Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 16, 2012, 06:25 PM   #51
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dime21 View Post
Wrong. Choice or not a choice isn't all that relevant. Sure, homosexuality could be a birth defect, or it could be caused by a chemical imbalance in the womb, or who knows. The fact is that right now today, nobody knows.

The other fact, is that SSM is a fundamental break from the concept of marriage. SSM Proponents would compare it to the historical equality struggles of inter-racial marriage, or of inter-faith marriage, but that's a false comparison. SSM is fundamentally different from inter-racial marriage, and from inter-faith marriage. Marriage brings the two halves of humanity together, man and woman, and the result is a complementary balance, yin and yang, that isn't present in SSM. Furthermore, marriage is based on the biology of the species. Reproduction requires exactly one man and one woman. A child's DNA comes from exactly one man and one woman. There is no other valid combination that can produce human life. That makes SSM a very different animal indeed. To claim that SSM is somehow "equivalent" to traditional marriage is absurd, and it's factually wrong.
A statement as such runs the risk of blurring religion with government IMO. Homosexuality has been observed to be not uncommon in nature.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2012, 06:43 PM   #52
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
A statement as such runs the risk of blurring religion with government IMO. Homosexuality has been observed to be not uncommon in nature.
"Nomad built the directive, “Seek out life. Find imperfections, and sterilize them, then return home.”

Of course all life is imperfect, hence the problem."

STAR TREK: THE CHANGELING
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2012, 02:22 AM   #53
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dime21 View Post
Reproduction requires exactly one man and one woman. A child's DNA comes from exactly one man and one woman. There is no other valid combination that can produce human life. That makes SSM a very different animal indeed. To claim that SSM is somehow "equivalent" to traditional marriage is absurd, and it's factually wrong.
What has marriage got to do with reproduction? People have kids in and out of marriage. People don't have kids in and out of marriage. People have kids made from surrogates. In test tubes. Adopted.

More to the point, we have too many bloody kids. It's throwback ideas of a somehow 'traditional man and wife with 2.4 kids' that are outdated and factually wrong.
niuniu is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2012, 02:28 AM   #54
Andeavor
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Marriage is not "just" about reproduction, it's about so much more. Marriage is a contract, a business venture between families. In fact, there was a time when people married mostly for dowries, land and financial or social security. Most of those marriages were arranged and if an heir was expected, there was no requirement for the couple to be "in love" - it it happened it happened, if it didn't it didn't and you just went by protocol.

"Marrying for love" is a relatively new concept in our society and is still having a hard time to settle in our collective minds. There are still people out there who will not accept a couple to get married that doesn't share the same religion or denomination, the same ethnicity or the same nationality or culture. And when you add the concept of SSM, you will have an even harder time to convince those people to accept it - even in theory.
Andeavor is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 12:03 AM   #55
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by niuniu View Post
What has marriage got to do with reproduction? People have kids in and out of marriage. People don't have kids in and out of marriage. People have kids made from surrogates. In test tubes. Adopted.

More to the point, we have too many bloody kids. It's throwback ideas of a somehow 'traditional man and wife with 2.4 kids' that are outdated and factually wrong.
Everything and nothing, and that is the problem. As of now, the world is overcrowded and there are more adoptable children than adopters. We will not falter if more people are not made.

Historically, religions have encouraged the creation of children because death rates were high and children were economic assets. And so the historical function of 'marriage' in religion is pretty simple...only two people of the opposite sex can make babies and so religions encouraged heterosexuality by condemning anything else. Today, children are economic liabilities and the success of one does not depend on the amount of children you make.

The problem arises when we try to discuss a 'purpose' to marriage, and a lack of a clear legal versus non-legal, with non-legal being religion, personal beliefs, and what not. The separation between church and state has always been weak in regards to marriage, and it needs to change. In the most fair sense, the legal definition could remove the term "marriage" and use a legal term to describe a binding relationship between two persons regardless of gender. Then it can function as the legal backing for wills, rights, medical emergencies, etc., and 'marriage' can be done in other senses but not those related to the state.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2012, 12:14 AM   #56
sundog925
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Have to chime in here, i'll keep it short and sweet.

Being gay is not a choice. If it is, when did you choose to be straight?

Exactly.
sundog925 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2012, 03:33 AM   #57
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELMNT925 View Post
Have to chime in here, i'll keep it short and sweet.

Being gay is not a choice. If it is, when did you choose to be straight?

Exactly.
Yep- that's it in a nutshell. No one chooses who makes their nether regions go BOOM. It just happens. No choice is involved. Can we move on?
leekohler is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iTunes "Restore from Backup" only has 1 choice even though "Devices" Tab lists many Maverick1337 iPhone 0 Sep 5, 2013 08:43 AM
The old "Shipped vs Sold" argument - Apple admits.... Assault Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 24 May 14, 2013 08:31 PM
What is the logic of "no label" for 1st argument of a function Vishwas Gagrani iPhone/iPad Programming 7 Jan 7, 2013 05:08 PM
The homosexuality-as-choice argument Coleman2010 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 153 Aug 31, 2012 02:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC