The institution of marriage predates reliable recorded history, thusly it predates most of the religions that claim it as something holy.

How could you possibly know this if it is not recorded in history?

OK, I think you and I are in agreement. Again, all I would ask for is that people be consistent, not pick and choose what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” based on their own personal beliefs (as opposed to rational thought).

@themadlolscientist

“why would anyone want more than one mother-in-law?”

I’m actually not that versed in polygamous cultures, but I wonder if all the wives of a polygynous unit would be considered mother-in-laws, or that the actual mother of the bride/groom would be, and the rest more like aunt-in-laws?

@Michael L

Well, you’re talking about preservation of the species, which is an old idea. My ghost (sorry, had to throw in that reference) whispers to me that what’s important is *not* the preservation of the human race, but specifically, the preservation of my DNA. And Richard Dawkins would agree with my ghost.

So in that sense, and if I want to be really cynical about it, my selfish gene actually would prefer that the genetic defect (if in fact that explains homosexuality) spreads to a wider proportion of the population, so long as my offsprings are not affected by it

Also, I do think that Randall’s suggestion that

[quote] homosexuality is nothing more than nature’s form of birth control. [/quote]

is an interesting one, and I’ve pondered that myself (although I would have said “population control” rather than “birth control”). If that were the case, we could argue that in fact, homosexuality is quite beneficial to the human race.

Still doesn’t change the fact that it sucks to be the other 99.99% of a gay person’s DNA, who would very much like to replicate themselves but are barred from it.

Polygamy is a bad idea because [1] no man can serve two masters and [2] why would anyone want more than one mother-in-law?

Meow. =^.^=

I’m not saying that you, personally, don’t, but I know there are many people here, elsewhere, and as Evolving Squid pointed out, even gay couples who oppose it.

And all I said was that it is none of their business who gets marries to who (whom?).

I”m not talking about the history of marriages, I’m talking about marriage in our (U.S.) society, which is what our laws are based on.

I know. I was just sayin’

It could also launch another debate over separation of church and state, and gay marriage moves us, sort of, to a more secular, contractual type of marriage, and that’s a good thing, IMHO.

No, I haven’t forgotten them, but frankly, I think “Christian gay” is an oxymoron. Like a “Yankees lovin’ Red Sox fan”. I would argue that they are being very irrational being a gay Christian, and hence any demands they make based on their irrational beliefs are also irrational.

@Tao

Let’s see, e.g., for the same reason that women are, obviously, separate but equal to men?

You make it sound like the only “right” thing to do is to treat everybody “equal”. I guess you’re against women having certain privileges not allowed their male counterparts, or any kind of equal rights initiatives like affirmative action?

To be clear, I’m not saying that’s a “bad” thing. I just expect you to be consistent.

@Michael L

“why would you screen for that genetic defect”

Michael… try not to let emotion get in the way of a rational argument.

As a firm believer of Darwinism and Dawkins, I strongly believe that, as an organism, propagating is the single most important thing for me to accomplish during my life time. All of the effort (again, strictly from a biological POV) will be wasted if my son turns out to be gay and fails to pass on my genes.

So consider the point I made nothing but my selfish gene speaking.

“Why can’t people recognize that these individuals make a valued contribution to our society.”

Are you kidding me? Did you even read my post, or was that just a knee-jerk reaction?

I have the utmost respect for anybody, gay or straight, that contribute to our society. What I’m pointing out is that, strictly from a biological POV, isn’t it unfortunate that some of these gay people who have greatly contributed to society, nevertheless could not leave offsprings inheriting their great genes who could, in their lifetime, reap the benefits of those contributions?

@Evolving Squid

I like your answer. I will only agree with someone who can be consistent on this point; that is, if you think granting the status of “married” to gay couples is the one and only way to treat them right, then you should also actively support polygamy and other forms of non-traditional unions.

@Randall

Of course. My selfish genes whisper in my ears the exact same phrase.

@Scott G.

Read my first response to Pieter Kok.

@Quiet Desperation

I’m not saying that you, personally, don’t, but I know there are many people here, elsewhere, and as Evolving Squid pointed out, even gay couples who oppose it. I merely wanted to point out that if you do, you have double standards. If you don’t, good for you.

“The institution of marriage predates reliable recorded history”

I”m not talking about the history of marriages, I’m talking about marriage in our (U.S.) society, which is what our laws are based on.

@Kulmchuck

“It is as if we could turn back the clock and say to colored folks that they could have ‘civil unions’ but marrige was reserved for ‘white’ folk”

That is a classic example of a logical fallacy called red herring (you should check out that video Phil linked to the other day, Here be Dragons).

You also suggest that somehow marriage is “better” than “civil union”. The whole point of my post is “why?”. If everything about those two statuses were the same save name, why would you consider one superior to the other?

I can understand a religious conservative viewing marriage as superior, but my point is why should you, being the rational gay person, care what they think?

Overall, I love that all of you reacted and responded in a calm, rational manner. I was right to think that this, of all places, was the right forum to post these questions

Seriously, your post might not have been everything you wanted it to be, but it could have been much, much worse.

What I don’t know is if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

dagnabbit!

Alrighty then!

Cause we like intelligent discussion, dagnabbit!

1) A couple of years ago a politician remarked that if the LGTB community really wanted to be “EQUAL” then they would have to push for full equality in ALL respects. If they settled for anything less then they would be second rate citizens. I’m not at all 2nd rate. I will not settle for 2nd rate in any way. It is as if we could turn back the clock and say to colored folks that they could have ‘civil unions’ but marrige was reserved for ‘white’ folk. Oh Heck No!
2nd Rate? Fooey & Dagnabbit!

2) I see this morning on yahoo’s science that a study purports that male homosexuality may be coupled genetically with enhanced fecundity in females. As always I’m waiting for the next couple of studies before deciding the truth of this, but the ‘genetic’ basis for homosexuality, male or female is the killer for the fundies ‘Its a Choice’ argument.

As is said in so many places, be patient and more will be revealed. Hopefully that will include Phil’s real post, soon!

Because I’m compiling now.

Because we like to argue, darnit! And now we have *two* chances to argue over the same topic! Who would pass up an opportunity like that?!?

j/k

then how would you oppose something like, say, polygamy?

Who says it should be opposed if it involves consenting adults?

Ever notice how many problems would be solved in this world if folks followed one simple rule: mind your own business.

Marriage has been, first and foremost, a religious construct

The institution of marriage predates reliable recorded history, thusly it predates most of the religions that claim it as something holy.