Page 2 of 16
Posted on May 17 at 7:28 p.m.
In many societies over millennia, the apparent parties to a marriage contract were not the actual parties. The actual parties to the contract may be the family or the clan or sometimes the government, Marriage has been used to ratify war treaties. In nearly every case, it was the duty of the couple to produce offspring. Obvious, this could not be accomplished without the biological definition of sex, quite apart from any conversational or cultural variations.
On The Judiciary
Posted on May 17 at 6:51 p.m.
pk, I agree it has nothing to do with whether homosexuals should have the right to marry each other. I am only countering the pervasive idea the access to the governmental benefits of marriage has anything to do with sex or love. Sex and love are actually totally irrelevant to the question. In fact, a better question is whether any two adults should be allowed access to these benefits by way of a social contract called marriage, or whether the term "domestic partnership" should be preferred. Such a partnership should also not be burdened with the social assumption that the partners have a sexual relationship.
Posted on May 17 at 5:12 p.m.
Biologically, sex is short for sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual reproduction. The process of sexual reproductions starts with sexual intercourse. Unless it is done biologically (assuming no human intervention) correct, there will be no reproduction.
However, I readily admit that the word is conversationally used to encompass a range of activities. However, many of those activities are an imitation, so to speak, of the real thing.
Posted on May 17 at 4:42 p.m.
But, Bill, consider that the vast majority of bicyclists also own cars. It is not like China where a bicycle is quite likely the person's only form of transportation and bicycles still vastly outnumber cars.
On Hard Stop on Traffic Deaths
Posted on May 17 at 4:28 p.m.
pk, There is a lot of mean spiritedness in the Independent forums. The restraint you generally show is admirable. Sometimes the provocation to respond in kind seems irresistible. I simply rely on readers to judge for themselves the credibility of, and the charity and respect shown, by the various posters.
It helps to embrace the idea of having strong opinions weakly held, and rejecting the idea that opinions are part of a person's identity. I have cycled through first believing my mom when she said, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," to considering it defensive nonsense, to finally understanding its significance.
Posted on May 17 at 4:08 p.m.
pk, It isn't my personal cultural definition. As I noted different societies at different times have different cultural definitions. I am quite aware of both the biological and cultural definitions, and how especially the "accepted" cultural one has changed over the years, specifically as evidenced by sex ed curriculum over the decades. I am also aware of the difference between classroom education and locker room education.
Posted on May 17 at 10:23 a.m.
I agree with JJ that the legal issue is not one of the ethical morality of homosexuality, but the interwinement of federal (and also state) laws with marital status. It should be possible to set up domestics partnerships without a societal presumption of sex occurring in those partnerships. For example, I know a pair of music teachers. They are twin spinster sisters and own a house together. I also know a pair of retired spinster missionaries who also also own a house together. Outside observers accept one domestic partnership, but whisper about the other. that is not right.
Posted on May 17 at 10:13 a.m.
"...various other accidents of cell division gone awry." Every example you gave is an example of some sort of abnormality. Also, the observance of certain behaviors in other species does not necessarily make the behavior "normal" or "acceptable." For example, mice mothers sometimes eat their own newborns, leaving nothing but the tails. Such a defense would never fly if the cannibalistic mother were human, even if DNA analysis showed the presence of a gene for such behavior. In addition, human societies do not (or should not) take their cultural and behavioral norms from animals.
To be clear, there is nothing in the foregoing that takes any stand relative to human policies toward human homosexuality. Everyone, regardless of their genes, deserves their full civil rights. Assault and battery is plain wrong. There is really no need to give some instances of assault and battery a special category--hate crime.There is also a difference between being born a homosexual (biology) and choosing to be gay (cultural): http://www.slate.com/articles/news_an....
Homosexual sex is actually physically impossible. Homosexuals have "sex" with each other due to a cultural redefinition of sex. Some heterosexuals also engage in sex acts not strictly considered sexual intercourse. At various times, various societies have considered these "non-sex" sex acts as unacceptable expressions of sex. The idea that a ban on gay marriage is a ban on love is preposterous. Anyone can and do love a lot of people without sex or marriage being any kind of factor, relatives, close friends, etc.
I still have not taken a stand on the issue. I am only trying to untangle the knot that seems to keep people from discussing this issue in a way that could perhaps get us out of the vicious, nonproductive circle and hopefully lead to a wise outcome.
Posted on May 16 at 2:05 p.m.
It is probably the fallout from the "confidential deal" between Caruso and the Pachulski family regarding Miramar parking.
On City Attorney Pushes for Transparency
Posted on May 16 at 2:01 p.m.
Of course we should all support Vision Zero. The devil is in the details. Right now there are no specific details to vote against.
On Do you support eliminating traffic deaths through Vision Zero?