Ukip Banned From London Pride Parade, But Organisers Say Decision Is Not 'Politically Motivated' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911795]It's pretty obvious I'm using efficiency in a more qualitative sense, heterosexual parents fall more naturally into the roles of mother and father, where-as one member of a homosexual couple would have to act against their natural inclinations in order to raise the child properly. Also nature vs nurture isn't a binary, in many cases they lead to each other.[/quote] Human beings are more than capable to go against their natural inclination, on variety of of levels (going against basic instincts, personality, social pressure), thereby making your point moot. Meanwhile, quality of parenthood can only be measured in extremes of poor actions, which would therefore be irrelevant to the general gender of parents. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911795] I'm not talking about adoption as I see that as the only semi-justifiable methods by-which homosexuals can obtain children. [/quote] Anyone is a homosexual couple may have had children from previous relationship (bisexuality or possible choice). Equally, surrogate mother are a thing, which could be legally approved. And finally, for same-sex couples of female body type, there is artificial insemination. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911795]I Yeah, but it's pretty obvious that the purpose of a family is to have children, that is why heterosexuals exclusively got those benefits before (since they were like, raising the next generation and stuff). Now thanks to the legalization of contraception it looks like we're instead relying on immigration, but that's a whole other can of worms.[/quote] The fact that you are putting down the concept of family as pure industrialization of children, shows how little you know of human's capacity to overcome basic instincts as well as capacity for personal relationship. Families provide far more than simple creation of children, otherwise family membership should only be available to those willing and capable of reproduction, which is clearly not the case. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911795]I It strikes me as a kind of adolescent view of marriage to simply complain about one group getting benefits when you're not, even though your group is clearly more limited in its utility to the state in comparison to the other.[/QUOTE] States have no value in birth control, only in legal matters such as taxation. And as it seems, you have failed to realize that society is moving on from the concepts to which you seem most inclined toward, not in the way that you have not noticed - but you reactionism is obvious.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911832]Heterosexual relationships make a whole lot more babies than homosexual ones[/QUOTE] Actually it's sex which "makes" babies.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911832]Heterosexual relationships make a whole lot more babies than homosexual ones, that's a pretty important difference (making sure the next generation exists is within the state's interests).[/QUOTE] So do Polyamourous families, and yet this concept is not being favored by either most societies or legal states.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911839]If that was my concern this statement woudl actually be relevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE] then what is your concern? letting gay people marry each other isn't "special treatment" by the state

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911832]Heterosexual relationships make a whole lot more babies than homosexual ones, that's a pretty important difference (making sure the next generation exists is within the state's interests).[/QUOTE] Getting children out of foster care, group homes, and off adoption waiting lists and into homes with caring parents is a more economically sound move than simply trying to pump out as many kids as possible and hoping enough of them don't fall through the cracks to cover the costs of the ones that do. Gay couples are in a unique position where they'll choose adoption more often than having biological children but because of ignorance they're not even allowed to do so in many places. So yes, incentivizing people settling down together is a smart move regardless of what their sex is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47911817]I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify your question for me? [/QUOTE] You are against changing of current definitions of marriage, instead being interested in production of a duplicate of marriage that allows for a same-sex marriage. I fail to see the efficiency in producing a legal double standard (even if it would be kept equal), rather than changing a legal definition.

[QUOTE=gufu;47911841]Human beings are more than capable to go against their natural inclination, on variety of of levels (going against basic instincts, personality, social pressure), thereby making your point moot.[/QUOTE] Yeah, they're just going to have to work much harder at it in comparison to a heterosexual couple where the desired behaviors come more naturally, thus making the latter more efficient. [QUOTE]Anyone is a homosexual couple may have had children from previous relationship (bisexuality or possible choice). Equally, surrogate mother are a thing, which could be legally approved. And finally, for same-sex couples of female body type, there is artificial insemination.[/QUOTE] The last thing we need to do is start separating more kids from one of their biological parents in this society. [QUOTE]The fact that you are putting down the concept of family as pure industrialization of children, shows how little you know of human's capacity to overcome basic instincts as well as capacity for personal relationship. Families provide far more than simple creation of children, otherwise family membership should only be available to those willing and capable of reproduction, which is clearly not the case.[/QUOTE] Yes, families also effectively raise those children into good little citizens, that is as far as the state's interests should go as anything else is just a sink-hole for tax money. What I'm saying is that heterosexual marriages are the most streamlined for the aforementioned purpose, homosexual ones on the other hand will just need more support to even come close with competing (which they still don't effectively do). [QUOTE]States have no value in birth control, only in legal matters such as taxation.[/QUOTE] Birth control is almost lost value as we now see it results in less marriages rearing as many children. So removing it or at the very least significantly limiting it would be in the state's interests. [QUOTE]but you reactionism is obvious.[/QUOTE] Is it? Oh my, I'm blushing. [editline]blah[/editline] [QUOTE=gufu;47911848]So do Polyamourous families, and yet this concept is not being favored by either most societies or legal states.[/QUOTE] In terms of shear volume, it's much more efficient to have one man per woman rather than depriving a whole bunch of men for the sake of one. A million men and women will simply make more children faster, than one man with a million women. so again, within the state's interests

[QUOTE=gufu;47911875]You are against changing of current definitions of marriage, instead being interested in production of a duplicate of marriage that allows for a same-sex marriage. I fail to see the efficiency in producing a legal double standard (even if it would be kept equal), rather than changing a legal definition.[/QUOTE] Can you state why there's a legal double standard currently? As I see it, there is only one standard that all people are required to abide by, and gay people have it the same as everyone else as it relates to this standard. About creating a separate type of marriage for same-sex couples: I'm not sure how this would be constitutional since, by creating a different type of marriage, you're explicitly enforcing a separate, but equal situation. Once you establish that same-sex relationships can also constitute a marriage, then it must be totally equal to any other type of marriage.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911881]Yeah, they're just going to have to work much harder at it in comparison to a heterosexual couple where the desired behaviors come more naturally, thus making the latter more efficient.[/quote] Just like many human beings have to work harder at being able to drive a car, rather than running away in a natural fear of it. Also, "Desired Behavior"? How would such be defined? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911881] The last thing we need to do is start separating more kids from one of their biological parents in this society. [/quote] There is no recorded effect of replacing child's natural parents with a set of adoptive ones without informing the child through their development. No deviations or lack of efficiency has been noted in such cases. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911881] Yes, families also effectively raise those children into good little citizens, that is as far as the state's interests should go as anything else is just a sink-hole for tax money. What I'm saying is that heterosexual marriages are the most streamlined for the aforementioned purpose, homosexual ones on the other hand will just need more support to even come close with competing (which they still don't effectively do). [/quote] Streamlined in what? Child production? There is no general benefit for anyone included (child, parent, government, neightbors), to expand child production, rather than to produce child due to one's own inclination. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911881] Birth control is almost lost value as we now see it results in less marriages rearing as many children. [/quote] That is more relevant to the post-industrial society and reasons for not producing children, not birth control. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911881]Is it? Oh my, I'm blushing.[/QUOTE] If I may ask, is your Flagdog correct? [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;47911902]Can you state why there's a legal double standard currently? As I see it, there is only one standard that all people are required to abide by, and gay people have it the same as everyone else as it relates to this standard.[/QUOTE] Your wording implies that while you are not against homosexuals being married, you seem to be against homosexual marrying each other, correct?

[QUOTE=sgman91;47911902]Can you state why there's a legal double standard currently? As I see it, there is only one standard that all people are required to abide by, and gay people have it the same as everyone else as it relates to this standard. About creating a separate type of marriage for same-sex couples: I'm not sure how this would be constitutional since, by creating a different type of marriage, you're explicitly enforcing a separate, but equal situation. Once you establish that same-sex relationships can also constitute a marriage, then it must be totally equal to any other type of marriage.[/QUOTE] so you would agree that modifying the current laws surrounding marriage to disregard sex and gender would be the best option?

[QUOTE=gufu;47911906]Your wording implies that while you are not against homosexuals being married, you seem to be against homosexual marrying each other, correct?[/QUOTE] I'm against same-sex marriages. I don't care whether the people are homosexual or heterosexual. For all I care a gay man can marry a gay woman. So, no, I'm not explicitly against homosexuals marrying each other. My belief is totally gender blind. It matters not whether one or both people in the marriage is homosexual, as long as it's a man and woman.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47911925]I'm against same-sex marriages. I don't care whether the people are homosexual or heterosexual. For all I care a gay man can marry a gay woman. So, no, I'm not explicitly against homosexuals marrying each other. My belief is totally gender blind. It matters not whether one or both people in the marriage is homosexual, as long as it's a man and woman.[/QUOTE] for what reason?

[QUOTE=sgman91;47911925]I'm against same-sex marriages. I don't care whether the people are homosexual or heterosexual. For all I care a gay man can marry a gay woman. So, no, I'm not explicitly against homosexuals marrying each other. My belief is totally gender blind. It matters not whether one or both people in the marriage is homosexual, as long as it's a man and woman.[/QUOTE] Ah, I see, just another (parasite) take on the usual "Hate the sin, not the sinner". How quaint. Still, I find your ideas highly insulting, as you demand people to go against their own romantic and sexual interest to produce a healthy family.

i am fairly certain that the population of great britian can continue to exist if a few gay people get married to each other and decide to not procreate in any way

[QUOTE=gufu;47911906]Just like many human beings have to work harder at being able to drive a car, rather than running away in a natural fear of it. Also, "Desired Behavior"? How would such be defined?[/QUOTE] Desired behavior of the mother and father roles. [QUOTE]There is no recorded effect of replacing child's natural parents with a set of adoptive ones without informing the child through their development. No deviations or lack of efficiency has been noted in such cases.[/QUOTE] Can you link me some proof of this? [QUOTE]Streamlined in what? Child production? There is no general benefit for anyone included (child, parent, government, neightbors), to expand child production, rather than to produce child due to one's own inclination.[/QUOTE] We're not immortal yet, the state has very clear interests in having the population replace itself. [QUOTE]That is more relevant to the post-industrial society and reasons for not producing children, not birth control.[/QUOTE] You don't think birth control has had somewhat of a hand in causing our birth rates to drop in the West? [QUOTE]If I may ask, is your Flagdog correct?[/QUOTE] Indeed it is, I'm a little special up here in the true North strong and free. [QUOTE]Your wording implies that while you are not against homosexuals being married, you seem to be against homosexual marrying each other, correct?[/QUOTE] I have no qualms with homosexuals taking part in true marriage (which is heterosexual). I don't really even care about homosexuals that don't and get into relationships with each other; my issue is as you said, with the idea that those relationships should be treated in the same way as heterosexual relationships in relation to marriage.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911938]Desired behavior of the mother and father roles.[/QUOTE] Those can be taken up by anyone with any gender, since those do not demand specific biological traits, outside of perhaps, mammaries for breast feeding, which can also be replaced without any specific problems. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911938] Can you link me some proof of this? [/QUOTE] I will search for the appropriate proof immediately. However, considering that adoption is an action that takes time post-abandonment by parents, it's a complicated action to be able to check the state of all variables included, since various possible negative symptoms are related to the child being abandoned by the birth parents, thus best sample is based around adopted children that were not informed of their state until later. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911938] We're not immortal yet, the state has very clear interests in having the population replace itself. [/QUOTE] Equally, a state would prefer a highly functional migrant worker to a newborn baby. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911938] You don't think birth control has had somewhat of a hand in causing our birth rates to drop in the West? [/QUOTE] Yes, but not as greatly as you expect. The number of unexpected babies has dropped, but the reason why the sustaining population decline has been noted in many developed countries, is mainly due to the lesser importance of children, as seen in great deal of households (proving your idea of families as "baby factories", irrelevant). Birth control simply allowed the people to make a choice. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911938] Indeed it is, I'm a little special up here in the true North strong and free. [/QUOTE] Alberta, by any chance? And if it's truly strong and free, then I am free to have a homosexual marriage there then. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47911938] I have no qualms with homosexuals taking part in true marriage (which is heterosexual). I don't really even care about homosexuals that don't and get into relationships with each other; my issue is as you said, with the idea that those relationships should be treated in the same way as heterosexual relationships in relation to marriage.[/QUOTE] There is no definition of true marriage, as marriage as a concept has existed in multiple cultures. We are, as a secular state, have the rightful capacity to choose and change definition to any particular, as long as it benefits individuals (in which case it would benefit a population (homosexual couples interested in marriage) without harming society or rights of other individuals (denying other's rights is not a right in it's own accord)). In addition, your issue is irrelevant, as it's entirely of personal nature.

why is your issue with that idea? you have no problem if a gay woman and a gay man get married, a relationship which has very nearly the same chance of producing a child that a gay man and a gay man married would, what reason is there to restrict the latter?

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47911993]why is your issue with that idea? you have no problem if a gay woman and a gay man get married, a relationship which has very nearly the same chance of producing a child that a gay man and a gay man married would, what reason is there to restrict the latter?[/QUOTE] "gay sex is icky"

-snip-

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47911930]for what reason?[/QUOTE] Let me start off by saying that, like I said earlier, I think this discussion revolves around one's fundamental assumptions. So, here's one of mine and how my conclusion is based on it: Marriage is not simply a social contract. I believe it to have a true essence within the biological facts of humanity and human society. I don't believe it to have been a coincidence that essentially all, if not literally all, human society held that marriage was between a man and a woman (or multiple women). Even societies that had no problem with homosexual sex or certain same-sex relationships never came to the conclusion that same-sex relationships were equal to the marriage of a man and woman. Ancient Greece or Rome would be an example of this. Note that this is not purely an appeal to tradition, but the using of human history to show that marriage between a man and woman is more than simply an arbitrary social construct that can be changed at will. To add same-sex relationships to marriage would be to corrupt what human marriage is, not simply change it from one form to another. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.” It's clear that that would be absurd. The idea of an heir is set. It isn't just a social construct that can be changed at will. The idea of an heir is a fact of humanity. In the same way I see marriage as being set, a fact of humanity. Of course, if you start with the belief that marriage is just a social construct, and nothing more, then this will be totally unconvincing. I acknowledge that completely. Of course I would argue that the evidence leans my way on this point.

[QUOTE=gufu;47911982]Those can be taken up by anyone with any gender, since those do not demand specific biological traits, outside of perhaps, mammaries for breast feeding, which can also be replaced without any specific problems.[/QUOTE] Behaviour in part is determined by instinct, like the maternal instinct for instance. It's more than just having/not having breast. [QUOTE]Equally, a state would prefer a highly functional migrant worker to a newborn baby.[/QUOTE] The state has an interest in preserving itself in its current form, relying on immigration for population growth spells demographic shift. [QUOTE]Yes, but not as greatly as you expect. The number of unexpected babies has dropped, but the reason why the sustaining population decline has been noted in many developed countries, is mainly due to the lesser importance of children, as seen in great deal of households (proving your idea of families as "baby factories", irrelevant). [b]Birth control simply allowed the people to make a choice.[/b][/QUOTE] Yes, so the problem is that they are allowed to have that choice, allowed to by the presence of contraceptives. [QUOTE]Alberta, by any chance? And if it's truly strong and free, then I am free to have a homosexual marriage there then.[/QUOTE] No, somewhere much less conservative unfortunately (though to me it makes little difference). Individual freedom is meaningless. The only freedom that is worth pursuing is firstly the freedom of the state and then the individual within, redefining marriage only serves to limit the state (as it's a money sink hole) and thus is not truly an expression of freedom. [quote]There is no definition of true marriage, as marriage as a concept has existed in multiple cultures. We are, as a secular state, have the rightful capacity to choose and change definition to any particular, as long as it benefits individuals (in which case it would benefit a population (homosexual couples interested in marriage) without harming society or rights of other individuals (denying other's rights is not a right in it's own accord)). In addition, your issue is irrelevant, as it's entirely of personal nature.[/QUOTE] *There is no [i]secular[/i] definition of true marriage.

Christianity, modern religions for that matter don't have a claim to "true marriage" either But there goes your bias again

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912067]Behaviour in part is determined by instinct, like the maternal instinct for instance. It's more than just having/not having breast.[/quote] If you are capable of providing of actual examples of any behavior that can be condone by a motherly woman that cannot be condone by a motherly man, please do so. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912067] The state has an interest in preserving itself in its current form, relying on immigration for population growth spells demographic shift. [/quote] Majority of Democratic States do not point themselves to be paranoid about possible demographic shifts. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912067] Yes, so the problem is that they are allowed to have that choice, allowed to by the presence of contraceptives. [/quote] Human choice is the basis of democracy. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912067] No, somewhere much less conservative unfortunately (though to me it makes little difference). Individual freedom is meaningless. The only freedom that is worth pursuing is the firstly freedom of the state and then the individual within, redefining marriage only serves to limit the state (as it's a money sink hole) and thus is not truly an expression of freedom. [/quote] That's rather... fascist of you, I have to say. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912067]*There is no [i]secular[/i] definition of true marriage.[/QUOTE] Civil Marriage is a definition of true marriage in United States, and can be done by a non-religious figurehead, such as Mayor or another official.

[QUOTE=gufu;47912119]If you are capable of providing of actual examples of any behavior that can be condone by a motherly woman that cannot be condone by a motherly man, please do so.[/QUOTE] I shall find such examples then and report back when I have the time to do some research. [QUOTE]Majority of Democratic States do not point themselves to be paranoid about possible demographic shifts.[/QUOTE] That's because they're all preparing to pander to the new demographics. [QUOTE]Human choice is the basis of democracy.[/QUOTE] I'd say that in tandem with egalitarianism, yes. [QUOTE]That's rather... fascist of you, I have to say.[/QUOTE] While I hardly have a fully nuanced philosophical outlook on politics, I take what I can from the great minds of history (bonus points if anyone figures out who I was paraphrasing). [QUOTE]Civil Marriage is a definition of true marriage in United States, and can be done by a non-religious figurehead, such as Mayor or another official.[/QUOTE] True marriage is not subject to change as to deviate from it is to have a false conception of marriage.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912149]I shall find such examples then and report back when I have the time to do some research.[/quote] Sounds fair, I'll try to do the same. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912149] That's because they're all preparing to pander to the new demographics. [/quote] Oh boy, is this one of those "Muslims will come to our country, breed everywhere, and Vote ISIS ito Parlament" conspiracy theories? [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912149] I'd say that in tandem with egalitarianism, yes. [/quote] True. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912149] While I hardly have a fully nuanced philosophical outlook on politics, I take what I can from the great minds of history (bonus points if anyone figures out who I was paraphrasing).[/quote] Your views are however, in direct conflict to a free society. [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912149] True marriage is not subject to change as to deviate from it is to have a false conception of marriage.[/QUOTE] There is no definition of True Marriage.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47912149]I shall find such examples then and report back when I have the time to do some research. That's because they're all preparing to pander to the new demographics. I'd say that in tandem with egalitarianism, yes. While I hardly have a fully nuanced philosophical outlook on politics, I take what I can from the great minds of history (bonus points if anyone figures out who I was paraphrasing). True marriage is not subject to change as to deviate from it is to have a false conception of marriage.[/QUOTE] There is no true marriage. Your religion doesn't have a claim to it. As times have changed, marriage has fallen into a different place. you can steadfastly and stubbornly insist it stays there, and you can shout and scream, but you haven't given a good reason as to why society will be damned by gay marriage. You say parenting child absent a biological parent will create bad kids and bad families. That is unsubstantiated, and also leaves us in a situation where you believe orphans will be problem children period leaving us to ask questions about what you think we should do with them absent a biological parent or two. Let alone that plenty of step father and step mothers are perfectly valid parents and do a great job raising a child. Yet somehow, you'll ignore those situations to insist on a ridiculous one that is to us, morally abhorrent. Gay people, living under your, or sgman91's world, would be requested to deny who they are for you you think they should be, deny themselves pleasures that everyone else gets, and be generally looked down upon by society(Religious societies have always shown intolerance of a violent nature towards gays, would you really think your world be precluded from this? wait of course you do) all because they had the misfortune to be created by god in a way you don't like because 1) being gay isnt a choice 2) under your world view, god must have had a part to play in the way that person is. I see no manner in which your mindset is self contained and doesn't contradict itself because it's seemingly running into a number of issues for me. Though, what do I know, i'm a stereotypical liberal.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47912176]There is no true marriage.[/QUOTE] I would challenge this by saying that there is a true secular marriage in the same way that there is such a thing as true fatherhood, motherhood, etc. The traditional idea of marriage being between a man and woman has been a fact of humanity until the extremely modern era. [QUOTE]Gay people, living under... sgman91's world, would be requested to deny who they are for you you think they should be[/QUOTE] False, gay people in my world would be totally allowed to celebrate their sexuality. They would be able to have gay pride parades, have every right given to all other citizens, be allowed to have as much gay sex as they want, and be allowed to form whatever gay relationships they want. [QUOTE]deny themselves pleasures that everyone else gets,[/QUOTE] The only pleasure being denied would be that of having a state recognized marriage, nothing else. Is that even really a pleasure? [QUOTE]and be generally looked down upon by society(Religious societies have always shown intolerance of a violent nature towards gays, would you really think your world be precluded from this?[/QUOTE] I, personally, am not positing a religion based society. [QUOTE]all because they had the misfortune to be created by god in a way you don't like[/QUOTE] I have no problem with people being gay. I don't even see it as a sin. [QUOTE]under your world view, god must have had a part to play in the way that person is.[/QUOTE] Within the Christian worldview gay people don't have a monopoly at having a nature that they can't fully embrace. I know this idea is revolting to most atheists, but it's still a fact of Christianity.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912248]I would challenge this by saying that there is a true secular marriage in the same way that there is such a thing as true fatherhood, motherhood, etc. The traditional idea of marriage being between a man and woman has been a fact of humanity until the extremely modern era. [/quote] So was the concept of killing children of your enemies so their generation doesn't rebel against you or killing wounded and old as not to slow down the tribe. Concepts change with time. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912248] False, gay people in my world would be totally allowed to celebrate their sexuality. They would be able to have gay pride parades, have every right given to all other citizens, be allowed to have as much gay sex as they want, and be allowed to [B]form whatever gay relationships[/B] they want. [/quote] Except, of course, a Family, a legally recognized relationship. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912248] The only pleasure being denied would be that of having a state recognized marriage, nothing else. Is that even really a pleasure? [/quote] Yes, because it's a pleasure of equality to other members in society. That's much like a person living in a totalitarian state asking if "Free Speech really such a pleasure", especially made more disgusting by the fact that YOU yourself can marry whomever you wish. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912248] I, personally, am not positing a religion based society. [/quote] In your opinions you do. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912248] I have no problem with people being gay. I don't even see it as a sin. [/quote] "I have no problems with the Jews, but as great Fuhrer says, off to the ovens with you!". Your actions speak louder than you words. [QUOTE=sgman91;47912248] Within the Christian worldview gay people don't have a monopoly at having a nature that they can't fully embrace. I know this idea is revolting to most atheists, but it's still a fact of Christianity.[/QUOTE] Christianity has no legal standing in a secular society.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912248]I would challenge this by saying that there is a true secular marriage in the same way that there is such a thing as true fatherhood, motherhood, etc. The traditional idea of marriage being between a man and woman has been a fact of humanity until the extremely modern era.[/QUOTE] Now, I know calling that an argument from tradition will not please you, but I feel that's exactly what that argument is and I'm not seeing it's value. [QUOTE]False, gay people in my world would be totally allowed to celebrate their sexuality. They would be able to have gay pride parades, have every right given to all other citizens, be allowed to have as much gay sex as they want, and be allowed to form whatever gay relationships they want. The only pleasure being denied would be that of having a state recognized marriage, nothing else. Is that even really a pleasure? I, personally, am not positing a religion based society. I have no problem with people being gay. I don't even see it as a sin. [/QUOTE] Then my apologies as you're vastly more progressive than I realized but all the same, I still view marriage as an integral part of society, that loving couples who plan to spend their lives together and make a better life together should be able to pursue. [QUOTE]Within the Christian worldview gay people don't have a monopoly at having a nature that they can't fully embrace. I know this idea is revolting to most atheists, but it's still a fact of Christianity.[/QUOTE] I know under that world view that's how it is, but even under that world view, it seems entirely inconsistent to believe it's a choice because even thinking through that line of thought would lead you to several problems like "Who honestly chooses to be totally excluded from society?" "wouldn't they choose to be normal if they could after we bully them so much"(not saying you bully them, general statement) etc.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47912272]Now, I know calling that an argument from tradition will not please you, but I feel that's exactly what that argument is and I'm not seeing it's value.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying: "It's good because people in the past did it." That would be an appeal to tradition. I'm saying that the historical fact that marriage has been between a man and woman throughout all of human history, and across all cultures is evidence that traditional marriage is more than purely an arbitrary social construct. I would make the same argument for innate gender differences. The fact that society has been gendered in essentially the same way across all of human society points to gender differences being more than arbitrary social constructs. [QUOTE]Then my apologies as you're vastly more progressive than I realized but all the same, I still view marriage as an integral part of society, that loving couples who plan to spend their lives together and make a better life together should be able to pursue.[/QUOTE] The entire reason I care so much about preserving traditional marriage is because I believe it to be absolutely essential to the continuation of our society and the values it contains, but not because of the emotions of adults. Children are the important thing to society when it comes to marriage. It seems to me that we're starting to see the effects of society losing it's value for true marriage in much of modern day Europe where they don't even have enough children to keep their society going. It's interesting to note that those who hold most tightly to the idea of traditional marriage (Mormons, for example) are not only continuing their values, but are growing to overtake other values. [QUOTE]I know under that world view that's how it is, but even under that world view, it seems entirely inconsistent to believe it's a choice because even thinking through that line of thought would lead you to several problems like "Who honestly chooses to be totally excluded from society?" "wouldn't they choose to be normal if they could after we bully them so much"(not saying you bully them, general statement) etc.[/QUOTE] I don't argue that people are gay by choice. Even if nurture plays a roll in one's sexuality, I wouldn't go so far as to say people choose to be gay.