Whats the difference? What it means to be gay is defined by that culture, for most gays. Being gay is nothing more than a feeling of attraction within the individual. Everything else is culture.
And in truth, a more full discussion of what it is to be "homosexual". could fill several threads. In other words, there is more to it all than you suggest above.
Ironically, both those quotes say two opposite things. I agree with the second quote, and while I also agree that it's difficult for gays to change the culture they identify with, I don't see it as impossible. You're talking to someone who has already subscribed to a "healthier" culture, so it's not easy to convince me that such a culture doesn't and can't exist. Most gays I know are not the type that sleep around, especially unprotected. The only culture you've identified are the gays who "stand out", for obvious reasons. Under the motivation of reducing the chances of getting STD's, finding fulfilling long-term relationships, and even raising their own family, there are motivations for promoting monogamy and safe sex among homosexuals. Of course society has not seen it this way, and has thus not established social structures and standards encouraging this behavior, nor do gays have the advantage of positive role models and family/social support to guide their behaviors. Instead, society encourages JUST the opposite sort of behavior by stigmatizing gays.
Why did you get married? Was it to guarantee you'd have to support your wife and give provide a good foundation for raising children? Children may well have been an important part, but was that really the only reason you married your prior wife, to produce children? In addition to sex, was there no love? No mutual respect? No enjoyment of each other's company? No trust in each other that you would both love, cherish and care for each other until death do you part? What brought you two together into your commitment for each other? Why do you suppose other people choose to marry? I highly doubt the answer for why people choose to form long-term relationships and marry comes down strictly to producing children and guaranteeing support for the homemaker. Not that these are not important purposes for societal reasons, but trying to highlight them as the only distinction between why heterosexuals choose monogamy while homosexuals would not is not being particularly honest. Homosexuals can be motivated most of the same reasons heterosexuals are to establish long-term relationships. And yes, even raising a family can be among those reasons.
Different issues. Why people marry and why the government chooses to license and regulate the relationship.
They arent prohibited. Their sexual orientation isnt even a concern of the government. They simply choose not to marry.
You lie. People of all types choose to marry; homosexual people should be allowed to marry homosexuals; that is not allowed in all states (yet).
By evidence that child abusers, child murders, genetically flawed, infertile, and people who either refuse or can't reproduce can still have their marriage recognized as a fundamental right, there is strong evidence to indicate children and procreation are not the only things the government have in mind when it comes to marriage. There are benefits to society for marriage, even when children are not part of it. And while homosexuals can marry, being only allowed to marry the opposite sex defeats the other purposes. The benefits to society become almost meaningless without the context of a loving, committed relationship... which sexuality is often an important part of.
Like I said, government isnt concerned with your sexuality. If two homosexuals of the opposite sex were to marry, the government couldnt care less about their sexuality. Gay man and lesbian woman are just as capeable of procreating as heterosexual couples of the opposite sex.
Benefits that would apply in the case of ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexual, that would warrant such special treatment.
Interracial heterosexual couples procreate just like the same race couples do. No rational relation between the distinction of race and the governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is a legitimate governmental interest while purifying the white race is not.
That's just your opinion though isn't it? At the time they thought preserving each race's genetic individuality and culture was a state interest. And you appear to be contradicting yourself. You said that procreation was unimportant to marriage.
Removing the gender limitatation opens it up to all people in theory since people only come in either male or female form. Sub categories based on age or relation are a different kettle of fish, and often have sensible explanations for their limitation. Marriage between related individuals is denied because it creates a ridiculous situation whereby you could marry your sister (if you were into that) but not have sex with her. Obviously the government does not want to give incestuous couples the ultimate governmental stamp of approval, even if it means denying platonic closely related family members that right. But it is not inconceivable that it could be allowed - Brazil allows you to marry close family members. It's simply however not a topic of discussion in the "gay and lesbian rights forum" and no one has explicitly said they shouldnt have that right - that's just your ongoing mentally deficient strawman doing it's usual rounds.
Revealing, how as many times as Ive cited the example of my brother and I, and the single mother and grandmother down the street as examples of people of the "same sex" who are prohibited from marriage, every time in response you run to examples of people of the opposite sex prohibited from marriage.
Well I'm guessing you were differentiating between increasing sheer numbers and your assertion that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because "they're the only ones who procreate". It is however a false assertion because assuming that natural procreational ability between two people is the only reason the state would want to issue the thousands of rights that don't even relate to that, there are legal examples of same-sex marriages doing the same job of lessening the financial burden on the state by conferring legal paternity on people in these marriages when children are present (say as a result of surrogacy or sperm donation). A legitimate state interest. As is the well being of the child.
??? These are examples of ways that the law restricts marriage generally, not limited to opposite-sex couples.
??? You miss the point. Marriage between related individuals is an endorsement of incest. It creates the bizarre legal situation where a brother and sister OR a brother and a brother can marry but cannot legally have sexual intercourse. You cannot separate incestuous from non-incestuous couples wanting to marry, so incestuous marriage - for all intents and purposes - would be legal. In some jurisdictions it is. But how this relates to same-sex marriage in the Gay & Lesbian forum is not clear.
To hammer the point further home, it's ridiculous to pretend that the government's only interest in marriage is the procreative potential of people who marry. It's ridiculous to say that government only has an interest once a child is produced. It's ridiculous to say that government only has an interest while a couple is raising children. It's beyond clear that government has an interest in marriage beyond procreation. If the argument against same-sex couples consists of appeals to tradition and procreation as the purpose for government recognition of marriage, that argument asks us to ignore all the other context in which government shows interest and involvement in marriage - including couples who can't, don't or won't reproduce. Then we get this BS argument about couples who can "conceivably" reproduce. Which of course asks us to ignore the context of couples who use assisted reproduction - as if they and the offspring they produce, raise, and for which they are legally responsible don't matter, and are of no interest to the government. Opponents can cite all the stuff they like linking marriage and procreation. It's not persuasive in light of all the other context surrounding recognition of marriage and the evidence of government's interest beyond procreation.
Here we go again with the display of arrogance and know-it-all-ism. I was talking about your opinion that keeping a race's unique identity, geology and culture in tact is not a "valid state interest". It was considered so for hundreds of years - proving that appeal to tradition is a load of tosh.
