lying a good thing. One decides on those based on other criteria than the fact that the person was born with a propensity to steal, cheat or lie.
Otherwise, no, gays do not have any inherent right to get married. That right should be granted to them by the general population. If the population of say a state do not wish to grant them this right, then they should not be able to get married. This is not an individual's right. It is a social matter.
Marriage is a social matter; this is why it is a publicly declared contract. Otherwise, two people can live together and have sex with each other, cheat or not cheat on each other all they want. Why make it a social matter?
The idea, that has been utterly lost, is that this is one of very few areas where individual's right has huge interaction with that of the society. No society can survive without getting new members. New members are predominantly through children. Children must be cared for and trained. A society has to decide how this is done. You can for example, as many would like but are too coward to explicitly say so, create new children then give them to social institutions to be trained the "right way," essentially what Hitler liked and many other socialist like.
Marriage is about this issue. It says that a family unit is formed and publicly declared, the contract is not just between the individuals, but between the individuals and the society, and then the unit is entrusted with raising children and the society will support them for the valuable service they are providing. This is called marriage. This is why a breach of this contract, i.e. cheating, is society's business. Otherwise, why should the society get involved if a man decide's to cheat on his wife. Whose business is it anyway? What right do I have to get forcefully involved if a man breaks a woman's heart?
People instinctively know this but have in general lost the higher order understanding of it, so they make incorrect abstract arguments that are inconsistent with how they instinctively are behaving.
Now you have to decide on what the family unit is. Society grants this status. It is not an individual matter.
As far as the argument that one is born gay or not, it is the same as with anything else. Similarly a person is born with a propensity to steal, cheat, or lie, but that does not necessarily make stealing, cheating or lying a good thing. One decides on those based on other criteria than the fact that the person was born with a propensity to steal, cheat or lie.
So was ending slavery, right of women to vote, etc.. If it is about making name, then Bush Sr., Brush Jr., Reagan, Clinton, all had a chance to do it.
It is more about being an intellectual who understands individual rights. It is about people wanting to live in the past and in the future. Narrow minded older generation who can get away from their old and brain wash prejudicism.
The new generation is moving it as did with every right that has been granted. Those that dont see it are stuck in the old time.
As for Obama, it is the above plus he sees it as a good move for his campaign. He certainly got many to finally say, okay, someone finally is doing something to push for social rights after the republican and conservatives having slowed all progress for so long pushing their narrow minded agendas.
It is more about being an intellectual who understands individual rights. It is about people wanting to live in the past and in the future. Narrow minded older generation who can get away from their old and brain wash prejudicism.
The new generation is moving it as did with every right that has been granted. Those that dont see it are stuck in the old time.
As for Obama, it is the above plus he sees it as a good move for his campaign. He certainly got many to finally say, okay, someone finally is doing something to push for social rights after the republican and conservatives having slowed all progress for so long pushing their narrow minded agendas.
I really don't think that it's a good idea to let a majority decide on the rights of a minority. Otherwise, we still might have segregation in the south and no marriage between mixed race couples.
and yes, you said it, marriage is a social contract. That's all there's to it. Everything else is rather not relevant.
and yes, you said it, marriage is a social contract. That's all there's to it. Everything else is rather not relevant.
Actually Rasoul jan, not being able to procreate is a biological failure. Any species that can't or isn't driven to reproduce is doomed to extinction. By any standard definition, homosexuality is a disorder because any species with such sexuality will go extinct within one generation.
The low ranking wolves and worker bees aren't separate species from wolves and bees, they are simply parts of those species. The submissive wolves want to reproduce but are kept from doing so by the more dominant wolves. When they do get a chance to form their own pack, they have no problem procreating. Worker bees usually can't mate due to an evolutionary phenomenon called Kin Selection which in their case devotes them to working for the colony and is meant to help the overall survival of their species.
Among humans, people with Down's Syndrome are infertile but they also haven't disappeared because other humans continues to reproduce. That doesn't mean the condition is normal and not a disorder.
I do believe most Gay people are born that way, and there is medical evidence that Gays are exposed to abnormally high levels of male hormones when inside the womb. But as with Autism, color blindness and many other serious and not so serious disorders, being born with a condition doesn't necessarily make it normal. The whole process of sexual attraction is an evolutionary mechanism to entice you to engage as much as possible in the act which in turn increases the odds of both passing your genes and preventing your species from extinction. There is no evolutionary benefit involved in attraction to someone of your own gender. It's basically a malfunction or failure of the sex drive.
The low ranking wolves and worker bees aren't separate species from wolves and bees, they are simply parts of those species. The submissive wolves want to reproduce but are kept from doing so by the more dominant wolves. When they do get a chance to form their own pack, they have no problem procreating. Worker bees usually can't mate due to an evolutionary phenomenon called Kin Selection which in their case devotes them to working for the colony and is meant to help the overall survival of their species.
Among humans, people with Down's Syndrome are infertile but they also haven't disappeared because other humans continues to reproduce. That doesn't mean the condition is normal and not a disorder.
I do believe most Gay people are born that way, and there is medical evidence that Gays are exposed to abnormally high levels of male hormones when inside the womb. But as with Autism, color blindness and many other serious and not so serious disorders, being born with a condition doesn't necessarily make it normal. The whole process of sexual attraction is an evolutionary mechanism to entice you to engage as much as possible in the act which in turn increases the odds of both passing your genes and preventing your species from extinction. There is no evolutionary benefit involved in attraction to someone of your own gender. It's basically a malfunction or failure of the sex drive.
Not sure if we can be so definitive about the evolutionary benefits (or lack thereof) of homosexuality. See the article below for other perspectives:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
I've seen some of these arguments before. I noticed that the article makes a few references to "non-exclusive homosexuality" which is really just bisexuality. It also keeps bringing up homosexual animals (which I've heard many times before), but this still doesn't prove that it's necessarily normal. Animals can also be born with missing or extra limbs just as some humans are. What does that prove?
Also, natural selection hasn't eliminated Down's Syndrome or Autism either. Does that make them normal?
Also, natural selection hasn't eliminated Down's Syndrome or Autism either. Does that make them normal?