A lot of younger people don't have anything of that stuff done. So if there's 2 lesbians who're 26yrs old and have been life partners for the last half decade and one dies in a car accident then the other could potentially get nothing because they aren't married. In the perfect world everyone would have a will, and everyone would sign power of attorney forms. This isn't the perfect world, if it were this wouldn't be an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No no, You can't compare those two statistics because nobody is cooking homosexuals in ovens.. That's what the Germans did to the Jews in WWII.

It is true that the two statistics are different in form, but they are not different in essence. The jew statistic is only a more obvious example of the error in judgement that you made. If two things are related, it doesn't mean one causes the other. I have stated the reasons why the general life expectancy of a homosexual may be shorter than that of a heterosexual even though homosexuality itself does not cause any health problems.

quote:

We are on the same side? I didn't realize such.

Although are reasons are totally different, we are both against gay marriages if you haven't realized it yet.

quote:

But,I'm not close minded. I assure you. I just have my facts,I'm presenting them,and people are ignoring them.

They are ignoring them because of three reasons.

1) You don't offer any sources as a backup, so they are rather questionable.

2) You base your logic on the bible, which makes no sense to non-christians.

3) You draw wrong conclusions from the already uncertain "facts" you posted.

quote:

But,I really have to cut down on my visits.... I'm already really ill, I had to start a new treatment, so I'm going to be in bed even more now.:/ So,I might not come back to this topic for a while.

Oh well, get well soon.

PS, Diginut, stop being my alter-ego, damn it, whenever I want to post something I see you already posted that very same thing!

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ah getting into gay adoption are we... now that's a whole other issue in itself. Since gay adoption is essentially forcing that family structure upon the child, I think we'd need to do a very thorough analysis of the effects on the child and on society at large, before attempting to legalize such a thing. Tito's mentioned earlier some of the problems with homophilic societies, including but not limited to the birth rate. Nevertheless, if it could be determined that no negative effects would arise from this (doubtful), then sure, it could happen. For now though, let's just leave adoptions out of this.

After thinking about it, I do agree that some research/more discussion does need to take place before gay adoption can be reasonably considered (I have seen news stories about gay people adopting, it is already happening in some areas).

quote:

Well now I suppose it just depends which perspective you take, doesn't it? It's all well and good to say that they don't have the mental capacity to consent, but it makes equally as much logical sense to say that they don't have the mental capacity to refuse. And in many cases, an absence of refusal is consent. Is it sexual assault to jack off a horse? If I'm not mistaken, this is actually common practice (with race horses or something like that), although I don't remember the details.

As I said earlier, it is a very interesting area. If they can't necessarily agree, then in my opinion that also means that they can't agree either. I suppose the only way to test it is to hook various animals up to a brain monitor and get someone to 'have their way' with them to see if they object, although I can't imagine this happening to be honest.

I also feel like being a picky bastard here, so here goes.
Don't male horses have their, well, genitalia removed though?
As far as I know all horses are de-sexed before being allowed to race, as if they're concerned about the Phillies, they often refuse to run.

quote:

Yes there are a few flaws, and we're both aware of them - their mental and emotional capacity is fairly subjective, as is clearly shown by the distinct variations in age of consent in different countries - for example, the USA says it's 18, but Canada says a mere 14 years of age is old enough. I think in Europe the general consensus is around 15. So let's say a 22-year-old wants to marry a 17-year-old - in many parts of Europe, this could happen, but in the USA, it could not. Who decides what is right? Should the USA change the law to accommodate families that might have come from a European background?

I don't know anything about psychology (Although the old man has PHD on it, I might ask him about this, come to think of it), but I would imagine that there would be some way to measure the mental capacity/maturity of a child to see if they are indeed ready for sex.

Having said that, It would be a little pointless, laws are there to be broken, and I've never seen age of consent laws actually working. If a 16 year old wants to have sex in America, then I doubt anyone could stop him/her (At least, I hope that's the case, it means that if I suddenly decide to pack my bags and head for the US I can get some action).
From what I understand, the uniform age of consent down here is 16, although it's never really been a political issue down here, like religion, it just simply doesn't rate a mention. Almost as if nobody cares.
As for the US/Europe point, I agree that if a European decides to move to the US, then yes, they should abide by the laws of the US. If they don't like them, they can either ignore them (Which puts them at risk of prosecution), try to get them changed, or simply move back to Europe.

quote:

Again I'd like to leave gay adoption out of this for the time being... but in any event, yes, I agree that the marital benefits should really only be conferred upon those who actually have children or intend to have them at some point. However, once again, from a policy standpoint, we can't really do a full-scale investigation on every couple wanting to get married, so we just assume that every couple might have kids. A homosexual couple, however, is pretty much guaranteed not to reproduce, so from a policy standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to give them childcare benefits.

Agreed, idealistically gays could just be given civil unions, and if they decide to adopt, they could apply to have childcare/traditional marriage benefits added on to that.

quote:

The "consent" issue is no less subjective than the "morality" issue when it comes to homosexuality. While I understand where you're coming from, it doesn't hold water as a logical argument because it essentially depends on one's personal opinion. I don't even think there are laws against bestiality (although someone might feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), so it follows that the state doesn't view this as rape or cruelty. And even if there are laws against it in this country, I know for a fact that there aren't laws against it everywhere.

Yeah, I do understand that morality is essentially subjective, as there a no moral absolutes. However, if someone/something clearly does not consent/agree to having sex, then I think that can be classed as rape. eg, if someone wants to ave sex with an animal, and the animal physically struggles, then yes, I think that they are not consenting to it. Once again, it would be an interesting topic to cover, but it's taking us off track.

quote:

No need to repeat my comment about adoption, but other than that, I'm not disagreeing with you - I simply don't see it happening, though, because it's not efficient for the government to implement. Yes, they should, but they won't. It's a good idea in an idealistic sense, but it's just not practical. What's practical is to keep things just as they are.

I am a tad idealistic at times, I recognize that, I suppose it's something that I'll have to learn to avoid as I get older. I pretty much agree with everything else I've seen you 'say'/post on ta, so hey, you mustn't be such a bad guy after all.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

Nice double post Arctic.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic As I said earlier, it is a very interesting area. If they can't necessarily agree, then in my opinion that also means that they can't agree either. I suppose the only way to test it is to hook various animals up to a brain monitor and get someone to 'have their way' with them to see if they object, although I can't imagine this happening to be honest.

I assume you meant to say that if they can't necessarily disagree, then it means they can't agree either. However, the entire concept of "agreement" depends on a kind of sentience that the animals don't have. What you're saying is really no better than the implication that guys who masturbate with the vacuum cleaner are raping it. But honestly, if you're really going to get picky then I'll say this: when an un-spayed or un-neutered dog routinely humps your leg, it looks like consent to me.

And again, I'm not even sure if there are really laws against this. I find it morally reprehensible but I don't think it's illegal. However, if you put a white dress on a racoon and told everyone that you were making it your bride, most people would probably laugh in your face. This isn't about sex, which was never the issue, it's about marriage.

quote:

I also feel like being a picky bastard here, so here goes. Don't male horses have their, well, genitalia removed though? As far as I know all horses are de-sexed before being allowed to race, as if they're concerned about the Phillies, they often refuse to run.

This is slightly off-topic, but let me ask you, which do you think is worse treatment to an animal, screwing it or cutting off its genitalia?

In any event, they may well do this, I'm really not an authority. I do know that what I said earlier is common practice though - I'm not sure in which instances, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's done by owners who don't want to be so cruel as to castrate them.

quote:

I don't know anything about psychology (Although the old man has PHD on it, I might ask him about this, come to think of it. ), but I would imagine that there would be some way to measure the mental capacity/maturity of a child to see if they are indeed ready for sex.

And yet this is not done - why? Because it doesn't make sense, from a policy standpoint. It's not practical. Theoretically, a 12-year-old could have the physical capacity to reproduce and the mental capacity to consent to sex and care for a child, but generally we assume that's not the case, so we simply rule against it in law. Or rather, we don't literally rule against it, we simply don't hand them out the privilege of getting married.

quote:

Having said that, It would be a little pointless, laws are there to be broken, and I've never seen age of consent laws actually working. If a 16 year old wants to have sex in America, then I doubt anyone could stop him/her (At least, I hope that's the case, it means that if I suddenly decide to pack my bags and head for the US I can get some action). From what I understand, the uniform age of consent down here is 16, although it's never really been a political issue down here, like religion, it just simply doesn't rate a mention. Almost as if nobody cares. As for the US/Europe point, I agree that if a European decides to move to the US, then yes, they should abide by the laws of the US. If they don't like them, they can either ignore them (Which puts them at risk of prosecution), try to get them changed, or simply move back to Europe.

You're sort of missing the point; it's not about the sex, it's about the marriage. The age of consent is 14 but the age of marriage is still 18, I think. What I'm trying to say is, just because it's okay for them to have sex, does not automatically mean they should be allowed to get married. A 14-year-old is not likely to be able to care for children, and if you have any doubts about that, just watch Jerry Springer sometime.

To recap: just because as a society we're happy with two people fucking each other's brains out, does not mean we're going to bend over backwards to accomodate them in every legal aspect.

quote:

Agreed, idealistically gays could just be given civil unions, and if they decide to adopt, they could apply to have childcare/traditional marriage benefits added on to that.

Makes sense to me! IF adoption sems like a socially feasible thing to do, after a little bit of unbiased research is done (this means not done by churches OR bleeding-heart liberals).

Oh and Tito:

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Nice double post Arctic.

Double post, what double post? Please tell me you aren't seeing things!

quote:

I assume you meant to say that if they can't necessarily disagree, then it means they can't agree either. However, the entire concept of "agreement" depends on a kind of sentience that the animals don't have. What you're saying is really no better than the implication that guys who masturbate with the vacuum cleaner are raping it. But honestly, if you're really going to get picky then I'll say this: when an un-spayed or un-neutered dog routinely humps your leg, it looks like consent to me. And again, I'm not even sure if there are really laws against this. I find it morally reprehensible but I don't think it's illegal. However, if you put a white dress on a racoon and told everyone that you were making it your bride, most people would probably laugh in your face. This isn't about sex, which was never the issue, it's about marriage.

Yes, I did. Still, a vacuum cleaner isn't living and can't feel anything/has no awareness of what's going on. Bah, I say we open up a separate thread if we're going to harp on about it. As for the raccoon point, is a raccoon human? I think that's a key distinction that needs to be made myself, I see a clear difference between different types of 'abnormal' sexual behavior myself, but hey, that's just me.

quote:

This is slightly off-topic, but let me ask you, which do you think is worse treatment to an animal, screwing it or cutting off its genitalia?

Hmm, I disagree with cutting off it's genitalia, and since I'm not an expert on animal psychology/brain functions, I'm not going to comment on the latter.

quote:

In any event, they may well do this, I'm really not an authority. I do know that what I said earlier is common practice though - I'm not sure in which instances, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's done by owners who don't want to be so cruel as to castrate them.

From what I understood it (castration) was common practice, or at least that's what the commentators at the Melbourne cup (Biggest horse race in the southern Hemisphere, or so I am led to believe) regularly say.

I'm not going to disagree with the rest of your post, I understand the point on not bending over backwards, that's why I've come to agree that a civil union isn't necessarily such a bad compromise, although the marriage being reserved for people who want kids/homosexuals who adopt (if that's proved to be ok for the child) being my first preference. I was extremely sleepy when I wrote my last reply, so if I was confusing sex/marriage, then that explains it.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

I think all sex is wrong and that only by aliens using technology should we divide ourselves into clones and then kill ourselves to let our new selves continue on in our stead. The AOISPAD statistics show that 99% of all alien cloning are benefical to society. You can do a search on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I think all sex is wrong and that only by aliens using technology should we divide ourselves into clones and then kill ourselves to let our new selves continue on in our stead. The AOISPAD statistics show that 99% of all alien cloning are benefical to society. You can do a search on it.

On that note, I vote that we end this thread once and for all.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I believe in equality and equal rights under the law. Either the state needs to get out of the business of marriage, or it should treat everyone equally. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you. I believe that the state shouldn't care a less about people's romantic relationships.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 It is possible, as the social surroundings are often influential on human sexuality. Some societies who favored gays (Rome, Greece) had unusually large gay populations. I guess that's what made Roman demographic picture that bad. They tried and tried but could never get each other pregnant

I'm going to provide two contradictions:

1. It's also possible that people are naturally attracted to whatever they are attracted to and CANNOT, no matter how hard they try, to deny or change it. Let me use myself as a few examples... I consider myself bi-/pan-sexual, because even though I'm very strongly attracted to females, I sometimes feel a pull towards certain males as well. Something similar goes for my physical attractions towards women: On average, I'm sexually aroused with a much higher number of Asian-dessent women than other etnicities. That does NOT say that I don't feel physical attraction or that I'm prejudious towards women of other ethnic groups either. Another example I can say is that big breasts and 'heavy' women don't physically attract me nearly as much as petite, skinny women and women that barely have noticeable breasts. This is something that I cannot control or deny. This leads into what I'll state secondly...

2. Most people are attracted to different feelings, sounds, smells, (food) taste, and sights. Not many people are attracted to all of the exact same combination of variables indicated above. Look at this board as an example of sounds: The majority of us on here loves the sounds of Electronica. We can't really change what we are so attracted to, no matter how hard we might try to change it, for whatever reason. People ask me to listen to other music that I don't like. I listen to it and if I don't like it, I tell them so, and they ask why. They ask why. It's very hard for me to answer anything else besides 'It doesn't have the particular sounds that I'm attracted to in it'.

Food taste is another big one as well: Some people love the taste of certain foods more than others. On the other hand, some people gag and practically vommit from tasting certain foods, while others eat it and love it. Some of this can be changed. It's possible to force yourself to eat a certain food. It's NOT all that possible to force yourself to love the taste of a food you once hated or has once gotten you sick.

Society can only make you think differently about these variables or reasons that vary but, can never change yoour true inner feelings towards it. Another example might be this: There are 10 people in a room. One person silently passes gas (farts) and it ends up having a really destinct smell to it. 9 people complain and say 'how gross it is', etc. One person (which may or may not be the person who actually fartted) likes the smell but, since everyone's complaining about it, s/he feels obliged to complain as well (even though s/he actually likes the smell and really is lieing just to not be descriminated against by the rest of the people in the room), since the rest of the room is.

Visual taste & attraction is another wide variable. For the purposes of this synopsis, I'm just going to use colour as an example:
Many people associate colours with objects, sounds, thoughts, people, etc. Very often, the colour 'pink' is deeply associated with the female gender and the colour 'blue' is associated with the male gender in my society. (BTW, I like both equally but, I like purple more than both, ) There are some parent(s) of children who, even though the children are educated enough to and should have a choice of what colour their room is painted, if it's painted, it may not be what the child's choice was and the parent(s) ended up choosing the colour that's more associated with their gender in our society, just because 'it looks better in [her or his] room'. I believe that if people can make their choice, they should be allowed to, without any exception.

Society has not molded what I feel is beautiful or ugly at all. I don't feel more attracted to Asian women (or women at all), Electronic music, the colour purple, or any other variable because of what type of society I live in. Maybe you can contradict and say 'if [X] didn't exist, then you wouldn't be attracted to it' but, is all that would do is make me feel more alienated in society because I don't feel attracted to what does exist as much as other people.

I may edit this post and add more later on... Please let me know what you think and if you find something contradictory, please quote where and maturely state why. Thanks...

ali92, you're not quite correct in what you said. While the reasons which determine what you like are of course partially genetic, they are also partially social and experiential (yes it's a word). You may like purple, but would you like purple if you had been raised in a different environment? Maybe, maybe not. Now, here's an example about food that is opposite to what you said. I used to hate cheese. And when I was in the US high school, they often served cheeseburgers only, so there was no alternative to eating them. After a while I stopped hating them, and now I like cheese. Most psychologists will agree that there's about a 50:50 ratio on the impact of genes versus the environment on what we like.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 ali92, you're not quite correct in what you said. While the reasons which determine what you like are of course partially genetic, they are also partially social and experiential (yes it's a word). You may like purple, but would you like purple if you had been raised in a different environment? Maybe, maybe not. Now, here's an example about food that is opposite to what you said. I used to hate cheese. And when I was in the US high school, they often served cheeseburgers only, so there was no alternative to eating them. After a while I stopped hating them, and now I like cheese. Most psychologists will agree that there's about a 50:50 ratio on the impact of genes versus the environment on what we like.

I know what you mean. I used to hate humans, but eventually I got used to them.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here