What the Opponents of Gay Marriage Should Do

[Skeptic]

Today, San Francisco (big surprise) is issuing "marriage licenses" for gay couples. Since it's against the state law, these "licenses" are about as binding as a "murder license" or a "park at a no-parking sign license" would be. This is a political statement, of course.

For those who oppose gay marriage, I suggest to go over to San Francisco and line up a mother and (adult) son, a faher and daughter, groups of three or four people, etc., and demand "marriage licenses" as well. Come to think of it, line up mother and daughter and father and son as well. Why should gay incest be discriminated against, any more than regular incest? Hey, add polygamy too--have a father demand a marriage license between himself and his two sons!

Sure, incest and polygamy are illegal--but since they're breaking the law anyway in SF by issuing gay marriage licenses, they might as well go the whole hog. And if (as gay marriage proponents tell us) marriage is some sort of civil right, and not giving it to people is discrimination, why should such rights be denied to those who happen to prefer marrying their children or marrying seventeen other people? What scares me, though, is the thought that some people will REALLY see no problem with gay incest polygamy and simply shrug and accept it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Today, San Francisco (big surprise) is issuing "marriage licenses" for gay couples. Since it's against the state law, these "licenses" are about as binding as a "murder license" or a "park at a no-parking sign license" would be. This is a political statement, of course.

For those who oppose gay marriage, I suggest to go over to San Francisco and line up a mother and (adult) son, a faher and daughter, groups of three or four people, etc., and demand "marriage licenses" as well. Come to think of it, line up mother and daughter and father and son as well. Why should gay incest be discriminated against, any more than regular incest? Hey, add polygamy too--have a father demand a marriage license between himself and his two sons!

Sure, incest and polygamy are illegal--but since they're breaking the law anyway in SF by issuing gay marriage licenses, they might as well go the whole hog. And if (as gay marriage proponents tell us) marriage is some sort of civil right, and not giving it to people is discrimination, why should such rights be denied to those who happen to prefer marrying their children or marrying seventeen other people? What scares me, though, is the thought that some people will REALLY see no problem with gay incest polygamy and simply shrug and accept it.

Slippery Slope argument (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)

[HarryKeogh]

I'd prefer the opponents of gay marriage mind their own damn business.

Two gay people can live together for 25 years, own property together, be fully devoted to each other but cannot marry.

Brittany Spears, however, can get married as a joke.

[SRW]

I do not believe the law will stand up in the California Supreme court. Although I do not know if it has ever been challenged. There will no doubt be abuses of the system. We have them now between men and women, such as circumventing the immigration laws.

The excess attorney population will just have to be kept busy writing new laws.

Currently marriage is the union between two people of different genders.

Soon to change to:

Marriage is the union among human adults not related by blood closer than first cousins.

edited to add this story from France: we need this law also

The Bride Wore Black Because the Groom Was Dead


NICE, France (Reuters) - A 35-year-old French woman has married her boyfriend 18 months after he was killed in a car accident.

Christel Demichel, who wore black, was married Tuesday under a little-used law in the presence of friends and relatives at city hall in the southern city of Nice, local officials said. It would have been her husband Eric’s 30th birthday.

(Snip)

"Posthumous marriage is allowed in France under a law introduced by former President Charles de Gaul
wed but dead (http://trw.umbc.edu/articles/4916?%20Newspaper_Session=975a8e94fed20cd829de428e 21df21b4<br%20/>)

[Mr Manifesto]

Come on, Suddenly, your fans miss you. When was the last time you posted anything? Make a comment on this thread. There're legal issues mentioned, sure you have an informed opinion on the topic?

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What scares me, though, is the thought that some people will REALLY see no problem with gay incest polygamy and simply shrug and accept it. That's interesting, because the first thing I thought when I read your suggestion was, "What's wrong with that?" I see nothing wrong with gay incest polygamy as long as all parties are over the age of 18 and are entering into the marriage of their own will.

What scares me is that some people actually care what other consenting adults do with their own lives and want to stop them from actions that harm no one.

[Clancie]

Skeptic,

That actually sounds like a pretty good strategy--confusing the issue, slowing down the process, and mocking the activity all at the same time.

Luckily, the opponents of gay marriage don't seem to have enough imagination to think of doing what you suggest.....

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Slippery Slope argument (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)

Is 'slippery slope' really always a fallacy?

The polygamy question has been raised lately by (illegally) practising polygamists, not just rhetorical Republicans.

There have recently been some prosecutions for polygamy in Utah, so it's relevant.

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
That's interesting, because the first thing I thought when I read your suggestion was, "What's wrong with that?" I see nothing wrong with gay incest polygamy as long as all parties are over the age of 18 and are entering into the marriage of their own will.

What scares me is that some people actually care what other consenting adults do with their own lives and want to stop them from actions that harm no one.

I was thinking about this (in regards to homosexual 'insest' couples closer than first cousins marrying) and couldn't come up with a particularly rational reason.

I thought perhaps one could reason that issues of power in the relationship (older brother might be able to boss the younger brother around) and therefore it would be illegal for the same reason there are statutory rape laws, both parties aren't on equal footing.

But that's bunk, because many marriages are not 'equal' perse and adult's going onto them often realize and desire this.

So maybe govenment should get out of the buisness of marriage in the first place and leave it in the realm of religion where one can make rules as they please.

Can anyone tell me why they think government should have any hand in marriage in the first place?

[a_unique_person]

Good point skeptic, if we allow gays to get married, they mights actually start having sexual relations with each other. As it is, the only thing we have to stop them doing this is the fact they can't marry each other.

[SRW]

Originally posted by LawnOven




Can anyone tell me why they think government should have any hand in marriage in the first place?

There are some places where I believe the government does have a roll to play, and those have to do with death, immigration and separation. In all three cases a "legal" agreement must exist. I would happily call it a Union document, while keeping "marriage documents" in the religious realm.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Is 'slippery slope' really always a fallacy?

The polygamy question has been raised lately by (illegally) practising polygamists, not just rhetorical Republicans.

There have recently been some prosecutions for polygamy in Utah, so it's relevant.

It's not always a fallacy, of course. But the point in question is gay marriage, not incest. The idea that gay marriage will lead to incest would have to be shown to be valid for the slippery slope fallacy to not apply. I don't believe it can be shown to be true.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Is 'slippery slope' really always a fallacy?

The polygamy question has been raised lately by (illegally) practising polygamists, not just rhetorical Republicans.

There have recently been some prosecutions for polygamy in Utah, so it's relevant.
It's a fallacy unless someone somehow makes a connection between the ideas. "Homosexual marriage will lead to legalised incest," makes as much sense as, "Homosexual marriage will lead to more abortions."

[Silicon]

Marriage shall consist of 2 adult people.


There. That wasn't so hard.


As I've said before, what's the problem being for gay marriage but against, say polygamy?

They AREN'T the same thing. Just because you disagree with one moral position taken by Jerry Fallwell and his crew doesn't mean you disagree with them all.

This "all or nothing" morality that people seem to think that advocates of gay marriage hold is utter bunk. Gay people HAVE MORALS.




BTW, just got back from San Francisco last night! Waited in line hours and hours and hours to watch my mother in law marry her partner!!!!

They waited 27 hours in the rain to do it, but as of this moment, they are legally married!


We were on CNN too! Hehehe, that was me with the little baby yelling "Her grandmas are getting married!"

What a rush.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by LawnOven


Can anyone tell me why they think government should have any hand in marriage in the first place?

Sure. In fact this was answered by someone else here recently and in great detail, but basically:

Inheritance laws and qualification for both gov't and private benefits, especially retirement benefits.

[Skeptic]

"Slippery slope" is NOT what is going on here. The point is not "if we accept the argument that allows gay marriage, pretty soon there is going to be another argument to force us to accept polygamy and incest." It is that the VERY SAME argument used to justify gay marriages--it's a civil right, it's a private affair, the state has no business deciding who marries who (by the way, in that case, why ask for marriage licenses in the first place?), etc.--can be used to justify polygamy and incest with no significant change at all. In fact, it's hard to think of a logical reason for permitting gay marriage due to these reasons and NOT permitting homosexual polygamistic incest "marriage".

The replies in this thread prove my point: half of them accuse me of using the "slippery slope" argument... while the other half say, "Sure! Of course polygamous incest should be recognized as marriage! What's the problem? Polygamists have rights, too!". Well, make up your mind! If incest and polygamy should be recognized as marriage for the same reason as gay marriages, as those supporting this imply, my argument is not a "slippery slope" argument. If I was making a slippery slope argument, the replies from the gay marriage proponents should rather have been "well, we would still not allow incest, the difference between it and gay marriage is... (X, Y, Z)."

[Mr Manifesto]

Polygamy and incest are seperate issues to homosexuality. They are looked upon with a different level of moral debate than homosexuality. Much of the population are accepting of homosexuality. Very little believe that polygamy or incest are acceptable practices. You're problem is that you're trying to look at the issue monochromatically, instead of seeing the grey areas.

[WildCat]

I don't think the slippery slope argument applies here. It's going to be an equual protection of the law argument. If a loving (or just thrill-seeking, ala Britney) heterosexual couple can get married, why shouldn't a homosexual couple? Polygamy clearly is unrelated to this, as it is outlawed for all. The incest argument is just a ridiculous strawman (illegal for all, not just gays), as is bestiality (constitution doesn't apply).

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In fact, it's hard to think of a logical reason for permitting gay marriage due to these reasons and NOT permitting homosexual polygamistic incest "marriage".


Because 4-8% of the population aren't born polygamists.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is that the VERY SAME argument used to justify gay marriages--it's a civil right, it's a private affair, the state has no business deciding who marries who
Not at all. The legal justification for the Massachusetts SC decision was based on equal protection of the law constitutional arguments, as was the Canadian rulings IIRC.

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by SRW


There are some places where I believe the government does have a roll to play, and those have to do with death, immigration and separation. In all three cases a "legal" agreement must exist. I would happily call it a Union document, while keeping "marriage documents" in the religious realm.

Hmm yes I can see that, though it seems to me there could be other legal work around, such as perhaps mandatory will's which are easily updated and prenuptial agreements of sorts which decide how stuff is divided if two (or whatever) people decide not to live together.

Sometimes to me it just seems like there is too much religious baggage innate in marriage to do it fairly. It's too emotional or something.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by LawnOven


Hmm yes I can see that, though it seems to me there could be other legal work around, such as perhaps mandatory will's which are easily updated and prenuptial agreements of sorts which decide how stuff is divided if two (or whatever) people decide not to live together.

Sometimes to me it just seems like there is too much religious baggage innate in marriage to do it fairly. It's too emotional or something.
Oh, there's already mandatory wills. Everything just escheats (sp?) to the state. The state likes it that way. ;)

The whole religious argument is BS. They don't have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to. It would only apply to the state.

[Brian]

Incest can harm a child. Homosexuality can't.

[Skeptic]

People replied to me saying that the difference between gay marriage and incest is that most people support gay marriage and most people do not support incest. This is true enough. But the problem is that the decisions about gay marriage being legal were NOT made by the electorate, but by the court, claiming it is a matter of basic rights.

If the people of California agreed-through the legistlature--to pass a law making gay marriage legal, that would be something else. That WOULD be the "will of the people" as defined in the system, and (in that case) the argument about what people want would hold. It would still be "illogical" to support one and not the other, but this in itself is not an issue. Social norms are never fully logical. Cannibalism, for instance, is abhorred even if the death is due to an accident and otherwise all the good protein would go to waste. "Logical"? No, but that's no reason to legalize cannibalism, of course.

There are, indeed, gray areas: the vast majority of people support "regular" marriage, apparently many support gay marriages, almost nobody supports incestual marriages. If THAT was what determined what marriages are legal, my argument would be irrelevant. But if it is JUDGES that decide what is and is not marriage based on legal reasons, and for all intents and purposes invent a "right" to gay marriages based on general principles of "nondiscrimination", then the very same principles can be used to invent a "right" to polygamy or a "right" to incest.

What bothers me is not only the gay marriage, which I regard as absurd, but the fact that it is a result of legistlative activism which has no limits based on social life or deeply held views, but is totally "logical"--to the point of absurdity.

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by WildCat

Oh, there's already mandatory wills. Everything just escheats (sp?) to the state. The state likes it that way. ;)


:)


The whole religious argument is BS. They don't have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to. It would only apply to the state.


Haha, oh I'm aware of that, which is why I wonder sometimes why certain people (often those belonging to the religious right) seem to get so bent out of shape about it. It's not like those "evil homosexuals" are going to be married in the "eyes of the lord" because the govenment says thier married. I mean to go as far as to propose a constitutional amendment against it? Come on, I thought the Constitution was more about what we can do rather than what we can't.

[SRW]

Originally posted by LawnOven


Hmm yes I can see that, though it seems to me there could be other legal work around, such as perhaps mandatory will's which are easily updated and prenuptial agreements of sorts which decide how stuff is divided if two (or whatever) people decide not to live together.

Sometimes to me it just seems like there is too much religious baggage innate in marriage to do it fairly. It's too emotional or something.

A prenup works until you separate, when you start out you do not know what you will end up with. It get especially hard when children are involved. So some amount of government intervention is always going to be required. (people will just not think to update their prenups as children arrive and stuff is acquired).

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Brian
Incest can harm a child. Homosexuality can't.

what about homosexuals involved in incest where the creation of a child is not possible?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Brian
Incest can harm a child. Homosexuality can't.

To clarify: when I said "incest" here, I meant a father marrying an ADULT daughter (or son...), not a child, with the presumption that it was not in any way due to coersion , n the same way that I assume the gay or polygamous couples I am discussing were not forced together.

Of course it is true that often incest and polygamy are harmful and forced--but this is sometimes the case with all types of relationships; there are forced "regular" marriages and forced gay "couples" as well. If someone wants to argue that the essential issue that differentiates polygamy and incest from gay/straight relationships is the frequency of likelihood of abuse, feel free.

[a_unique_person]

Actually, on second thoughts, maybe we should just ban straight marriage. Many of them end in divorce and acrimony, with children hurt and devestated by parents fighting. Many of them are empty shams, with the partners involved in affairs.

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by SRW


A prenup works until you separate, when you start out you do not know what you will end up with. It get especially hard when children are involved. So some amount of government intervention is always going to be required. (people will just not think to update their prenups as children arrive and stuff is acquired).

Perhaps but, I doubt people would remember to pay thier taxes either unless there was some sort of legal reprocussions involved.

To be honest I know very little about prenups, but it still seems like there has to be a more morally consistant albeit more complicated option.

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Skeptic


To clarify: when I said "incest" here, I meant a father marrying an ADULT daughter (or son...), not a child, with the presumption that it was not in any way due to coersion , n the same way that I assume the gay or polygamous couples I am discussing were not forced together.

Of course it is true that often incest and polygamy are harmful and forced--but this is sometimes the case with all types of relationships; there are forced "regular" marriages and forced gay "couples" as well. If someone wants to argue that the essential issue that differentiates polygamy and incest from gay/straight relationships is the frequency of likelihood of abuse, feel free.

So wait, Skeptic why are you opposed to gay marriage? For example, why is it "absurd"?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
People replied to me saying that the difference between gay marriage and incest is that most people support gay marriage and most people do not support incest. This is true enough. But the problem is that the decisions about gay marriage being legal were NOT made by the electorate, but by the court, claiming it is a matter of basic rights.


The court is there to judge on moral issues as well as legal issues. A referendum on the issue would be time-consuming and open to dirty tricks by people with an emotional vested interest in the outcome. They may try to sway the outcome with smears like, "homosexuality is the same as incest".

In short, it would be a waste of time, and unprogressive, to complicate what is to many a straight-forward moral issue: do homosexuals get to have the same rights as heterosexual people?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


To clarify: when I said "incest" here, I meant a father marrying an ADULT daughter (or son...), not a child, with the presumption that it was not in any way due to coersion , n the same way that I assume the gay or polygamous couples I am discussing were not forced together.

Of course it is true that often incest and polygamy are harmful and forced--but this is sometimes the case with all types of relationships; there are forced "regular" marriages and forced gay "couples" as well. If someone wants to argue that the essential issue that differentiates polygamy and incest from gay/straight relationships is the frequency of likelihood of abuse, feel free.

When you say 'incest', do you mean homosexual ones, or heterosexual ones? If you mean, or include, heterosexual ones (and I don't want to pre-empt you, but I'm trying to save some time here), then why not say there's a connection between heterosexual incestual relationships and heterosexuality? It makes as much sense.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

It's a fallacy unless someone somehow makes a connection between the ideas. "Homosexual marriage will lead to legalised incest," makes as much sense as, "Homosexual marriage will lead to more abortions."

I agree about incest or marrying your dog or any of that other crap.

But the argument about polygamy is being used by polygamists.

I believe there will be gay marriage before too long and possibly also legal polygamy.

The point is who has enough of a constituency, not whether the constituencies are logically connected.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
But the argument about polygamy is being used by polygamists.
But since no one is allowed to practice polygamy, there is no Constitutional issue involved.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I agree about incest or marrying your dog or any of that other crap.

But the argument about polygamy is being used by polygamists.

I believe there will be gay marriage before too long and possibly also legal polygamy.

Obviously polygamy has greater moral implications. If I had to guess why, I'd say it's to do with people's fears that they will never find someone monogamously loyal them forever, and they're afraid of dying alone. But that's purely conjecture on my part. The fact is, there isn't such a big movement to have polygamy accepted. When such a movement occurs, we can address the moral issues for that movement, at that time.

But homosexuality has already gone through that phase, and it seems most people can't see a problem with it. Therefore, we have to examine why a minority of people want to discriminate against a sub-population that is accepted by the majority? If none of the answers are valid, should this minority be the one listened to, or can we assume that legislation should be amended accordingly?

Keep in mind I don't know the legal ins-and-outs of the legal issues. That's why I was hoping Suddenly would comment but, alas, I seem to have scared him off.

[Brian]

Originally posted by LawnOven


what about homosexuals involved in incest where the creation of a child is not possible?
If it's two consensual adults they wouldn't be breaking the sensible no peeing in the gene pool/don't hurt a baby rule.

[LawnOven]

yep, I was just curious. :)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto



Keep in mind I don't know the legal ins-and-outs of the legal issues. That's why I was hoping Suddenly would comment but, alas, I seem to have scared him off.

I really haven't been following the thread, as I read the first post, rolled my eyes, and moved on with my life.

It would seem I didn't move far enough...

The usual legal issue is these sorts of cases is in general an equal protection issue. In general, a state must treat all people equally unless they have good reason not to. There is a sliding scale involved, as the more "suspect" a classification is, the "more compelling" the reason must be.

For example:

The state wants to treat differently on the basis of race. This is a very suspect classification, so the state's reason to do so is subject to strict scrutiny.

Differences based in gender are slightly less suspect, as there are differences between men and women. The state needs a reason that stands up to less scrutiny than it does w/r/t race.

Something like sexual orientation is considered (generally) less suspect than gender; the government need only a rational basis.

So, the more suspect the classification, the more scrutiny will be placed on a governmental distinction. There are scores of cases and articles that describe this concept in much better detail than I have, as these types of arguments really aren't up my professional alley as of now...

So the focus is not towards a claimed "right" as much as it is towards the government making distinctions that do not stand up to the relevant level of scrutiny. Government cannot give a benefit to one segment of the population while denying it to another, unless there is a good reason.

[LFTKBS]

To everyone here who is a skeptic, and especially to anyone here with the handle "Skeptic" who opposes gay marriage:

Please state one rational, non-Jesus reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Some food for thought:

1) Homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy.
2) Homosexuality has nothing to do with incest.
3) Homosexuality has nothing to do with bestiality.
4) If the conservatives are falling all over themselves to amend the Constitution to specifically exclude gay marriage, I can only assume that that means they believe homosexual marriage is currently protected under the Constitution.

[American]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Please state one rational, non-Jesus reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.



Cause the gay agenda has moved from seeking toleration to demanding recognition, which infringes on my liberty to ignore them. Plus there is a societal benefit to repressing gays, which however awful, is real.


Next, the gays will want reparations (like the Jesse Jackson-type blacks) for their centuries of oppression.


Hey- I'm a doctor! I don't need medical school... you give me a license to practice, because it's my dream to be a doctor. So what if I'm not qualified and I will NEVER get through med school. Call me Doctor American, or else! This is discrimination!

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by American



Cause the gay agenda has moved from seeking toleration to demanding recognition, which infringes on my liberty to ignore them. Plus there is a societal benefit to repressing gays, which however awful, is real.


Next, the gays will want reparations (like the Jesse Jackson-type blacks) for their centuries of oppression.


Hey- I'm a doctor! I don't need medical school... you give me a license to practice, because it's my dream to be a doctor. So what if I'm not qualified and I will NEVER get through med school. Call me Doctor American, or else! This is discrimination!


This is like, so full of fallacies

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by LawnOven
This is like, so full of fallacies

It's more like off-topic rambling that doesn't even come close to answering the question. :)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by American



Cause the gay agenda has moved from seeking toleration to demanding recognition, which infringes on my liberty to ignore them. Plus there is a societal benefit to repressing gays, which however awful, is real. Now if you could just specify the benefit you would have something, like an answer to the question. The rest of this is just silly and irrelevant.


Next, the gays will want reparations (like the Jesse Jackson-type blacks) for their centuries of oppression. Even if true, so what? This doesn't justify further repression.


Hey- I'm a doctor! I don't need medical school... you give me a license to practice, because it's my dream to be a doctor. So what if I'm not qualified and I will NEVER get through med school. Call me Doctor American, or else! This is discrimination! Can you come up with a reason why government can deny medical licenses to people lacking sufficent training?

Now, can you come up with an equally worthwhile reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry?

If so, you may have answered the question.

[Zero]

I think it is pretty cute how "conservatives" love talking about incest, polygamy, and beastiality. And I mean LOVE talking about it.

BTW, polygamy is a great idea, as I keep pointing out, especially for the kids. They get to avoid growing up with bizarre guilt and jealousy issues, they are protected in the case of one parent dying, and best of all? Lots and lots of grandparents!!:D

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Nasarius


It's more like off-topic rambling that doesn't even come close to answering the question. :)

Haha, I suppose you're right. :)

[American]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Even if true, so what? This doesn't justify further repression.


Oh yes it does.


(Call me "Doctor" from now on, or I won't talk to you!)

[a_unique_person]

I'll tell you what Skeptic. It's your idea, and you're opposed to Gay Marriage, why don't you do it. I'd like to see some pictures, please.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by American



Oh yes it does.


(Call me "Doctor" from now on, or I won't talk to you!)

So your groundless belief that somone might demand reparations justifies continued repression? Or is it the "benefits of repression" you seem unable to specifically name?

Of course, perhaps one of the benefits of continued repression is the lack of reparations. Hmmm...

Sad thing is, "Doctor," you pretty much have completely described the anti-gay marriage position as far as I can tell.

"Doctor" of what exactly? Hipster doofusism? Absurd Smugness? Incoherence? I'd peg you as a proctologist, given where you get most of your assertions...

[American]

Originally posted by Suddenly

"Doctor" of what exactly? Hipster doofusism? Absurd Smugness? Incoherence? I'd peg you as a proctologist, given where you get most of your assertions...


I be a doctor as one of our hypothetical gay guys is a woman.

[clk]

Originally posted by American


Hey- I'm a doctor!

Is that what they call assistant janitors now?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Skeptic
........... For those who oppose gay marriage, I suggest to go over to San Francisco and line up a mother and (adult) son, a faher and daughter, groups of three or four people, etc., and demand "marriage licenses" as well. ..........................


So, how strongly do you feel about this? Will you be leaving for SF any time soon?


Or, are you just hoping that some other opinionated people will think this is a great idea and take care of it for you?

[BillyTK]

What's the logical argument for allowing heterosexual couples to marry (without resorting to argumentum ad antiquitatem that is, because that would be illogical)?

[LFTKBS]

Okay, let's all ignore American for a moment - funny as he is, this is a serious issue - and notice that we're still waiting for a legitimate reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Okay, let's all ignore American for a moment - funny as he is, this is a serious issue - and notice that we're still waiting for a legitimate reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. There isn't one. Why else would they keep bringing up polygamy and incest?

[Roadtoad]

Forgive me, it's early in the morning right now.

The whole idea behind marriage is that it's the best environment generally for raising children, and that it's best for the resultant grandchildren. You can add God into the mix, if you have a mind to, but the bottom line is what is best for the kids.

(Please note: this has in no way covered the damage done by divorce, adultery, incest, rape, pedophilia, or anything else. Nor have I managed to figure out why Britney "Smears'" little stunt qualifies as a "marriage.")

Having said that, I'm unimpressed by the actions of Gavin Newsom (sic). I realize that he's considered suspect by most of those who elected him, and that he's more or less considered the lesser of two evils, given who his opponent was, and that he had to take a bold step to say, "See, I'm one of you!" But this move is ultimately a cruel one. You have people who are seeking recognition, and this is one form which will ultimately be challenged in the Supreme Court and likely (no guarantees, Folks) be overturned. Sorry, Silicon.

As to why the Government gets involved in marriage, I would suggest those who make that argument pay a visit to their local District Attorney's office, and take a look at the posters listing deadbeat parents. My wife's stepsister has an ex who owes her something like $35,000. He has the money, and the means of making more, but he won't pay it. Then, pay a visit to a battered women's shelter.

Still not enough? Take a look at the number of kids who are in foster care for abuse by their parent. Then pay a visit to the AIDS ward in your local hospital, and see how many women are there due to the men in their lives shooting up or engaging in bisexual relationships.

Most of those (myself included) who believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman would have better grounds to stand on if those men and women who chose to wed actually acted as if they were married. Instead, I have a former pastor who's divorced because his now ex-wife objected to getting beaten up every night. I have a former friend, an ex-cop, who married a wonderful woman, and had the marriage annulled the next day because of some petty squabble, (over money, if I recall). I have friends who are struggling to get their exes to pay child support and others who are living in poverty because their former spouses managed to convince a judge that they deserved 90% of community assets, and their spouse didn't.

So, now we have gay marriage. Hey, who knows? It could work out better than straight marriage. I just hate the circumstances under which we have this happening.

[Zero]

Kids aren't the main people get married...they get married because they love each other and want to make a life together(including kids sometimes, but not always).

[Ed]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
That's interesting, because the first thing I thought when I read your suggestion was, "What's wrong with that?" I see nothing wrong with gay incest polygamy as long as all parties are over the age of 18 and are entering into the marriage of their own will.

What scares me is that some people actually care what other consenting adults do with their own lives and want to stop them from actions that harm no one.

Why 18 as a limit?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ed


Why 18 as a limit? Age of consent?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Zero
Kids aren't the main people get married...they get married because they love each other and want to make a life together(including kids sometimes, but not always).

Maybe so, but generally, sex between a man and a woman winds up creating babies. There are exceptions, of course.

[whitefork]

Treat marriage as a contract like other contracts. We do that to a large degree with prenuptual agreements and divorce negotiations. Get the church and government out of it altogether - if people want to forgo the Wasserman test, so be it. If they want to be married in the church in the eyes of god, or in the inky abyss in the eyes of cthulhu, that's OK too.

At least with a contract you could specify who washes the dishes, whether the toilet seat stays up or down, and how often you get to have sex. I see nothing but better times ahead it we do that.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Forgive me, it's early in the morning right now.

The whole idea behind marriage is that it's the best environment generally for raising children, and that it's best for the resultant grandchildren. You can add God into the mix, if you have a mind to, but the bottom line is what is best for the kids.

(Please note: this has in no way covered the damage done by divorce, adultery, incest, rape, pedophilia, or anything else. Nor have I managed to figure out why Britney "Smears'" little stunt qualifies as a "marriage.")

Unless you can establish that allowing gay marriage harms children, this point doesn't seem sufficent to deny homosexuals rights bestowed upon hetrosexuals. Heck, wouldn't gay marriage help children by increasing the number of stable families looking to adopt?



As to why the Government gets involved in marriage, I would suggest those who make that argument pay a visit to their local District Attorney's office, and take a look at the posters listing deadbeat parents. My wife's stepsister has an ex who owes her something like $35,000. He has the money, and the means of making more, but he won't pay it. Then, pay a visit to a battered women's shelter. This really has nothing to do with marriage. Some if not most of these deadbeat dads and battered women aren't even married, nor were they ever married. Some were. The deadbeat dad issue is about simple responsibility for ones actions. Battered women is an issue about violence. How governmental regulation of marriage is relevant to this is something that needs to be made clear.

Still not enough? Take a look at the number of kids who are in foster care for abuse by their parent. Then pay a visit to the AIDS ward in your local hospital, and see how many women are there due to the men in their lives shooting up or engaging in bisexual relationships. Again, is there a connection here? Child abuse has to do exactly what with being a good reason for govenment involvement in marriage? Same with drug abuse and husbands that cheat. AIDS can come from heterosexual affairs as well, so the specification of bisexual affairs seems strange...

Are you saying that government involvement in marriage can prevent 1) child abuse 2)drug use and 3) infidelity? These are things that exist both in and out of marriage, and government action against them has nothing to do with marriage. They really aren't relevent to the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry, at least I can't see it. Is there some magical effect to marriage that I am unaware of in this regard?


Most of those (myself included) who believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman would have better grounds to stand on if those men and women who chose to wed actually acted as if they were married. Instead, I have a former pastor who's divorced because his now ex-wife objected to getting beaten up every night. I have a former friend, an ex-cop, who married a wonderful woman, and had the marriage annulled the next day because of some petty squabble, (over money, if I recall). I have friends who are struggling to get their exes to pay child support and others who are living in poverty because their former spouses managed to convince a judge that they deserved 90% of community assets, and their spouse didn't.

So, now we have gay marriage. Hey, who knows? It could work out better than straight marriage. I just hate the circumstances under which we have this happening.

You are right that heterosexuals are on less than firm footing claiming that gay marriage will make a mockery of the institution of marriage, given that we are judging an unknown (the manner in which gays will treat marriage) versus a known negative ("Who wants to marry a millionare," Brittney Spears, etc.).

What exactly about the circumstances do you hate?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kullervo
At least with a contract you could specify who washes the dishes, whether the toilet seat stays up or down, and how often you get to have sex. I see nothing but better times ahead it we do that.
What a perfectly awful idea. Had my wife and I done this we would both be in breach of contract by now. What do you want to do, bring a lawyer into every family squabble?

Or are you just trying to drum up business for Suddenly? ;)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Unless you can establish that allowing gay marriage harms children, this point doesn't seem sufficent to deny homosexuals rights bestowed upon hetrosexuals. Heck, wouldn't gay marriage help children by increasing the number of stable families looking to adopt? This really has nothing to do with marriage. Some if not most of these deadbeat dads and battered women aren't even married, nor were they ever married. Some were. The deadbeat dad issue is about simple responsibility for ones actions. Battered women is an issue about violence. How governmental regulation of marriage is relevant to this is something that needs to be made clear. Again, is there a connection here? Child abuse has to do exactly what with being a good reason for govenment involvement in marriage? Same with drug abuse and husbands that cheat. AIDS can come from heterosexual affairs as well, so the specification of bisexual affairs seems strange...

Are you saying that government involvement in marriage can prevent 1) child abuse 2)drug use and 3) infidelity? These are things that exist both in and out of marriage, and government action against them has nothing to do with marriage. They really aren't relevent to the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry, at least I can't see it. Is there some magical effect to marriage that I am unaware of in this regard?


You are right that heterosexuals are on less than firm footing claiming that gay marriage will make a mockery of the institution of marriage, given that we are judging an unknown (the manner in which gays will treat marriage) versus a known negative ("Who wants to marry a millionare," Brittney Spears, etc.).

What exactly about the circumstances do you hate?

In actuality, I don't hate gay marriage. I said, in general, it's about what's best. For the most part, I have a hard time seeing how it's worse, given the state of marriage between straight people these days.

As to the circumstances in San Francisco, in a few weeks, perhaps a few months, or even a couple of years, Newsom will wind up looking like he's pandering. (He is.) People will have gotten their hopes up and wound up holding onto nothing more than they already had prior to the Mayor's election. That's cruel.

When I listed my criticisms, I was referring to those incidents as they occur within marriage. I should have been more clear. My apologies. Yes, such things do occur in relationships outside of marriage, but we've been told they're less likely in a committed marital relationship. As we're seeing more and more, this is not the case. Ultimately, marriage is failing because there's little desire, it seems, to make it succeed.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Maybe so, but generally, sex between a man and a woman winds up creating babies. There are exceptions, of course. "Exceptions"? Sex between men and women almost never winds up in pregnancy. Children are the exception, not the rule. Hell, half of all pregnancies self-abort in the first trimester. Add birth control to the mix and we can easily see how little sex and pregnancy actually have to do with each other.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Zero
"Exceptions"? Sex between men and women almost never winds up in pregnancy. Children are the exception, not the rule. Hell, half of all pregnancies self-abort in the first trimester. Add birth control to the mix and we can easily see how little sex and pregnancy actually have to do with each other.

I should have been so lucky. I have four sons. Hell, all I had to do was look at my wife, and she was pregnant! :D

[Zero]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I should have been so lucky. I have four sons. Hell, all I had to do was look at my wife, and she was pregnant! :D *insert crude joke about the mailman >here<*


:p

Maybe so, but have you only had sex with your wife 4 times?

[American]

Listen you- I want to be a doctor. It's my dream. And don't tell me to go to medical school, because the only thing I'll ever love is playing video games. I'm not attracted to studying medicine, I just want the state to give me a medical license like all the folks who are real doctors get to have. So what if I'm not trained? I'm not interested in that. Someone else will pick up the slack when I go to work.

I just want to get paid and write "MD" on my legal signature. Let the taxpayers pay for all the things I'm not, and never will be thanks to you bigots who say I'm not a doctor!

[Zero]

Originally posted by American
Listen you- I want to be a doctor. It's my dream. And don't tell me to go to medical school, because the only thing I'll ever love is playing video games. I'm not attracted to studying medicine, I just want the state to give me a medical license like all the folks who are real doctors get to have. So what if I'm not trained? I'm not interested in that. Someone else will pick up the slack when I go to work.

I just want to get paid and write "MD" on my legal signature. Let the taxpayers pay for all the things I'm not, and never will be thanks to you bigots who say I'm not a doctor! Are you done being silly and irrelevant yet?

[whitefork]

The seventh son in a Mormon family can have the first name "Doctor". I think with the concept of baptizing your ancestors, you might find that you're grandfathered in, if you will.

There's a Mormon chuch in Belmont. Check with them.

Ask them about the polygamy angle while you're there.

[c0rbin]

Skeptic,

What are your fears of two adults getting a civic union?

It seems to me that your father-daughter scenario would provide by simple familial relations the benefits (next of kin etc) that a civic union would allow anyway.

And that if these individuals are having sexual relations, that they would be doing so anyway (right or wrong).

So what's your fear?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Zero
Kids aren't the main people get married...they get married because they love each other and want to make a life together(including kids sometimes, but not always).

Youll never find the word "love" in any of our marriage laws. Its not even a factor.

Marriage does nothing but create inequality. It creates a horrible contract tween people. (who the hell wants to give up 1/2 their stuff? Their independence?). And to get out of it you have to go through the great evil that is DIVORCE! ARRGGGGGHHHH!! The gays should be careful what they wish for.

What we all really should be trying to do is ban marriage, not expand it.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Tricky

What a perfectly awful idea. Had my wife and I done this we would both be in breach of contract by now. What do you want to do, bring a lawyer into every family squabble?

Or are you just trying to drum up business for Suddenly? ;) Suddenly's in West Virginia. I'll refrain from making any indelicate remarks about incestuous marriages.

Like, after the divorce are SueEllen and me still brother 'n sister?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy


Youll never find the word "love" in any of our marriage laws. Its not even a factor.

Marriage does nothing but create inequality. It creates a horrible contract tween people. (who the hell wants to give up 1/2 their stuff? Their independence?). And to get out of it you have to go through the great evil that is DIVORCE! ARRGGGGGHHHH!! The gays should be careful what they wish for.

What we all really should be trying to do is ban marriage, not expand it. Oh, hey, I'm sort of with you there...I'm single, and I don't think it is fair that married people get all sorts of benefits that I don't. However, if you are going to keep the damned thing around, and gay people want a shot at it, I say why the hell not? They couldn't do any worse with it than straight people have.

[Roadtoad]

Much of this fight has come about because the Radical Right has been absolutely insistent on denying certain people the rights they demand belong ONLY to married couples, the majority of which ought to have been elective in the first place. It's my estate and supposedly, it's my Social Security. Why can't I say where my money goes when I no longer need it? Why can't I say who gets notified and who sees me in the hospital if I'm injured at work? Which is the more barbaric?

[Tmy]

Ive always been botherd by the notion that spouces have more say over a persons wellbeing/health than that persons blood relatives. Take that Florida-coma lady story for example.

Spouces come in go but your parents are always the same people. Why shoud a spouce have all that authority.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ive always been botherd by the notion that spouces have more say over a persons wellbeing/health than that persons blood relatives. Take that Florida-coma lady story for example.

Spouces come in go but your parents are always the same people. Why shoud a spouce have all that authority. Maybe because you choose the spouse, but you get the parents by default?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


In actuality, I don't hate gay marriage. I said, in general, it's about what's best. For the most part, I have a hard time seeing how it's worse, given the state of marriage between straight people these days.
I'm feelin' ya dawg...
As to the circumstances in San Francisco, in a few weeks, perhaps a few months, or even a couple of years, Newsom will wind up looking like he's pandering. (He is.) People will have gotten their hopes up and wound up holding onto nothing more than they already had prior to the Mayor's election. That's cruel. On the other hand, I think most are aware that the marriage won't hold up; their activitiy in getting married seems to me more a show of political hands. Also, those getting married can now claim to be married all they want, it is just that the state may not recognize it. I'd guess many see it for what it is, a temporary crack in the dam, a chance to get a bunch of facially valid licenses that the state will have to go through the trouble of trying to explain why they are taking them away.

When I listed my criticisms, I was referring to those incidents as they occur within marriage. I should have been more clear. My apologies. Yes, such things do occur in relationships outside of marriage, but we've been told they're less likely in a committed marital relationship. As we're seeing more and more, this is not the case. Ultimately, marriage is failing because there's little desire, it seems, to make it succeed. That's what I don't get. If marriage really does help prevent these problems, then what is the justification for excluding gays from an institution that will allow them to avoid the same problems?Domestic violence exists in the gay community, and so (i suspect)would deadbeat parents were given changes in adoption law and/or reproductive technology.

I suspect you may agree with the above at least in principle. I'm just expressing why I don't get objections to gay marriage, and not trying to imply that you are being unreasonable or even would disagree with the above points.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Okay, let's all ignore American for a moment - funny as he is, this is a serious issue - and notice that we're still waiting for a legitimate reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Begging the question: the whole point is that marriage is NOT a right. It is a priviledge, a recognition by society of the type of unions it considers (generally) preferable.

If it WAS a right, there is no reason to deny it to polygamous or incestous relationships, either; a "right" to marry could not be denied on the basis of sex, it could not be denied on the basis of number or familial relationships, either.

Society considers heterosexual marriage with children to be preferable to other arrangements (and for many good reasons). It therefore gives tax breaks and other rights to married couples and further tax breaks for those with children.

There isn't a "right" to marry any more than there's a "right" to be a physician or a recipient of the Congressional medal of honor.

[bignickel]

Bull. Marriage is a RIGHT of adults. "Promotion of the General Welfare" has no more place in the public lives of two consensual adults then it does in their bedroom.

Once you remove bigotry and religion from the equation, what is left to argue against gays have the same rights as heteros?

Nada.

"You want a tip? It's this: get a new mind. The one you got now is narrow, and full of crap" - John Constantine, Hellblazer, Hold Me, by Neil Gaiman.

[Tmy]

Heteros can have kids together. While a small # cant they are not the norm. Kids are the usually the glue holding all these doomed marriages together!! You think 50% divorce rate is bad, imagine all the people who hang in cause of the kids.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Society considers heterosexual marriage with children to be preferable to other arrangements (and for many good reasons).
This is because hetero marriage confers on the recipients special abilities that have no effect for non-heteros?

It's also worth noting that society used to consider homosexuality (and seeking a divorce if you were a woman) a psychiatric disorder. And throwing women into rivers as the preferable way of finding witches.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Silicon
Marriage shall consist of 2 adult people.


There. That wasn't so hard.

Why only 2? I mean if we are to question social conventions about marriage why should we merely question it on grounds of gender? Why could not 3 or more adult people enter into marriage? If gay marriage is a civil right, how can polygamous marriage be less of a right?
Says Me’shell Ndegéocello: in an article with Arjan....."I am just a polyamorous, water-based carbon life form. I find myself being able to enjoy sex with both sexes, I am able to fall in love with both sexes."

Weird huh? :rolleyes:


As I've said before, what's the problem being for gay marriage but against, say polygamy?

They AREN'T the same thing. Just because you disagree with one moral position taken by Jerry Fallwell and his crew doesn't mean you disagree with them all.

But when you say in one breath that Jerry Falwell is wrong about gay marriage, but right about polygamous or incestuous marriage on what are you basing your distinction? What is it about gay marriage that is, in your opinion, more deserving of "civil rights" than polygamy of incest?

This "all or nothing" morality that people seem to think that advocates of gay marriage hold is utter bunk. Gay people HAVE MORALS.

I'm sure they do. The question is upon what are these so called morals based? Are they based on more than just a "if it feels good, do it" theme? Also, Pakistani tribesmen are very moral people who live their lives based on strict Islamic and tribal law. This is why they gang raped a woman from their tribe who's BROTHER dared have a forbidden relationship with a member of a rival tribe.
The Link (http://www.nospank.net/n-j17.htm)

The question is not; "Do they have morals?" The question is; "Upon what do they base their morals?"


BTW, just got back from San Francisco last night! Waited in line hours and hours and hours to watch my mother in law marry her partner!!!!

They waited 27 hours in the rain to do it, but as of this moment, they are legally married!

I'd hardly refer to that as "legal". The term "legal" implies permanance. Your use of "as of this moment" implies that you have no illusions that this will remain "legal" for long. You may as well have said "In this place, at this momnet"...because as soon as your MIL leaves California she'll be hard pressed to find anyone who recogizes her "marriage".


We were on CNN too! Hehehe, that was me with the little baby yelling "Her grandmas are getting married!"

What a rush.

I'll say! :)

-z

[VicDaring]

What the Opponents of Gay Marriage Should Do

Not enter into a gay marriage.

See? That was easy. Next issue please.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Why only 2? I mean if we are to question social conventions about marriage why should we merely question it on grounds of gender? Why could not 3 or more adult people enter into marriage? If gay marriage is a civil right, how can polygamous marriage be less of a right?

Well, the Canadian decision was based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees that everyone has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination, and in particular without discrimination on the basis of things like race and religion. Sexual orientation has been determined to be analogous to the things listed in the Charter.

Therefore, it simply doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (in that people are born gay) or a choice (in that people choose to be gay) as under both scenarios they are protected from discrimination. Either it is like race, and you are born with it, or it is like religion, and you cannot change it without significant upheaval in your own life.

So, does a marriage law that states that only heterosexual people can get married discriminate against homosexuals? Clearly it does. It is a distinction based on sexual orientation. Homosexuals do not enjoy the "equal benefit of the law" and the only reason is that they are homosexuals.

Therefore the marriage law as man and woman only violates the Charter. However, the law may still stand if the government is able to prove that the discrimination is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So far, they have not been able to do that, and I have seen nothing in this thread that would constitute such a justification either.

It is not that marriage itself is a "right". It is that equal benefit of the law is being denied on the grounds of sexual orientation, without good reason.

Polygamy, on the other hand, opens up a whole different can of worms. First of all, one would have to argue that the discrimination is on religious grounds. Then, you would need to overcome whatever reasons the government may put up in restricting marriage to two people. Those considerations are completely different than in the case of homosexual marriage, and would have to be addressed squarely on their own. It is not a simple matter of homosexual marriage leading to polygamous marriage.

[whitefork]

They waited 27 hours in the rain to do it, but as of this moment, they are legally married!I suspect this means "from this time forth" rather than "temporarily".

I don't see or have any real objection to polygamy, for that matter. If marriage is a partnership, polygamy's a corporation. I know several polygamous families. The people are a bit creepy, but I think that's unrelated to the family arrangements.

I don't think we'll see as many polygamous marriages as gay ones, based on the fact that I don't see many polygamous non-marriages, and I see quite a few gay ones. Course, most of them are probably out in communes where the law don't intrude lessn the name be Koresh or something like that.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I'm sure they do. The question is upon what are these so called morals based? Are they based on more than just a "if it feels good, do it" theme? Also, Pakistani tribesmen are very moral people who live their lives based on strict Islamic and tribal law. This is why they gang raped a woman from their tribe who's BROTHER dared have a forbidden relationship with a member of a rival tribe.
The Link (http://www.nospank.net/n-j17.htm)

The question is not; "Do they have morals?" The question is; "Upon what do they base their morals?"
So, what's the moral basis of hetero marriage? What's the moral basis of your objection to gay marriage? In fact, to quote your signature, what's the moral problem with incest? Just to avoid some meandering here, I'm talking about consensual activity between adults.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rikzilla

I'd hardly refer to that as "legal". The term "legal" implies permanance. Your use of "as of this moment" implies that you have no illusions that this will remain "legal" for long. You may as well have said "In this place, at this momnet"...because as soon as your MIL leaves California she'll be hard pressed to find anyone who recogizes her "marriage".




Well, she lives in California, so I think she's okay on that front.

Yes, everyone there, thousands of people, had no illusions that their marriage is a done-deal permanent thing. At least the PAPER is impermanent.

Now, if a judge strikes down their paper, it's only their rights which go away. They keep the paper, it gets framed and goes up over the mantle. We keep the moment in which my daughter saw her grandmothers get married.

My MIL and her partner will still be married. Actually, they have been married for 4 years now, they got married in a religious ceremony, in front of family, loved ones, witnesses, and God (according to their beliefs). Any judge cannot dissolve that union without their consent.

This was merely about getting the paper, and hopefully the rights that go with it. But also sticking up for your rights, fighting for future generations, etc. The world will be a better place for my daughter because of what we did this weekend, I have no doubt.

Illusions? We have none. False hope? None. Hollow promises by the mayor? Pandering? That's not what was happening there in SF.

Roadtoad, I thought he was pandering as well, before I went there and took part in this. Take a look at the footage, look at the photos online. And think, you aren't seeing 1/100th of the emotion that is pouring out of this building. Seeing hundreds, HUNDREDS, THOUSANDS of families positively swooning with joy, happiness, love. Over and over and over. You are looking into the faces, EVERYWHERE you look, on each face you see, you can see the happiest day of their life. Now imagine spending one day in that crowd with every single person overwhelmed with emotion.

THAT'S what's happening in San Francisco.

None of the black students sitting down at Woolworths lunch counters in 1960 had any illusions that they would get served lunch, either, roadtoad.

But sat they did, and though it took years, eventually they got served.

Was Dr. King pandering, giving people false hope?

Yes, the Mayor is breaking the law. Everyone there knows that. I'm sure he would quote Dr. King:


One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."



Is now the time for this action? I'd again look to Dr. King for the answer.

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.


We need a Dr. King now. The mayor isn't a Dr. King, but he knows his words and his spirit.

If you weren't there, and I'm assuming you weren't, Roadtoad and Rik, you cannot know the pure, pure emotion. And you cannot know the resolve of these people to have what heterosexuals take for granted, flaunt, throw away, and toy with. You didn't see the tears of joy on thousands of faces this weekend, when the door of equality was opened for just an inch before it will be shut again for a time.

Let us work for when that door will be flung open for all time.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Begging the question: the whole point is that marriage is NOT a right. It is a priviledge, a recognition by society of the type of unions it considers (generally) preferable.

If it WAS a right, there is no reason to deny it to polygamous or incestous relationships, either; a "right" to marry could not be denied on the basis of sex, it could not be denied on the basis of number or familial relationships, either.

Society considers heterosexual marriage with children to be preferable to other arrangements (and for many good reasons). It therefore gives tax breaks and other rights to married couples and further tax breaks for those with children.

There isn't a "right" to marry any more than there's a "right" to be a physician or a recipient of the Congressional medal of honor.

The status of marriage as a "right" or whatever you want to call it is not relevant. The fact is government is giving benefits to some people, and not others. Unless there is a good reason for the distinction then the government is acting in an arbitrary manner. We have constitutional doctrines that forbid this sort of thing.

Thus, unless a valid reason exists for the disperate treatment, then the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner.

All a "basic rights" analysis brings to the table is that the government can choose to simply not give out the benefit.

For instance, if the government for no substantial reason (other than political motive) gave $50,000 to every citizen who could provide proof of being a practicing Christian, is this O.K. simply because nobody, even Christians, has a basic right to recieve that money?

The answer is no, absent a very compelling reason to make such a distinction based on religion.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
I'd prefer the opponents of gay marriage mind their own damn business.

Two gay people can live together for 25 years, own property together, be fully devoted to each other but cannot marry.

Brittany Spears, however, can get married as a joke.


[/i]
Originally posted by Skeptic
Society considers heterosexual marriage with children to be preferable to other arrangements (and for many good reasons).[/QUOTE]

And society thought owning slaves was okay, guess we evolve, right?

What i don't understand is, why does anyone care? Show me proof that God, Allah or Thor gets all bent out of shape about ANY union between consenting adults and I'll jump on the bandwagon against it. Until then, quit throwing stones from the inside of your own glass house.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Why only 2? I mean if we are to question social conventions about marriage why should we merely question it on grounds of gender? Why could not 3 or more adult people enter into marriage? If gay marriage is a civil right, how can polygamous marriage be less of a right?


But when you say in one breath that Jerry Falwell is wrong about gay marriage, but right about polygamous or incestuous marriage on what are you basing your distinction? What is it about gay marriage that is, in your opinion, more deserving of "civil rights" than polygamy of incest?

-z

The problem is that government needs a reason for any of these distictions.

Multiple marriages involving 3 or more persons could be excluded from marriage based simply on numerical grounds. The government draws a bright line at "two" to prevent confusion regarding the benefits of marriage, such as the right to make medical decisions and so forth. It is unclear what distict group this excludes, but it would appear under Equal Protection analysis to be a less than suspect class, so the reason doesn't have to be all that compelling, rather just be a legitimate government interest.

Polygamy could be excluded for the same reason. Simple efficiency.

Incest can be excluded for this reason as well, confusion of roles and distribution of property. The idea of marriage is to adjust the family unit to include a life partner of some sort. Thus, marriage within a family can be excluded as presenting an unneccesary burden on the system.

There. I've given value neutral legitimate reasons against government recognizing these types of marriages.

Now, if someone could do the same for gay marriages, a reason that neither appeals to religion or tradition nor also rules out heterosexual marriage this debate could break out of the circle of sophistry it is currently mired in.

[Silicon]

Here's a writer who summs up the emotions on display in City Hall.:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/EDGIK52Q9L1.DTL



Beaming faces spread an intoxicating sense of joy throughout the building. As couples looked into each other's eyes, arms wrapped around each other, their friends took snapshots and the national media documented the occasion for the evening news. I chatted with one veteran cameraman who was overwhelmed by the scene and, much to his surprise, found himself blinking back tears.


And another:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/7971121.htm



Infectious, unadulterated joy, sparked by this unprecedented five-day run of gay-marriage ceremonies that was part civil disobedience, part political statement, part Woodstock Nation.


....




Across the country, my friend Karen, the eldest of an Irish Catholic Boston-area family of eight, compared notes with me. She spent nearly 20 years in the Bay Area before moving back East. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who set this in motion, has the same religious upbringing as she does. Now ensconced in Washington, D.C., and an avid viewer of inside-the-Beltway news programs, my friend wondered: Why did the mayor do this?

Certainly it solidified a base of gay voters, an important constituency in the city. Newsom was former Mayor Willie Brown's heir apparent. Was he trying to prove he was his own man, she asked?

I knew she couldn't feel what was going on in City Hall 3,000 miles away. One had to be there.

Superior Court opens this morning. Judge James Warren may decide whether to order the city to stop performing the ceremonies. It could go to federal courts.
Let what comes come. More than 2,400 couples and their families will always have those five amazing days in February.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BillyTK

So, what's the moral basis of hetero marriage? What's the moral basis of your objection to gay marriage? In fact, to quote your signature, what's the moral problem with incest? Just to avoid some meandering here, I'm talking about consensual activity between adults.

The moral basis of "hetero marriage"?? Until there is real "gay" marriage, there is no need to modify the term. For now the simple term "marriage" will do.

So, what's the moral basis for marriage? If you have to ask this question then you have no concept of the entire history of humankind. If this is the case, then you are likely to reject any answer I could possibly give you.

I've had alot of interest in moral issues. I was therefore greatly interested in Dr. Michael Shermer's study of the origins of morality in The Secular Sphinx (http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.shermer-sphinx.html)

Agreed, what-works-for-me morality will not do. But is this all there is to secular morality? And are these our only choices? Is it true, as Dostoevky mused in Brothers Karamozov, that if God doesn't exist, anything goes? Can we lead moral lives without recourse to the hereafter and a spiritual being who may or may not exist? Can we construct an ethical system without religion?

The Sphinx was a mythical creature who delighted in posing seemingly insoluble riddles. I use the term "Secular Sphinx" to describe three longstanding ethical riddles that must be solved if we are to consider a secular alternative to religion-based ethics:

The Riddle of Ethical Decisions-How Are We To Act?
The Riddle of Ethical Nature-Are We Moral, Immoral, or Amoral?
The Riddle of Ethical Freedom-How Can We Make Moral Choices in a Determined Universe?

Shermer goes on to speak of "Absolute Ethics" like those based on religion, which offer no flexibility...and "Relative Ethics" which can be described as "doing what you feel". Of which Shermer says:
These are just two of the many interesting attempts to construct a relative ethical system, defined as a flexible set of rules for right and wrong human action derived from how the situation is defined individually or socially. The problem with relative ethics is that one can justify almost any behavior, implying that all moral actions-from self-sacrifice to human sacrifice-are equal. On a practical level no one believes this.

He then goes on to propose "Relative Ethics" which is described as:
Moral choices in a provisional ethical system might be considered analogous to scientific "facts" in being provisionally true or false, right or wrong, moral or immoral:

In Provisional Ethics, "moral" or "immoral" means confirmed and justified to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent.

That is, in Provisional Ethics it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional agreement that an action is moral or immoral if the evidence for and the justification of the action is overwhelming. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence and justification might change. And, obviously, some moral principles have less evidence and justification for them than others, and therefore they are more provisional and more personal.

What I'm getting at here is that there are moral principles by which we can construct a secular ethical system. These principles are not absolute (no exceptions), nor are they relative (anything goes). They are provisional-true for most people in most circumstances most of the time.

So, I'd say there is obviously a case for changing our moral stance on gay marriage,...but no more so than for polygamous marriage,...or incestuous marriage. The issue of gay marriage involves a too-small segment of our society, and will likely never pass the "true for most people in most circumstances" test, unless we limit the geographical area by gerrymandering ourselves a majority. I suspect that is what we are seeing in the Bay area right now. :rolleyes:

-z

[Silicon]

Rik,

I think you have simplified the issue down to one argument, which seems to be basically "majority rule".

Morality isn't each issue weighed seperately against the majority opinion.

Rather there is a hierarchy of more important social rules, and less important ones.

So for gay marriage, we have a small rule against it, but in my view, and the Mass Supreme court's view, equal protection trumps it.

So equal protection supercedes some other moral rules. Which is why we allow things like interracial marriage as well, even though by sheer mathematics that would have to be a minority option.

[bignickel]

But Rik:

Aren't the opponents of gay marriage using 'works for me' morality?

They are disgusted by gays and the idea of gay marriage: therefore, it 'works for them' to just outright ban it.

Rather than actually producing any real reason why such a ban should be enforced.

Tradition? 'Marriage has always been about a man and woman coming together in holy (there's that word again. hard to keep that from showing up in our secular affairs) matrimony.'

A bit disingenius don't you think, considering that any time in the past 10000 years or so that gays 'came out' to get married, they were beaten, lynched, imprisoned, and killed?

What if a 'new' race of humans appeared: the Purples. Could not the white, yellow, red, and black people on this planet deny them marriage, simply by using the same arguments used by the anti-gay-marriage advocates? 'Marriage has always been practiced by white, yellow, red, and black people. If we allow Purples to marry, why not allowe 3 or more people to get married too?'

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by rikzilla


So, I'd say there is obviously a case for changing our moral stance on gay marriage,...


-z


So, what is the moral stance on gay marriage?

And why would it equate with changing the moral stance on incest or polygamy?

[Dancing David]

Uh, folks our great nation does tolerate polygamy and the forced marriage of fourteen year olds, but since it is done by right wing Christian whackos no-body seems to care.

All morals are relative, the state which says thou shalt not kill condemns people for murder. So there are no absolute morals.

Relative morals are not based upon a 'feel good: do it' basis. they are based upon 'what harm is there" basis. If there is harm that is not tempered by 'some greater good' then it becomes illegal, thus we have laws against murder but allow the state to commit executions and warfare. In a legal sense all morals are relative.


The OPs solution makea bout as much sense as becoming jewish to change Israeli politics. And I use the test of bigotry thus, substitute the word jewsih for the word gay, does the sentence sound bigoted, then it is ..

Example:

Gay rights are not equal rights they are special rights.

Jewish rights are not equal rights they are special rights.


Obverse:

Gay rights are not special rights they are equal rights.

Jewish rights are not special rights they are equal rights.

Which statement shows bigotry?


(Incest has a basis in denial for the harm it does to the people in the situation.)

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Begging the question: the whole point is that marriage is NOT a right. It is a priviledge, a recognition by society of the type of unions it considers (generally) preferable.

So it would be okay then, in your opinion, not to allow felons to marry? Like heterosexual, one-man, one-woman marriages? Because it's a privilege?

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Ed


Why 18 as a limit? No reason. I should have put "age of consent" because in some places the age of consent for marriage isn't 18.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Diogenes



So, what is the moral stance on gay marriage?

Obviously the existing historical stance is that homosexuality itself is morally wrong. Then by extension, homosexual marriage is a topic which was rarely, if ever even, broached prior to the later part of the 1900's. Our society's attitudes are changing in relation to homosexuality, yet many (maybe even most) people still feel that it's a sexual perversion. There are even many laws against the act "sodomy" on the books of many states. So it's not just a question of extending equality under the law to a minority,...it's a question of codifying a previously unlawful sexual pervertion,...of enshrining it in a wedding dress.

Wow, talk about iconoclasm! The gay agenda is attempting to kill two birds with one stone. #1. Utterly wiping out the remnants of the illegality of it's central act,...while #2. Enshrining the act itself in the wedding bed! (Denigrating the institution of marriage and family all the while)

They certainly aim high! If anyone thought that the rowdy-right was silly in their assertion of a "culture war" then they need look no further than the gay agenda's championship of gay marriage, and their disdain for "civil unions".



And why would it equate with changing the moral stance on incest or polygamy?

Why not? If one is willing to take one pervertion and write it into law, what then is to stop one from treating other pervertions with the same misplaced respect?

You tell me,...why should the polygamist, or the incestuous languish in inequality under the law??
-z

[Tmy]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


So it would be okay then, in your opinion, not to allow felons to marry? Like heterosexual, one-man, one-woman marriages? Because it's a privilege?

This happens now. The local jails dont HAVE to let you marry. They dont have to allow you to have a wedding.

Lets say gay marriage goes through. If your in jail can you marry your cellmate. If you do can they legally separate you into different cells? Can they stop you from having gay sex? Do you still have the marraige rights not to testify vs spouce if theres a crime committed?


Whats up with civil unions not being good enough. If you want marriage cause it gives you xYZ and civil union do the same, whats the big deal. I know "separate but equal" doesnt usually fly, but we do often have separate but equal when it comes to gender stuff. (mens and womens sports teams, lockerrooms.)

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tmy

This happens now. The local jails dont HAVE to let you marry. They dont have to allow you to have a wedding.


You miss his point (on purpose, perhaps?).

A felon who has SERVED his sentence, and been released from prison, and no longer on parole, could be denied the right to marry, IF marriage is a privledge, and not an adult right.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by rikzilla




You tell me,...why should the polygamist, or the incestuous languish in inequality under the law??
-z

AND the bigamist also has Freedom of Religion on his side. Somthing gay marriage does not have. If anything, bigamy has a better legal argument.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by bignickel


You miss his point (on purpose, perhaps?).

A felon who has SERVED his sentence, and been released from prison, and no longer on parole, could be denied the right to marry, IF marriage is a privledge, and not an adult right.

Not exactly. Felons can be prevented from voting, and that is a right. I'm not sure about marriage, as I'm not sure any such law has ever been passed.

This has less to do with how "marriage" is classified than with how the government justifies treating groups of people differently. Whether you want to call it a right, priviledge, or just call it a handout the same analysis applies.

The whole "marriage is not a right" thing is just a red herring.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tmy

AND the bigamist also has Freedom of Religion on his side. Somthing gay marriage does not have. If anything, bigamy has a better legal argument.

Again, slippery slope.

Denying gays marriage is the same as denying the Purples Marriage. 'If we 're-define' it for them, then 'anyone' can get married!' And then we'd have CHAOS, with Cats & Dogs living together...

If you'd like to tackle the bigamy thing later, be my guest. AFTER we've prevented the majority of our nation from depriving the minorities of rights the majority enjoys.

We can burn that bigamy bridge once we're in the middle of it...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by rikzilla



...... what then is to stop one from treating other pervertions with the same misplaced respect?


-z


Oh, I don't know.... Maybe enough people who are concerned that it should be stopped.. ( depending on their sense of pervertion, of course... )

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla







Why not? If one is willing to take one pervertion and write it into law, what then is to stop one from treating other pervertions with the same misplaced respect?

How exactly is homosexuality a "perversion?"

What if I include as a perversion: "people that engage in sexual acts other than intercourse in the missionary position strictly for purposes of reproduction."

Think that is too broad? Yes? So much for traditional notions, eh?

See where we are going with this?

Seriously though, what is your basis for declaring something a perversion?

You tell me,...why should the polygamist, or the incestuous languish in inequality under the law??
-z

Actually, I addressed this in an above post. You may have missed it.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by bignickel


Again, slippery slope.

Denying gays marriage is the same as denying the Purples Marriage. 'If we 're-define' it for them, then 'anyone' can get married!' And then we'd have CHAOS, with Cats & Dogs living together...

If you'd like to tackle the bigamy thing later, be my guest. AFTER we've prevented the majority of our nation from depriving the minorities of rights the majority enjoys.

We can burn that bigamy bridge once we're in the middle of it...

How about tackleing it now. Otherwise the separate but equal line is just like the slipery slope line. Lets close our eyes and ignore them.

I guess we can focus on "minorities". We deny rights to all sorts of groups of minorities. I dont belive that gays are a protected class when it comes to fed civil rights. Now we can debate wheter that should be so but fornow it isnt. So to say that minority has a constitutional right to marry is highly debateable. And for a court to give them that right, it has to exist, the court cant make it up for them.

All sorts of minorites get treated differently. For example I would have to pay out of state tuition if I wanted to go to a Rhode Island state university. I am not being treated equally to Rhode Island residents. 18 yr olds cant drink. Immigrants cant vote etc...

[Dancing David]

posted by zilla
There are even many laws against the act "sodomy" on the books of many states. So it's not just a question of extending equality under the law to a minority,...it's a question of codifying a previously unlawful sexual pervertion,...of enshrining it in a wedding dress.


Strangely enough almost all the sodomy laws have been overturned.

It came down to the issue of privacy, should the state deny oral and anal sex to hetero and married couples? Most states have had the laws overturned in courts.

Homosexuality is no longer illegal, and I suppose the same argument was made in the 1930s

"If we let the blacks and whites marry, the next thing will be the queers."

The only ones who advocate for incest are the ones who oppose gay marriage.

I think there are other things our society could waste it's effort on.

Who is harmed and how by allowing same sex couples to marry?

Should we allow 'trans-gender' people to marry? How about the XXY individuals?

[Tmy]

You cant say that gay marriage HAS NO affect on anyone else. Unlike what sex acts that happen in the privacy of a bedroom, expanding the marriage laws does send a ripple affect throughout society. Adoptions, benefits, healthcare, taxes, schools, finances, you can go on and on and not cover all the areas and people effected.

In fact getting legally married is the opposite of privacy, its done to change your status when compared to everyone else.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tmy

All sorts of minorites get treated differently.

They are only a minority because YOU have made them one. By treating them differantly because of something so trivial as which adult they're attracted to.

I have blue eyes and red hair. Would you like to discriminate against me to? Tell me who I should or shouldn't marry? I guess it's a good thing I've got enough numbers of like people around me, since according to you, it isn't my 'right' to marry.

'Protected' group has nothing to do with anything. You get to marry any adult you're attracted to. But you seek to prevent other people from doing the same.

If you were seeking the right for HETEROSEXUAL bigamy, then, THEN, you can throw that into the pot for us to debate. But if you're not, then you can't toss it in. Because they're not seeking bigamy anymore than you are.

Are you?

If you have reason to ban something from doing something you enjoy, the case is YOURS to prove, not theirs to defend. All I've heard is Slippery Slope. Do you have ANYTHING beyond Slippery Slope, cuz otherwise I'm wasting my time reading this thread.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy




All sorts of minorites get treated differently. For example I would have to pay out of state tuition if I wanted to go to a Rhode Island state university. I am not being treated equally to Rhode Island residents. 18 yr olds cant drink. Immigrants cant vote etc...

Sure, but there is a reason for these restrictions.

That's the point. Government can't make arbitrary distinctions. They can make distinctions if there is a reason.

Non-Rhode Island students don't get instate tuition because of economic reasons.

18 year olds can't drink because of medical and safety concerns.

Immigrants can't vote (unless they are citizens) because of fears of manipulation of the electorial process by a foreign power.

Now if we had something like:

Rhode Island residents cannot marry.

That is a different story, no?

The main reason these bigamy and incest issues aren't really relevant is that they are different, plain and simple. There can be reasons for not allowing bigamy that just don't apply to gay marriage, or vice versa.

Equating all non-traditional relationships as equal is just begging a question on a slippery slope with a big scoop of argument from personal incredulity on top. There is a big difference between homosexuality and something like polygamy. The only simularity is that they are different from classic hetrosexual relationships.

[c0rbin]

Obviously the existing historical stance is that homosexuality itself is morally wrong.

Not true for all history.

The creators of our democratic ideals preferred the company of young boys.

I think it was actually viewed as "ideal". Seems the adjective "ideal" a far cry from "immoral" to me.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy
You cant say that gay marriage HAS NO affect on anyone else. Unlike what sex acts that happen in the privacy of a bedroom, expanding the marriage laws does send a ripple affect throughout society. Adoptions, benefits, healthcare, taxes, schools, finances, you can go on and on and not cover all the areas and people effected.

Affected does not equal burdened. These same things are affected by not allowing gay marriage.
In fact getting legally married is the opposite of privacy, its done to change your status when compared to everyone else.

It doesn't involve privacy. It doesn't involve the right to a grand jury indictment either.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by bignickel


They are only a minority because YOU have made them one. By treating them differantly because of something so trivial as which adult they're attracted to.

I have blue eyes and red hair. Would you like to discriminate against me to? Tell me who I should or shouldn't marry? I guess it's a good thing I've got enough numbers of like people around me, since according to you, it isn't my 'right' to marry.

'Protected' group has nothing to do with anything. You get to marry any adult you're attracted to. But you seek to prevent other people from doing the same.

If you were seeking the right for HETEROSEXUAL bigamy, then, THEN, you can throw that into the pot for us to debate. But if you're not, then you can't toss it in. Because they're not seeking bigamy anymore than you are.

Are you?

If you have reason to ban something from doing something you enjoy, the case is YOURS to prove, not theirs to defend. All I've heard is Slippery Slope. Do you have ANYTHING beyond Slippery Slope, cuz otherwise I'm wasting my time reading this thread.

Well "I" havent done anything. The reason gays are a minority is cuae their are less of them. Its a numbers thing.

Are you really any different then the traditionalist crowd? They draw a line in the sand, you have an idea for a different line in the sand, BUT ITS STILL AN ARBRITRARY LINE!

I really dont care about gay marriage. The legistlator made the laws and they can change them. I am kinda annoyed at what I see is a court (Mass Sup Ct) overstepping its bounds. Personally I think the Mass. Court thing would be a phyric victory, cause its causing other places to dream up marriage amendments to constitutions. Changing an amendment down the road is very difficult. Gay marriage is being accepted little by little. I think the bumm rush might backfire.................<---- Ok thats wasnt intended to be a bad pun.

[bignickel]

DAMMIT!

I just erased the whole DAMN post because V is next to C on the keyboard.

Great. To sum up:

If all the gays tomorrow decided that they didn't want to get married, that STILL wouldn't stop the bigamists from trying to get married multiple times.

Therefore, the argument that 'X then Y' does not follow.

The only argument that such an arguer could pursue would be that any changing of the marriage laws invites change from too many undesireables. This is the argument of a 'traditionalist' and can be summed up as "don't rock the boat."

However, with such an argument, such an amazing experiment as the Republic of the United States of America would not have been undertaken. N America would just have another monarchy, since that's the 'standard'.

[a_unique_person]

Did you try Z, unerase?

[michaellee]

Originally posted by hammegk
Inheritance laws and qualification for both gov't and private benefits, especially retirement benefits...
Originally posted by WildCat
The legal justification for the Massachusetts SC decision was based on equal protection of the law
Originally posted by Mr. Manifesto
...what is to many a straight-forward moral issue: do homosexuals get to have the same rights as heterosexual people?
Originally posted by Suddenly
The usual legal issue is these sorts of cases is in general an equal protection issue. In general, a state must treat all people equally unless they have good reason not to... ...Government cannot give a benefit to one segment of the population while denying it to another, unless there is a good reason...
The fact is government is giving benefits to some people, and not others. Unless there is a good reason for the distinction then the government is acting in an arbitrary manner. We have constitutional doctrines that forbid this sort of thing.
Originally posted by Thanz
It is that equal benefit of the law is being denied on the grounds of sexual orientation, without good reason
Originally posted by bignickel
AFTER we've prevented the majority of our nation from depriving the minorities of rights the majority enjoys.

Based on the above, I conclude the following:

A. Homosexual couples want the government to recognize and allow them to legally marry so they can receive the same government benefits given to legally married heterosexual couples.

B. The legal basis for the claim to the right to legally marry is based on "equal protection of the law", which precludes the government from denying rights or benefits to people based upon their sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs, etc..


If my conclusions are correct, then can someone help me out and provide an answer to a question I have that has not be raised yet, at least in this thread. First let me state that I could care less about the homosexual agenda or right wing or religious agendas, and see no reason not to allow legal, homosexual marriages. I am a single male, aged 42, living in California. I will remain single until I die. I have no children, and will not become a father at any time in the future. I work and have worked since I was 16 years of age. I have paid and still pay my Social Security taxes, State and Local taxes, Federal Income taxes, Medicare taxes, gasoline taxes, state local sales taxes, utility and phone taxes, water and garbage taxes, just to name a few off the top of my head.

Now I know where the majority of these taxes I pay and will pay until I die go, and how some is wasted and some goes toward valuable government services and programs. I am fine with that. I am also no fool, and find no reasons come tax time to find and claim all the legal deductions possible, in order to reduce the amount of taxes I must pay.

Now I come upon this thread, and learn that not only do heterosexual married couples enjoy substantial government benefits that I do not because I am single, but homosexual couples are seeking these same benefits, and using the equal protection of the law argument to back their cause.

Well then, what's so special about heterosexual married couples, and homosexual "married" couples that gives them government "rights" and "benefits" that I do not get?

Does "equal protection of the law" only apply to those who choose to legally marry?

I therefore argue that all rights and benefits bestowed by the government only to people who are legally married, either heterosexual or homosexual, to infringe on my right to "equal protection of the law", for denying me these same benefits and rights based solely on the fact I am single with no children.

If there is an existing legal basis for this blatant discrimination, then I have a solution for all of the single, childless people out there, one that will allow us all to claim the same benefits and rights the "married with children" folk receive that we currently do not. I want the government to recognize the right or privilege for me to legally marry myself. I already do the jobs of two people: I work full time, do all of the housework and cleaning, and have been told many times "gosh it must be hard for you to be two places at once all the time". I also care and provide for my "children"; Rocky, my cat, and Romeo, my dog.

If this argument lacks value based on the fact that marriage must be between two people, I have the solution for that as well. I can easily be diagnosed as a mild schizophrenic. All of my co-workers know me as a hard-nosed disciplinarian, and most know nothing of my personal lifestyle, and how I act and behave socially outside of work. My personal friends and family members know me as a fun-loving, free spirited, great guy to be around, and know nothing of how I behave at work. If my co-workers, friends or family members saw me and how I behave in the other scenario, they all would say "gosh, you are like two completely different people when you are at work and when you are not."

So, do any of you single, childless people out there wish to join my crusade for "equal protection under the law" for singles? Watch for me in the headlines soon- I'll be there with or without you. We all must stop this type of blatant government discrimination.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Did you try Z, unerase?

Where you were a half hour ago!!!! Grr... :)

[SRW]

Originally posted by michaellee
So, do any of you single, childless people out there wish to join my crusade for "equal protection under the law" for singles? Watch for me in the headlines soon- I'll be there with or without you. We all must stop this type of blatant government discrimination.

The rights that are given married couples do not apply to single people. To name a few, you are automatically family, so when one spouse dies the other inherits the wealth. If you choose not to marry that inheritance right is not denied to you it is simply irrelevant. Also becoming family gives you the ability to do things such as hospital visits etc.

As far as finical gains other than the combined income (which has hurt many in the past see marriage penalty) there are no special government advantages. Unless one of spouses does not work then that person becomes a dependant of the other. Again if you do not have a partner that does not apply.

[Silicon]

Michaellee,

There are singles advocacy groups out there, fighing for your rights. I support you in that quest.


But you fail to address the MANY rights that only 2 or more people can have, that are completely useless for a single person.



Such as:

The right to jointly own property. Obviously one single person doesn't need this.

The right to visit your sick spouse in the hospital. Again, if you're in the hospital, you can visit yourself.

The right to have joint custody of one parent's child. Not anything you need by yourself, but something my family needs.







Here's a sample list of other rights that two married people need, that are denied to gay couples, but single people have no need for:




joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents)

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;






...on and on and on....




As I said, I support your rights to equal protection for singles. But I do think there are far more issues for gay couples than you realize, or perhaps you choose to turn a blind eye to them.

They are very real issues for my family. What happens if my daughter is staying at her (gay) grandmothers' (plural) house, and hurts herself and has to go to the hospital? What if only the non-blood relative Grandmother is able to take her to the hospital?

These ARE issues, because (surprise!) gay people have children and families, and they NEED protection under the law, for ALL the same things that other families need. Imagine a gay family, two women and a child via AI. The biological parent is killed in a bus crash courtesy a drunk bus driver. The following things happen:

Kicked out of house because lease was in biological parent's name.

No insurance, survivor benefits for surving mother and baby.

No wrongful death lawsuit standing for surviving mother and baby.

All funds and property for mother tied up in probate (no will), surviving mother destitute.

State takes custody of child away from surviving mother who has no means of support, and no custody standing.


Etc, etc...




Can you understand why this is important to more than a handful of people?

[bignickel]

If I divorce myself...

Who gets the house in the settlement? :eek:

[SRW]

Originally posted by bignickel
If I divorce myself...

Who gets the house in the settlement? :eek:

Your lawyer gets 40%.

[michaellee]

Originally posted by SiliconHere's a sample list of other rights that two married people need, that are denied to gay couples, but single people have no need for:........or perhaps you choose to turn a blind eye to them.

No, I don't turn a blind eye to them, it's a simple fact of not being made aware of them... not by the media, homosexual rights advocates, posters here at the JREF, etc...

It seems as if everyone on both sides of this issue talks about everything but the real life scenarios.. except your responding post..

[hammegk]

What a frigging way to rush headlong towards a Constitutional crises, Exec favoring an amendment, Legislature at war with Judiciary, States Rights, Mayoral Rights, over a basically meaningless issue driven by a few thousand nutcases who want everyone to agree that their mutual masturbation provides a valid grounds for "marriage" with all the attendant legal rights and duties.

Finally, something else as hot-button as abortion. See if we can get into a few decades of divisiveness like that provided in part by Brown v Board of Ed. with busing, and really picking up steam with The Great Society programs (AFDC in particular).



Back to your regularly scheduled bs. :(

[Roadtoad]

I don't have a problem with much of the gay agenda. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about not wanting to be beaten up simply because you choose to sleep with someone of the same sex. I think it's entirely reasonable to not want to be harassed by your fellow employees or supervisors at work because of whom you're attracted to sexually. (We had a friend and neighbor who went through that. I don't shop at Albertson's for that very reason. You don't mess with my friends.) I think you have a right to socialize with whomever you choose without the police hassling you. This is reasonable, and right.

Marriage? That's another story. Now, you're getting into something hairier. There are so many fine lines in this, and I sometimes wonder if I'm qualified to sort through it all. A heterosexual couple is able to have kids on their own usually, and, as I've said, in general that's a better environment where you can raise a kid.

The caveat here, though, is that it's generally true. I've seen gay and lesbian relationships break up, and they're just as ugly as when straight relationships break apart. Add kids to that mix, and it can become even more volatile, just as it is with straight relationships.

I don't know if anyone is keeping stats on the failure rates of gay relationships. Maybe that might help in understanding this better.

Silicon, I have no question that your MIL is happy. The difference between Newsom and King, however, is that Dr. King was, himself, Black. I object to anyone being used as a political football, for any reason, regardless of of the cause. Gavin Newsom isn't interested in doing what's right; he's a first rate political whore trying to make sure he can get re-elected and make people forget about Art "Agony," and others.

I'm very certain the scene in SF was powerful. I'm glad you're happy for your MIL. (If she and her mate were married in Sacramento, I know who they are, too. Nice people.) But, as I've also said, this has come about because we had people on the far right who were determined to keep Gays and Lesbians as Second Class Citizens. This whole issue could have been avoided with forethought and compassion.

And, no, I don't have answers. I'm still looking. Just like anyone else.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by michaellee
Originally posted by Silicon
No, I don't turn a blind eye to them, it's a simple fact of not being made aware of them... not by the media, homosexual rights advocates, posters here at the JREF, etc...

It seems as if everyone on both sides of this issue talks about everything but the real life scenarios.. except your responding post..

Then I apologize if my post was brusque. I totally respect your call for information.

It does seem like those actual real-life concerns of families get pushed away in the media climate that would rather dicuss this in terms of religion, morality and the politics of the slippery slope.

That's not how I see it, having a front-row seat. I see it as pragmatic views of my family, and the legal hoop after hoop that we have to jump through in order to get a patchwork quilt that is a mere semblance of the protections that any hetero couple gets for their signatures and a hundred bucks at the city clerk's office, no questions asked.

Of course the other side WANTS the debate to be about morality, sanctity, tradition, and the overall "yeech" factor of photographs of men in veils and high-heels kissing each other.

I'm all for tradition, but again I see one side being harmed every day by treatment I see as unequal, while I find it very hard to imagine any harm to heterosexual marriages or the institution if gay marriage was to be allowed.


Here's an interesting opinion piece in the Houston Chronicle:

A Republican with a heart for gay marriages

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2407300

[Roadtoad]

Interesting piece, Silicon. I wish I'd seen that earlier.

I still think, though, that Newsom is wrong. It's one thing to stand up and say, "This is what I think we ought to do," and while possible, take the legal, ethical, and moral steps to do what you believe is right. It's another to resort to what they're claiming is Civil Disobedience, (actually, thumbing their nose at due process), and create chaos for those you claim you want to benefit.

[Silicon]

I thought about that, too, Roadtoad.

I totally thought this was nothing but grandstanding, and pulling a total Roy Moore.

I don't generally like the idea of elected officials using city time and money to put on a civil disobedience, because it does run into the problems you mentioned. It invites a level of anarchy.

But the judiciary can, and probably will step in and restore balance, just as they should. So the constitutional crisis is minimal.


But in a larger sense, once I was there and took part, I realized Mayor Newsome's idea and plan, and I think it's brilliant.


Here's the deal: the standard way of addressing this issue would have been for the Mayor to sue for the right to marry gays. That would put it in front of the California Supreme Court. But no matter WHAT the supreme court decided, just like in Massachusetts, the PEOPLE would rant and rave about "activist judges" and "letting the people decide".

Mayor Newsome realizes that the court that matters is the court of public opinion. No other court ruling will be accepted, because those not convinced WILL amend the US Constitution.

So what the mayor did was exactly what folks did for the march on washington, the Montgomery Bus strike, the Woolworths lunch counter sit-ins. They put the issue in front of American viewers.

Mayor Newsome did exactly the right thing, in that he provided a constant image, all valentines weekend long, live on news networks across the country, of families just like mine, waiting in line overnight, for days in the rain to do what is easy for heterosexuals, drive through in Vegas, by Elvis. What some straight people like Brittney mock, these people sincerely wanted.

And they were live on the air 24/7, with images like this one:


http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040213/s/r2584709107.jpg

It made total sense to me.


Why use nonviolent civil disobedience? Can I quote King again?


You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.


And now I notice that even members of the die-hard political Right are supporting Civil Unions as a compromise. When only 3 or 4 years ago they were outraged, OUTRAGED, when some private companies (eg Disney) offered a small portion of those same benefits.

How quickly the winds of change blow.

[Skeptic]

It's also worth noting that society used to consider homosexuality (and seeking a divorce if you were a woman) a psychiatric disorder. And throwing women into rivers as the preferable way of finding witches.

Yes, but the problem is, the same argument ("in the future, society will advance enough so it will agree with me!") was used to justify fascism, communism, and just about every other crackpot social "-ism", from "free love" to "radical feminism" to behaviorism to scientology to whatever. Most of those "waves of the future", after a brief period, retreated back into the sea of human nature. If society really wants gay marriages, let society enact it with a clear majority; it is too soon to tell whether this is a genuince social change, or a passing fad.

[bignickel]

Ah yes: equal rights for all.

Just another '-ism' eh?

What that's part of again?


Ah yes:

Humanism.

[Skeptic]

The status of marriage as a "right" or whatever you want to call it is not relevant. The fact is government is giving benefits to some people, and not others. Unless there is a good reason for the distinction then the government is acting in an arbitrary manner. We have constitutional doctrines that forbid this sort of thing.

Why is "marriage is between a man and a woman" arbitrary? To say that it is an "arbitrary distinction" implies that it is a distinction made for no good reason, merely to spite or exclude gays. This, I think, shows a serious misunderstanding of what "marriage" is all about (and always was).

To give an analogy, rabbis must be jews. If you are, say, a raelian, who believes that the spaceships will come and get you any day now, you will not be recognized as a rabbi even you are quite up-to-date with the Torah and Talmud and can do the rabbi's "technical" work as well as anybody. To say that this deman is "arbitrary", and that one should allow non-jewish "rabbis" is a serious misunderstanding of what being a rabbi IS.

Your "$50,000" example is misleading. Just because giving $50,000 to all non-gays would be disrciminatory against gays doesn't mean they have the right to marry. Giving $50,000 to all non-incestous people (and refusing it to those who live with their adult children in a sexual manner) would be just as unjustified, but that's hardly a reason to allow incestous marriages.

[Skeptic]

Denying gays marriage is the same as denying the Purples Marriage.

Well, that's the whole question, is it? Is denying gay marriage is the same as denying Purple people marriage... or is it the same as denying jews the right to be priests?

I mean, after all, all the catholics get to try--why not the jews? What's with this awful discrimination?

[Skeptic]

Well then, what's so special about heterosexual married couples, and homosexual "married" couples that gives them government "rights" and "benefits" that I do not get?

Er, those benefits are for the most part benefits that simply do not apply to single people. They include, for instance, the right to file a joint tax return with your spouse, or to visit a spouse in a hospital. If you have no spouse, there is nothing for you to "enjoy" here.

You might as well complain that some of your tax money goes to support the salary of maternity ward attendants, which is unfair since you'll never be pregnant or give birth.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Well, that's the whole question, is it? Is denying gay marriage is the same as denying Purple people marriage... or is it the same as denying jews the right to be priests?


No. There, that was simple, wasn't it?

Again: Do you have a case to make against allowing some people the rights you enjoy solely because you don't like the adults they're attracted to?

[SRW]

Has anyone profien the being gay is genetic and not a choice? And is there a way to show that this is the case? I have heard both sides and believe that it would make a difference.

If being gay is a life style choice then the equal protection clause would not apply. Equal protection would not apply as Gay people would have the same rights if they chose to marry people of the opposite gender.

On the other hand if it is genetic, equal protection would apply.


Anyone know for sure that Homosexuality is genetic, or a life style choice?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The status of marriage as a "right" or whatever you want to call it is not relevant. The fact is government is giving benefits to some people, and not others. Unless there is a good reason for the distinction then the government is acting in an arbitrary manner. We have constitutional doctrines that forbid this sort of thing.

Why is "marriage is between a man and a woman" arbitrary? To say that it is an "arbitrary distinction" implies that it is a distinction made for no good reason, merely to spite or exclude gays. This, I think, shows a serious misunderstanding of what "marriage" is all about (and always was).

To give an analogy, rabbis must be jews. If you are, say, a raelian, who believes that the spaceships will come and get you any day now, you will not be recognized as a rabbi even you are quite up-to-date with the Torah and Talmud and can do the rabbi's "technical" work as well as anybody. To say that this deman is "arbitrary", and that one should allow non-jewish "rabbis" is a serious misunderstanding of what being a rabbi IS. Circular. A bit cryptic, but circular. You are defending discrimination based on traditional meaning, nothing real new here. "They just can't marry because they just can't." This is just an appeal to tradition in a pedantic disguise.

The jews only alowing jews to be Rabbis is a form of discrimination. They have their reasons and even if those reasons make sense or are just silly they have a right to their faith and it's rules.

The government is a different story. They have no right to such kinds of discrimination without good reason. What I want is the reason we have for restricting marriage to straights. If there is no good reason, then it is arbitrary.

Your "$50,000" example is misleading. Just because giving $50,000 to all non-gays would be disrciminatory against gays doesn't mean they have the right to marry. Giving $50,000 to all non-incestous people (and refusing it to those who live with their adult children in a sexual manner) would be just as unjustified, but that's hardly a reason to allow incestous marriages.

Huh? Have any reasons? Or is this assertion "obvious?"

Government gives benefit to "A's"
Government denies benefit to "not A's"

My position is that government needs a reason to treat A's and not A's differently.

Something other than "God says so" or "just because" or "what about people that f*ck goats" or some such.

Just a good reason why gays should not be allowed to marry. I an earlier post I gave examples of reasons why polygamy, multiple marriages and incestious marriages could be rightfully barred.

I'd just like to hear a simple reason w/r/t gays. I can't come up with one and I'm open to suggestion.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by SRW
Has anyone profien the being gay is genetic and not a choice? And is there a way to show that this is the case? I have heard both sides and believe that it would make a difference.

If being gay is a life style choice then the equal protection clause would not apply. Equal protection would not apply as Gay people would have the same rights if they chose to marry people of the opposite gender.

On the other hand if it is genetic, equal protection would apply.


Anyone know for sure that Homosexuality is genetic, or a life style choice?

Thats the big problem when you start talking about "rights". Is being gay a protected class?? Not evey subset of everthing falls under equal protection. For example you can discriminate vs tatooed people.

For the most part you need a reason to discriminate. In marraige laws I guess the reason to go guy-gal is cause marriage is all about the children. Inheritence and legitamacy and all that. Sure there are non-children perks to marriage but they kind of developed around the child thing. Sure gays can adopt and some hetros cant have kids but at the core of things 2 hetro's can create a child, which is what 2 same sex people can not. So if kids are the base of marriage, then it makes sense for it to be man + women.

People have mentioned stuff like hospital vists and berheavment leave. Are those really laws? Im thinking thats just hospital / company rules.

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by SRW

Anyone know for sure that Homosexuality is genetic, or a life style choice? I think that's a false dichotomy. "Not genetic" does not imply "must be a choice." It could hypothetically be affected by prenatal conditions, childhood environment, and all the other things that make identical twins different from one another.

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Tmy

So if kids are the base of marriage, then it makes sense for it to be man + women.By that logic, gay couples who have kids should be allowed to marry.

[SRW]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
I think that's a false dichotomy. "Not genetic" does not imply "must be a choice." It could hypothetically be affected by prenatal conditions, childhood environment, and all the other things that make identical twins different from one another.

True however the argument I have heard most is that they are born that way. Which would mean a genetic or prenatal condition, I have heard also that a prenatal exposure to testosterone can have an effect on sexual orientation.

I tend to discount the environmental explanations for behavior, after raising three kids I have concluded that there are just to many holes in the theory.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by SRW
I tend to discount the environmental explanations for behavior, after raising three kids I have concluded that there are just to many holes in the theory.

You're looking at it as black and white. It's not. It's both. The question is how much do environment and genetics each affect who you are.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
By that logic, gay couples who have kids should be allowed to marry.

And straight couples who physically can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

[LW]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Wow, talk about iconoclasm! The gay agenda is attempting to kill two birds with one stone. #1. Utterly wiping out the remnants of the illegality of it's central act,...while #2. Enshrining the act itself in the wedding bed! (Denigrating the institution of marriage and family all the while)[/b
[b]Why not? If one is willing to take one pervertion and write it into law, what then is to stop one from treating other pervertions with the same misplaced respect?

Since I can't reliably detect when you use over-the-top sarcasm in your posts and when you are being serious, could you please elaborate which one is it this time?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats the big problem when you start talking about "rights". Is being gay a protected class?? Not evey subset of everthing falls under equal protection. For example you can discriminate vs tatooed people.

For the most part you need a reason to discriminate. In marraige laws I guess the reason to go guy-gal is cause marriage is all about the children. Inheritence and legitamacy and all that. Sure there are non-children perks to marriage but they kind of developed around the child thing. Sure gays can adopt and some hetros cant have kids but at the core of things 2 hetro's can create a child, which is what 2 same sex people can not. So if kids are the base of marriage, then it makes sense for it to be man + women.

People have mentioned stuff like hospital vists and berheavment leave. Are those really laws? Im thinking thats just hospital / company rules. Looks to me that makes straights the protected class, since they are being given preferential treatment at the expense of everyone else.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Nasarius


And straight couples who physically can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

Well, no. But married couple who have children should be preferred in terms of tax breaks, etc.--which they are.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by me
It's also worth noting that society used to consider homosexuality (and seeking a divorce if you were a woman) a psychiatric disorder. And throwing women into rivers as the preferable way of finding witches.

Subsequently posted by Skeptic
Yes, but the problem is, the same argument ("in the future, society will advance enough so it will agree with me!") was used to justify fascism, communism, and just about every other crackpot social "-ism", from "free love" to "radical feminism" to behaviorism to scientology to whatever. Most of those "waves of the future", after a brief period, retreated back into the sea of human nature. If society really wants gay marriages, let society enact it with a clear majority; it is too soon to tell whether this is a genuince social change, or a passing fad.
Firstly, behaviorism isn't a 'crackpot social'-ism", it's a recognised discipline of psychology with (and because of) a credible and rigorous scientific basis.

Secondly, my argument is that in the past society had norms and values we recognise as wrong; this is subtly but significantly different to arguing that, "in the future, society will advance enough so it will agree with me!". Regardless, you contradict yourself; if your argument is that what society wants isn't always legitimate, then how do you conclude that society's rejection of gay marriage is legitimate? If "[s]ociety considers heterosexual marriage with children to be preferable to other arrangements (and for many good reasons)", why should we consider that to be legitimate?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The moral basis of "hetero marriage"?? Until there is real "gay" marriage, there is no need to modify the term. For now the simple term "marriage" will do.
It's useful for distinguishing between the two objects we are arguing over, and as such I'm happy with the terms. Got to admit though that your point here is a useful example of newspeak; if marriage can only mean heterosexual marriage, then the term "gay marriage" becomes an oxymoron, and marriage is rendered as a monolithic institution. Which leads us to the contradictory conclusion that marriage was invented about two to three centuries ago. Why? Because kind of marriage that doesn't conform to our modern understanding of it is not marriage.

So, what's the moral basis for marriage? If you have to ask this question then you have no concept of the entire history of humankind. If this is the case, then you are likely to reject any answer I could possibly give you.
That's a great way to open your argument. It's really going to add credibility to your case.

I've had alot of interest in moral issues. I was therefore greatly interested in Dr. Michael Shermer's study of the origins of morality in The Secular Sphinx (http://www.skeptic.com/04.2.shermer-sphinx.html)



Shermer goes on to speak of "Absolute Ethics" like those based on religion, which offer no flexibility...and "Relative Ethics" which can be described as "doing what you feel". Of which Shermer says:


He then goes on to propose "Relative Ethics" which is described as:


So, I'd say there is obviously a case for changing our moral stance on gay marriage,...but no more so than for polygamous marriage,...or incestuous marriage. The issue of gay marriage involves a too-small segment of our society, and will likely never pass the "true for most people in most circumstances" test, unless we limit the geographical area by gerrymandering ourselves a majority. I suspect that is what we are seeing in the Bay area right now. :rolleyes:

-z
So you haven't really got to grips with the complexities of Shermer's argument for relative ethics. Useful to know, but kind of irrelevant. Could you now address my original question, please? What is the moral basis of hetero marriage?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Suddenly

How exactly is homosexuality a "perversion?"

Historically it has been considered a perversion based on nothing more solid than the Bible, and a common revulsion to the central sexual act.

I know that's not a hell of a lot to go on, and logically I think you make a very good case. However, many of our secular laws have a Biblical basis. That's why I like Shermer's research into the historical roots of morality...it refutes the common idea that our morality is a gift of the (insert religion) Diety.

There was a time when homosexuality was described as a mental health issue. Later, the term was merely changed. With no apparent reasons given other than the changing attitudes of society, homosexuality was wiped from the lexicon of mental illness. Was there a reason for this? Or was it just a sign of changing times? Or is psychology just not a science at all?

What if I include as a perversion: "people that engage in sexual acts other than intercourse in the missionary position strictly for purposes of reproduction."
You could, but you'd need to cook up some moral basis for it. It wouldn't be too hard though. Wasn't it Saint Augustine that said something like: "even within marriage, sinfulness can not be entirely purged from the sexual act." ?? (I paraphrase from memory)

Think that is too broad? Yes? So much for traditional notions, eh?

See where we are going with this?
Of course, you've turned around our slippery slope argument. Bravo. If I ever plan on murdering someone I'm coming to W.VA. so that I can insist you defend me! :)

Seriously though, what is your basis for declaring something a perversion?

Okay...again playing Devil's advocate.... Here's the deal. The basis for declaring homosexuality a perversion is enshrined in our history with it's roots in the Bible, Koran, and Talmud. Even the Taoists have decried it as an imbalance of natural forces. (yang and yang) Therefore the definition fits:
perversion

n 1: an aberrant sexual practice that is preferred to normal intercourse 2: the action of perverting something (turning it to a wrong use); "it was a perversion of justice"


Actually, I addressed this in an above post. You may have missed it.

Yes you did, and did such a good job that I need to think a bit more about my answer before I attempt to give it. I will conceed that as of right now all I can say is that your arguments against polygamy and incestuous marriage would not hold up against a determined and vocal minority clamboring to secure their "civil rights".

Suddenly, I'd like to leave you with this thought. It is not really incumbent upon my side of the argument to explain why we should refuse to allow homosexual marriage. On our side we have a well worn status quo. On your side you need to propose good reasons why as a society we would be better off changing this status quo. Again, I post Shermer's ideas on "Provisional Ethics":

Moral choices in a provisional ethical system might be considered analogous to scientific "facts" in being provisionally true or false, right or wrong, moral or immoral:

In Provisional Ethics, "moral" or "immoral" means confirmed and justified to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent.

That is, in Provisional Ethics it would be reasonable for us to offer our provisional agreement that an action is moral or immoral if the evidence for and the justification of the action is overwhelming. It remains provisional because, as in science, the evidence and justification might change. And, obviously, some moral principles have less evidence and justification for them than others, and therefore they are more provisional and more personal.

What I'm getting at here is that there are moral principles by which we can construct a secular ethical system. These principles are not absolute (no exceptions), nor are they relative (anything goes). They are provisional-true for most people in most circumstances most of the time.

Therefore,...if the issue of homosexual marriage can pass the test of Provisional Ethics (and it may) then I will (since I agree with Shermer's conclusions) have to find myself on your side of the issue. Therefore, my mind remains open even though I do love to play Devil's Advocate on this issue. I personally do not begrudge gay individuals their happiness. I do however, find myself to be disgusted by the whole "culture war" mentality of the "gay lobby" and it's strange agenda.

Regards,
-z

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK

What is the moral basis of hetero marriage?
For me, my parents, my peers, the media, every input we can think of provided me my moral basis. That & the personal pheew factor is the reason I don't want schools, media, etc to teach my children -- or for that matter anyone -- that same sex marriages are as moral as man/woman marriage (as it was defined until very recently by a tiny but vocal minority).

On what basis do you consider the two equally moral? What taught you morality?

Since you favor change, can you at least postulate a 2nd generation societal, not individual benefit accruing by same sex marriage?

[Dancing David]

posted by MicelaLee, and horrible mispelled by DD
So, do any of you single, childless people out there wish to join my crusade for "equal protection under the law" for singles? Watch for me in the headlines soon- I'll be there with or without you. We all must stop this type of blatant government discrimination.


As I understand the tax break for married couples was supposed to be leveled out, the main issue remaining is that the government gives you major breaks for having children, if I recall correctly you get like three or four.

You raise a very good point, in that the single person subsidises the benefits of the married people.

Thanks! :) I appreciate your donations to my family! :)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LW

Since I can't reliably detect when you use over-the-top sarcasm in your posts and when you are being serious, could you please elaborate which one is it this time?

So, you are saying that you have a suspect ability to percieve? Hell, that's what I've been trying to say to the lot of you guys all along! (I'll let you guess which that was) ;)

LW, I was doing my Devil's Advocate thing....do I personally believe homosexuality to be a perversion? No. There are plenty of hetero perverts around as well.

What I was saying was that many people in this country DO regard it as such. Why back before the 60's, mental health experts had categorized it as a form of mental illness.

Morality is itself a form of "group-think"....if we believe homosexuality is moral and right in the SF Bay area, it does not mean that it's automatically moral and right in Iraq. (or Alabama for that matter)

Since this is one nation, our moral ideas and identity is to a large extend collective. That's what morals are.
mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.
3. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.


Therefore the onus is not upon the rest of us to defend traditional marriage. The onus is on those who wish to change marriage to include homosexuals to show that it is moral by providing the overwhelming evidence for the justification of the action. I say overwhelming, because in order to change the old order must indeed be "overwhelmed".

-z

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by michaellee
Originally posted by Silicon
No, I don't turn a blind eye to them, it's a simple fact of not being made aware of them... not by the media, homosexual rights advocates, posters here at the JREF, etc...

It seems as if everyone on both sides of this issue talks about everything but the real life scenarios.. except your responding post..

Perhaps this is very true,

from my home town.

A couple that has been together for a very long time ten years or more and they purchase a house. One of the partners has a substantial injury (they fall from a boom truck and break thier neck), this puts the other partner at the mercy of the injured parties family.
-they deny him the right to see his partner in the hospital and to be with thier loved one as they die.
-they demand half of the value of the house and force him to move and sell the house.
-they keep all survivors benefits and inheritance.
-they gouge him for half of the property in he house.

So my friends who are also a couple have to go and form a corporate partnership, they have to pay for wills and duarble powers of attorney, while a hetero couple can just get married.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Firstly, behaviorism isn't a 'crackpot social'-ism", it's a recognised discipline of psychology with (and because of) a credible and rigorous scientific basis.



Maybe it is not a crackpot-ism....but neither is it hard science. There is no "rigorous scientific basis" for psychology. Psychology is a mushy science at best...personally I think it's more a philosophy than anything else. Homosexuality was first recognised as a "mental illness" now it's not. But by what "rigorous scientific basis" did they change their classification of homosexual behavior? :confused:

No. Psychology is not science. The popular opinion of a society cannot and does not affect a scientific fact.

Skepticism....remember?

-z

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Maybe it is not a crackpot-ism....but neither is it hard science. There is no "rigorous scientific basis" for psychology. Psychology is a mushy science at best...personally I think it's more a philosophy than anything else. Homosexuality was first recognised as a "mental illness" now it's not. But by what "rigorous scientific basis" did they change their classification of homosexual behavior? :confused:

No. Psychology is not science. The popular opinion of a society cannot and does not affect a scientific fact.

Skepticism....remember?

-z

Psychology is not a science?

What are you basing that on exactly?

Graham

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

For me, my parents, my peers, the media, every input we can think of provided me my moral basis. That & the personal pheew factor is the reason I don't want schools, media, etc to teach my children -- or for that matter anyone -- that same sex marriages are as moral as man/woman marriage (as it was defined until very recently by a tiny but vocal minority).

Thank you Hamme! I wish that most people who were against gay marriage would state it as clearly, that you feel homosexuality is a lifestyle that you do not want to be exposed to. That seems to be straight up and honset.

But it begs the question of, what if they are born that way or what if it is just the way they are?

I am asking not because I feel that people should be forced into a lifestyle that they don't want.(That is the issue for homos) I ask because I feel that even if society does become neutral to the issue of homosexuality, the numbers of homosexuals will remain the same. From the experience of the homosexuals I know, they were not ever converted to homosexuality. They just are the way they are. And in fact society tries to convert them to a hetero lifetsyle, unsuccsefully.

So how would you feel if the standard was just one of tolerance, and that people were taught that tolerance is a good thing, but that we should not tolerate harming others.

Say that straight kids would not be indoctrinated that homos are normal, just indoctrinated that beating people up (outside of self defense) is wrong?


On what basis do you consider the two equally moral? What taught you morality?

Since you favor change, can you at least postulate a 2nd generation societal, not individual benefit accruing by same sex marriage?

The numbers will stay the same, there will never be a conversion of people to the gay life. As for societal benefits, well adoptions might become more common.

But there will not be a conversion of all the people to homosexuality, the proportion of homosexuals will remain the same and the proportion of hetero's will remain the same. maybe the number of bisexuals would rise.

Again thank you for your honsety. I think that it easier to talk to people about this when they just say "well i am uncomfortable with gay sex"

Then I can ask, do you know any gay people?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BillyTK



So you haven't really got to grips with the complexities of Shermer's argument for relative ethics. Useful to know, but kind of irrelevant.


Hey, I'm here to learn and grow my friend. Please show me where I have misunderstood Shermer's work. Saying I'm wrong is easy....showing me where I've erred would be more instructive to us all.

Could you now address my original question, please? What is the moral basis of hetero marriage?

Look,...I'm not into repeating myself...please go back and look at my earlier posts. Your question is rhetorical, you know the answer....I have no time for stupid games.

-z

[bignickel]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Suddenly, I'd like to leave you with this thought. It is not really incumbent upon my side of the argument to explain why we should refuse to allow homosexual marriage. On our side we have a well worn status quo. On your side you need to propose good reasons why as a society we would be better off changing this status quo.

As I explained in a previous post, this is the POV of a 'traditionalist'.

However, this same argument can be used against anti-slavery advocates as well ('Slavery is as old as mankind, it's in the bible, X supports it in the Bible by telling slaves to be good to their masters, etc')

Our great social experiment that is the United States of America is a certain departure from the status quo of monarchies. 'God Save the Queen'? Bollocks!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by SRW
If being gay is a life style choice then the equal protection clause would not apply. Equal protection would not apply as Gay people would have the same rights if they chose to marry people of the opposite gender.

On the other hand if it is genetic, equal protection would apply.

Anyone know for sure that Homosexuality is genetic, or a life style choice?
It simply doesn't matter. Equal protection should apply in either circumstance. If it is genetic, it is akin to characteristics like race. If it is a "lifestyle choice", then it is akin to the "lifestyle choice" that one makes with religion.

Sexual Orientation deserves the same protection that we give those other two groups.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


Psychology is not a science?

What are you basing that on exactly?

Graham

Much of psychology is based upon the opinions and perceptions of the psychologist. That is not science. What it is is observation. It's no more a science than anthropology is. It's a philosophy based on observation dressed up in a lab coat. But hey, that's just my opinion. I like my science hard.

Philosophy is not science. By incorporating the two we get soft-science, and it's handmaiden pseudo-science.

So since you are of a differing opinion, tell me why mental health professionals reclassified homosexuality? If it is science, how can they one day have a recognised mental illness, and the next day by virtue of the change in societal attitudes and the stroke of a pen, no longer have a mental illness?

Could any real, hard science be manipulated thusly? Well?

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by bignickel


As I explained in a previous post, this is the POV of a 'traditionalist'.

However, this same argument can be used against anti-slavery advocates as well ('Slavery is as old as mankind, it's in the bible, X supports it in the Bible by telling slaves to be good to their masters, etc')

Our great social experiment that is the United States of America is a certain departure from the status quo of monarchies. 'God Save the Queen'? Bollocks!

I agree with you B-N. But not all traditions are equivalent. Perhaps society will be better served by allowing homosexuals to marry? I don't know. But then it is not incumbent upon me to defend this change is it? I'm a traditionalist! ;)

-z

[LFTKBS]

Hey, I'm still waiting for that rational, non-Jesus reason to deny marriage equality to homosexuals.

So far we have:

1) "Marriage isn't a right."
Rebuttal: felons can get married after they've served their time, or occasionally while in prison, even though their right to vote may have been rescinded.

2) "I'm a traditionalist."
Rebuttal: so then polygamy is fine and dandy with you, right? And that grand old tradition of worshipping invisible men who live in outer space?

3) "It'll lead to goat-marriage!"
Rebuttal: Goats are not humans and cannot consent.

Seriously. Skeptic, rikzilla - you're smart, right? Come up with something.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Hey, I'm still waiting for that rational, non-Jesus reason to deny marriage equality to homosexuals.

So far we have:

1) "Marriage isn't a right."
Rebuttal: felons can get married after they've served their time, or occasionally while in prison, even though their right to vote may have been rescinded.

2) "I'm a traditionalist."
Rebuttal: so then polygamy is fine and dandy with you, right? And that grand old tradition of worshipping invisible men who live in outer space?

3) "It'll lead to goat-marriage!"
Rebuttal: Goats are not humans and cannot consent.

Seriously. Skeptic, rikzilla - you're smart, right? Come up with something.

First...what the hell is your avatar anyway? It's disturbing to me! What? A dancing bucket o' chicken?? It seems a bit gayly queer. (In the traditional sense of those words that is...) ;)

Seriously man,...for the 5th time,....marriage is extant as a union between one man and one woman. It's up to you to tell us how larger society is better off by changing it. Remember your argument must be "overwhelming"....since it's the extant circumstance you wish to...ahem..."whelm". Good Luck.

-z

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Okay...again playing Devil's advocate.... Here's the deal. The basis for declaring homosexuality a perversion is enshrined in our history with it's roots in the Bible, Koran, and Talmud. Even the Taoists have decried it as an imbalance of natural forces. (yang and yang) Therefore the definition fits:

I always thought it derived more from a narrow interpretation of some of the ancient Greek philosophy.

That definiton again, at least the part that doesn't beg the question ("normal" intercourse?):

perversion

2: the action of perverting something (turning it to a wrong use); "it was a perversion of justice"

The Greeks (Aristotle I think) belived it immoral to use something for other than it's intended purpose. This is where the whole concept of perversion comes from. Thus, we could reason that since our reproductive organs are for reproduction, any other use is immoral, as such organs are being used for other than the proper purpose. Thus, any sexual activity for fun, romance or pleasure is a "perversion."

I'm going to contend that this concept is the genesis of western thought as it pertains to sexual morality. It was picked up by the Christians (your Saint Augustine reference) and went from there.

Problem is, the whole basic idea has one basic flaw. It denies the possibility of dual purpose. Consider the mouth. It is used to chew food. This is why we have a mouth. How is speech not also a perversion? It isn't becasue we assume that the mouth has more than one purpose.

Can't the same be said for the reproductive organs? They can be used for pleasure as well as reproduction?

Plus, we've let go of the core concept with both hands. In modern times, using a tool for other than it's proper use is considered more as creativity or ingenuity than a crime against nature. There is a weird thrill when lacking a hammer we use some other blunt instrument to drive a nail, but doesn't part of that thrill come from a little voice that says we aren't supposed to do that?

This isn't too relevent to the legal/moral issues we are discussing, but I just wanted to explain where I see the western world's completely repressed and awful concept of sexual morality coming from.


Yes you did, and did such a good job that I need to think a bit more about my answer before I attempt to give it. I will conceed that as of right now all I can say is that your arguments against polygamy and incestuous marriage would not hold up against a determined and vocal minority clamboring to secure their "civil rights". They aren't very persuasive political reasons, but they do reflect adequate legal reasons given the nature of the distinction being made. I wouldn't want to use those against a mob of incest supporters, but I'd use them in court were I tasked with defending the governmental distinction.

Suddenly, I'd like to leave you with this thought. It is not really incumbent upon my side of the argument to explain why we should refuse to allow homosexual marriage. On our side we have a well worn status quo. On your side you need to propose good reasons why as a society we would be better off changing this status quo. Again, I post Shermer's ideas on "Provisional Ethics":


Therefore,...if the issue of homosexual marriage can pass the test of Provisional Ethics (and it may) then I will (since I agree with Shermer's conclusions) have to find myself on your side of the issue. Therefore, my mind remains open even though I do love to play Devil's Advocate on this issue. I personally do not begrudge gay individuals their happiness. I do however, find myself to be disgusted by the whole "culture war" mentality of the "gay lobby" and it's strange agenda.

Regards,
-z

There are two discussions going on here, and your final point relates nicely to one of them.

The first is whether legal recogniton of gay marriages are something we as a society want. In that regard you are correct that the burden comes from the side seeking change. I haven't really worried too much about this argument, as my position is that if we are doing what is best then government should get out of the buisness of rewards and punishments based on marital status. All marriage rights and such can be done via contract and estate avenues having nothing to do with traditional notions of romantic love.

The second discussion is more (suprise) legalistic. Does the government have the right to favor one group with a benefit it denies to another group. The answer is absent a legitimate governmental reason, no, they can't.

When we are judging the legitimacy of a governmental function, the status quo is not relevant. We are not looking to create or establish any new concepts or ideas, rather we are applying existing concepts of fair government to the policies of that government. Thus, once it is shown that a distiction in being made, the distinction can be defended by presenting a legitimate reason for it.

That is where I'm coming from when I am looking for a reason for excluding gays from government recognition of marriage.

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Much of psychology is based upon the opinions and perceptions of the psychologist. That is not science. What it is is observation. It's no more a science than anthropology is. It's a philosophy based on observation dressed up in a lab coat. But hey, that's just my opinion. I like my science hard.

Philosophy is not science. By incorporating the two we get soft-science, and it's handmaiden pseudo-science.

So since you are of a differing opinion, tell me why mental health professionals reclassified homosexuality? If it is science, how can they one day have a recognised mental illness, and the next day by virtue of the change in societal attitudes and the stroke of a pen, no longer have a mental illness?

Could any real, hard science be manipulated thusly? Well?

-z

I think you are incorrect on this point, however, I am not sure I am the best person to explain why.

Rather than derail this thread, I'm going to post this as a thread in the Science forum and see what the response is.

Psychology - a "proper" science (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35781)

Graham

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by hammegk



Since you favor change, can you at least postulate a 2nd generation societal, not individual benefit accruing by same sex marriage?

I can postulate one.

1) Children are best off in a stable enviroment with loving parents. Such children are less likely to commit crimes then those raised in unstable enviroments or the custody of the state.

2) Hetrosexuals produce more children than at present can be raised in stable enviroments.

3) Allowing homosexual marriage will increase the number of available stable enviroments for the raising of these children.

Since a larger percentage of children are raised in loving, stable homes will result in fewer crimes, and homosexuals will create more loving, stable, homes...

Gay marriage will lead to less crime.

I could postulate a few more long term benefits. Such as the added chances for positive adoption enviroments helping sway mothers from abortion towards giving the baby up for adoption, thus reducing the abortion rate.

I could also postulate a sharp decrease in AIDS and other STDs based on the idea that societal recognition of gay marriage will promote monogamous relationships, thus reducing to some degree casual gay sex.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Hey, I'm still waiting for that rational, non-Jesus reason to deny marriage equality to homosexuals.

So far we have:

1) "Marriage isn't a right."
Rebuttal: felons can get married after they've served their time, or occasionally while in prison, even though their right to vote may have been rescinded.

2) "I'm a traditionalist."
Rebuttal: so then polygamy is fine and dandy with you, right? And that grand old tradition of worshipping invisible men who live in outer space?

3) "It'll lead to goat-marriage!"
Rebuttal: Goats are not humans and cannot consent.

Seriously. Skeptic, rikzilla - you're smart, right? Come up with something.


1-Just cause felons can do it doesnt make it a right. Felons can drive too. Why Im sure a judge could bar a felon from marrying if he had a reason (the felon was a professional green card husband). Marriage is created by statute. It can be un-created if the legislators chose too. The legislators can NOT uncreate Freedom of Speech. Now thats a right.

2- Tardtionally marraige is for 2 people to make babies (isnt that whythey required blood tests? To make sure people were clean beforethey married?). A same sex couple can not make babies together. Perhaps an eqal protection complaint against mother nature is in order.:p

3- The goats may be able to speak, but their eyes say "yes!" :p

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by rikzilla
First...what the hell is your avatar anyway? It's disturbing to me! What? A dancing bucket o' chicken?? It seems a bit gayly queer. (In the traditional sense of those words that is...) ;)

Seriously man,...for the 5th time,....marriage is extant as a union between one man and one woman. It's up to you to tell us how larger society is better off by changing it. Remember your argument must be "overwhelming"....since it's the extant circumstance you wish to...ahem..."whelm". Good Luck.

First of all, it's a cup. It's now clear to me that you must be about thirteen or fourteen years old if you don't recognize old school intermission graphics. (http://www.drive-infilm.com/35_intermission.htm) Supporting that hypothesis is the insinuation that said graphic is gay*, which is so stupid it practically drools.

Secondly, society is better served by having all citizens treated as equals. Would you and hammegk be happier living in a time when your Pure Aryan Hetero Weak-Chinned Good Looks were all that you needed to succeed?

I'd say that equality for all is pretty damn overwhelming.

*and yeah, I get the weak joke you're making.

[Skeptic]

Firstly, behaviorism isn't a 'crackpot social'-ism"

You're quite right, I shouldn't have used that example.

What I had in mind was the "blank slate" view of human nature (man SOLELY a consequence of his enviorment) that some extreme behaviorists claim. It is this idea--human nature can be radically changed by society--which caused fascists, communists, and others utopian catastrophes.

if your argument is that what society wants isn't always legitimate, then how do you conclude that society's rejection of gay marriage is legitimate?

Because society can be right on some things and wrong on others. Society was wrong to accept slavery (and right to change its mind and reject slavery), but right to oppose murder. I think opposing gay marriages is one of those things society is correct about.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Suddenly





Gay marriage will lead to less crime.

.

Not if it continues to be illegal, it is all ready causing a crime wave in S.F. and the police are overwhelmed because they are doing nothing about it. Or could be as it is not harming anyone and they have better things to do...

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Tmy
2- Tardtionally marraige is for 2 people to make babies (isnt that whythey required blood tests? To make sure people were clean beforethey married?). A same sex couple can not make babies together. Perhaps an eqal protection complaint against mother nature is in order.:p

"Tarditionally" is right. For the last time, by your logic, infertile couples or those who choose to remain childless should not be able to wed.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


"Tarditionally" is right. For the last time, by your logic, infertile couples or those who choose to remain childless should not be able to wed.

They probably shouldnt. But since they are such a minor % of those who do wed, the govt probably figured "why bother".

If you REALLY want to treat everyone equally, then youd ban marraige all together cause what it does is create inequality. (Im up for that!!!)


Foolish gays, dont they know that NON-marriage is bliss. YOu get married and guess what, YOUR MARRIED!!!!!! If that aint bad enough theres also the plesant divorce proceedings that you mayt run into.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think opposing gay marriages is one of those things society is correct about.

And that is because on the day that homosexuals achieve marriage equality, what happens? What? Who is harmed? How are they harmed?

Sure, you think it, but call me a skeptic, Skeptic, if I won't take your word on it. Surely if this is so dangerous and hideous, there must be a reason that we must prevent marriage equality at all costs.

If we are going to harm people who want to have their union recognized in the eyes of the state, who want to be able to visit their partner in the hospital, who want the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy, then there must be some benefit that outweighs the harm done to those couples.

What is the benefit here?

What are we protecting?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


And that is because on the day that homosexuals achieve marriage equality, what happens? What? Who is harmed? How are they harmed?

Sure, you think it, but call me a skeptic, Skeptic, if I won't take your word on it. Surely if this is so dangerous and hideous, there must be a reason that we must prevent marriage equality at all costs.

If we are going to harm people who want to have their union recognized in the eyes of the state, who want to be able to visit their partner in the hospital, who want the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy, then there must be some benefit that outweighs the harm done to those couples.

What is the benefit here?

What are we protecting?

Whos harmed? How about our family courts. There already overwhelmed. Now we can add a bunch more divorce bullshiznit!

And wont someone think of the children (Mrs. Lovejoy voice). Then gays could adopt just as easily, now your bringing in some 3rd party child into your situation wh/o their consent!

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whos harmed? How about our family courts. There already overwhelmed. Now we can add a bunch more divorce bullshiznit!

You can't be serious.

Originally posted by Tmy
And wont someone think of the children (Mrs. Lovejoy voice). Then gays could adopt just as easily, now your bringing in some 3rd party child into your situation wh/o their consent!

Into whose situation?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by SRW


Not if it continues to be illegal, it is all ready causing a crime wave in S.F. and the police are overwhelmed because they are doing nothing about it. Or could be as it is not harming anyone and they have better things to do...

Gays actually getting married is not a crime in itself. Unless there is a specific criminal statute dealing with such conduct, which I doubt.

What you have in SF is a governmental official making a value judgment that the law allows marriage licenses to be distributed to gays. All officials swear to uphold the constitution, and absent clear specific authority otherwise each official can decide that enforcing a particular law would violate the constitution.

As long as that is a good faith decision made in the execution of legal duties, there is no crime...

There's also a constitution in the state of California that I swore to uphold just 39 days ago," he said Tuesday. "The bottom line is I took an oath of office and read that constitution, and nowhere in there did it say that I should discriminate."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/18/samesex.marriage/index.html


The marriages going on are not criminal acts.

[WildCat]

My answer to the question in the thread title is this: Just ignore it. Give up the fight. Gay marriage won't affect your own life for better or worse. MYOB. Really, just stop. Get over it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Graham


I think you are incorrect on this point, however, I am not sure I am the best person to explain why.

Rather than derail this thread, I'm going to post this as a thread in the Science forum and see what the response is.

Psychology - a "proper" science (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35781)

Graham

Good idea. I'd like to see what folks there think about this too. :)

-z

[Silicon]

Allow me to present some more data to the people here who claim that homosexuality is a choice, and yet refuse to back up that claim.

Or challenge the obverse, and still refuse to do the homework. I'll do it for you.


Basically, studies show that there is a strong genetic predisposition to being gay. In addition, there seem to be unknown environmental or biochemical factors which "lock in" that preference, either early in life or in the womb.

It's not 100% genetic. But the evidence is overwhelming that people are biologically wired for their sexual preference.

And, in fact, why is that such a surprise? Do you really think evolution would leave sexual attraction, the most important behavioral action for the survival of the species, to mere social behavioral norms?

No, it's CERTAINLY biological in nature.


Why is it so hard to believe that the genetic switch sometimes gets switched in the other direction? Just as males have nipples, why can't males ALSO have the female sexual drive?

In fact, homosexuality IS in the genes.

How do we know? Studies of identical twins seperated at birth and raised by different families, without later contact.



This type of test has been performed by various groups of researchers. The first such study found that 100% of the second twins were also gay. But this study was based on a very small sample size; the results it turned out to be a statistical fluke. Subsequent, larger, tests all reported that somewhat in excess of 50% of the second twins are also gay. This indicates that genes play a very significant role in determining sexual orientation. however, the number is not 100%. This indicates that environment plays a role in determining sexual orientation. It might be an event in the womb, or in early childhood. Other studies, explained below, show that a person's eventual sexual orientation is determined before they reach school age.




Quoted from ReligiousTolerance.org

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

That's a summary of multiple studies, done by multiple teams over decades. They continue to show the same corrolation.



Some more studies:


Studies based on fraternal birth order:

In the mid 1990s, researcher Ray Blanchard studied families in which there is a male child with a homosexual orientation. He found that a gay man is more likely to have older brothers than older sisters. He found that the probability that a male child will grow up as a homosexual increases by about 33% for each older brother that he has. Blanchard suggests that this effect may be caused by an immune response within the mother during pregnancy.


Studies based on existing families:

Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University studied the sexual orientation of male siblings raised together since birth. 9 He found that if one was homosexual then the chance of their sibling being homosexual was:
Fifty two percent for their identical twin, who shared 100% of the same genes. This result was essentially identical to the separated identical twin studies described below. It shows that if one identical male twin is gay, then the other twin will probably also be gay -- whether raised in the same family or raised by different families.
Twenty-two percent for their non-identical twin; they share half of the same genes
About 10% for adopted or non-twin brothers; they share none to half of the same genes.

This study also points to a very strong genetic factor at the time of conception. This type of study tends to have the same flaws as in the identical twin studies described below. The second twin might not be willing to admit to being homosexual. One sibling could be bisexual and identify themselves to the interviewer as a homosexual; the other could also be bisexual and be behaving as a homosexual.

J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard and others conducted a similar study of female identical twins raised in the same family, in which one twin identified herself as a lesbian. 14 The results showed that 48% (34 out of 71) of their twins also said that she is homosexual. Again, a very strong genetic component is indicated.



Direct study of genes:

Dean Hamer, and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute collected family data from the families of 114 gay men. 15 They found out which, if any, of their siblings, parents, cousins, uncles etc. were also gay. They quickly determined that homosexuality runs in families. By itself, these results show nothing. They might indicate that homosexuality is genetically caused, or might show that it is caused by upbringing, by some hormonal levels in the womb or some other environmental factor that appears in some family lines more than other.

Further studies showed that "There were increased rates of gay people among family members genetically related to each other even when raised apart in different households." This reinforced the possibility that genetic factors might cause people to become gay. However, these observations were not conclusive; they were merely suggestive.

What proved the genetic nature of "gayness" was a pedigree test. This type of study examines the sexual orientation of the ancestors of many gay adults - both on their father's and mother's side. Some possible results from a pedigree study on Hamer's sample of gay adults would be:

1. An approximately equal number of gays might be found on the mothers' side of the family, when compared to the fathers' side. Some gays may have many gay ancestors on their mother's side, whereas other gays may see the same effect on their father's side. But when all the results were lumped together, if the total numbers would be about equal, then the results could point to:
"Gayness" being caused by environmental factors, or
"Gayness" being caused by some gene on a chromosome other than the X chromosome.
2. A much larger number of gays might be found on the mother's side of the family. This would show conclusively that not only was the gene passed genetically, but that it is located somewhere on the X chromosome - since men always get their X chromosome only from their mother. This is called the "maternal effect." It is well known in genetics.

The researchers found that the second result was observed. A gay male from the population that Hamer studied would notice that more of his mother's brothers will be gay than his father's brothers; so too with the various classes of maternal cousins when compared to his paternal cousins. Thus, much male homosexuality is caused by a gene on the X chromosome. Hamer went on to find the approximate location on the chromosome where the gay-causing gene was located. He found that many of his subjects had an identical sequence on the Xq28 region of their X chromosome. This shows the approximate location of the "gay gene." Eventually, it might be found that a group of interacting genes (including one in this region) might determine sexual orientation in males. The statistical "p" value is a measure of the significance of a test: the probability that it could have happened by chance. P values less than 0.01 (1%) are considered very significant. The Hamer study had a P factor of 0.00001, and so is considered extremely reliable.



If it's genetically caused, why isn't there 100% corollation?


The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty knowledge of the inner workings of genetics. Genes have a property called penetrance, which is a measure of their effectiveness, or power. Consider the gene for Huntington's Disease. It has two alleles (varieties). One is a very rare allele will causes the person to fall victim to the disease. The other, much more common, variety prevents the disease. This particular gene is 100% penetrant. If you were born with the allele that causes the disease, then you are certain to develop the disease later in life. The penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 (early onset) diabetes is only 30%. So, if one identical twin has the allele that causes diabetes, then the other twin will have the same allele. Both will have a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Both twins will have the identical allele, but it may or may not be triggered by something in the environment, and cause diabetes. Similarly, if one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has over a 60% chance of also developing the disorder. If one twin develops bipolar affective disorder, the other twin's chances are about 60%.

One theory that fits the available observations is that the penetrance of the "gay gene(s)" is approximately 67%. That causes half of the males with the gene(s) become gay. "There could be hundreds of millions of straight men walking around with this gay allele but who are straight simply because it didn't penetrate" In the case of the "gay gene(s)" perhaps 10% or more of all males have the allele that causes homosexuality, but in many cases is the allele not "triggered".

Assuming that the penetrance of the "gay gene" or "gay genes" is 67%, then one would expect that if one fraternal twin was gay that the other would also be gay about 22% of the time. This number also agrees with studies of families with twins.

Nobody knows what triggers the allele. It might be some event happening in the womb, like an abnormal amount or irregular timing of hormones. It might be some event during early childhood. Either way, it is outside the control of the individual and his family of origin.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm





Now, you could do what the religious woo-woo's do when presented with scientific evidence that refutes some item of religious dogma, they suppose a vast conspiracy in the scientific community.

But here we have only a small sample of the numerous studies which have shown a biological cause for homosexuality. Look into them. Read the studies. Understand the science behind them.


Or you can just continue to argue from ignorance, or continue to treat this as some alternative lifestyle choice, as the religious folks have termed it in faux-PC speak.

Being gay is not a choice.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Gays actually getting married is not a crime in itself. Unless there is a specific criminal statute dealing with such conduct, which I doubt.

What you have in SF is a governmental official making a value judgment that the law allows marriage licenses to be distributed to gays. All officials swear to uphold the constitution, and absent clear specific authority otherwise each official can decide that enforcing a particular law would violate the constitution.

As long as that is a good faith decision made in the execution of legal duties, there is no crime...



http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/18/samesex.marriage/index.html


The marriages going on are not criminal acts.

You are correct of course I was not being serious, I forgot to use the proper smiley to show Irony :th:

[SRW]

Originally posted by Silicon
Being gay is not a choice.


Thank you for that research, that is what I though but was not sure.

Based on this I would say that the ban on gay Marriage should be lifted. It seems like the only moral choice.

[Silicon]

Here's some more scientific studies for folks to look into.


Laura Allen, Melissa Hines, James Shryne, and Roger Gorski, "Two Sexually Dimorphic Cell Groups in the Human Brain," Journal of Neuroscience 9 (2)(1989): 497-506.


J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (December 1991): 1089-96. (This is the best known of the studies for concordance rates in twins. There are others.)


J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, et al. "Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (March 1993):217-223.


R. C. Friedman, F. Wollesen, and R. Tendler, "Psychological Development and Blood Levels of Sex Steroids in Male Identical Twins of Divergent Sexual Orientation," Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders 163 (1976): 282-288.

Dean H. Hamer, Stella Hu, Victoria Magnuson, Nan Hu, Angela M.L. Pattatucci,"A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science 261 (July 16, 1993): 321-7.

Dean H. Hamer and Angela Pattatucci et. al. "Linkage Between Sexual Orientation and Chromosome Xq28 in Males But Not in Females," Nature Genetics 11 (November 1995).

Simon LeVay "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (August 30, 1991): 1034-7.

Heino Meyer-Bahlburg, "Psychoendocrine Research on Sexual Orientation; Current Status and Future Options," Progress in Brain Research 61 (1984):375-98.

D. F. Swaab and M. A. Hofman, "An Enlarged Suprachiasmatic Nucleus in Homosexual Men," Brain Research 537 (1990): 141-148.


Frederick L. Whitam, Milton Diamond, and James Martin, in"Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets" (Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 [3] (1993), arrive at a 65.8% concordance for homosexuality for MZ twins and 30.4% for DZ twins. (MZ pairswere 34 male, 4 female.) There were also three sets of triplets; in two ofthe sets, there was a MZ pair concordant for homosexuality and one DZ sibling, who was heterosexual, while the MZ triplet pair were all three concordant for homosexuality. The figures slightly differ from those found byBailey and Pillard, but the percentage ratios, which is the fundamentally important point, are almost identical. More extensive work will be needed to establish precise percentages for MZ and DZ concordance. Arriving at a concordance figure for MZ twins for any trait presents difficulties, primarily due to the differences between pair-wise versus proband-wise concordance measurements. Proband-wise concordance always inflates the true concordance, so a researcher must know the population base rate of the trait. (Obviously, the lower the population frequency, the more robust a particular rate appears). Also, in proband-wise concordance, a twin and a co-twin can, due to the logic of the method, be counted as two concordant pairs. However, proband-wise concordance carries some statistical advantages.)



And here's some sociological studies too:



Evelyn Hooker, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual," Journal of Projective Techniques 21 (1957): 18. The theory of a connection between sexual molestation and homosexual orientation was studied in the 1950s and 1970s and, no correlation being found, was dispensed with. Data has, in fact, established that heterosexuals are more likely to molest children than homosexuals. See work of Charlotte Patterson, University of Virginia.

Lesbians' kids develop normally

April 4, 1997 WASHINGTON (AP) - Children born to lesbian couples through artificial insemination are emotionally healthy and well-adjusted, according to three studies released Thursday.

http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/chldrn.htm

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Much of psychology is based upon the opinions and perceptions of the psychologist. That is not science. What it is is observation. It's no more a science than anthropology is. It's a philosophy based on observation dressed up in a lab coat. But hey, that's just my opinion. I like my science hard.

There is science in psychology, in that there are practioners who use the scientific method. the problem is that there are those who do noy use science, in many fields, I don't suppose you have heard of neuro-biology or any of the hard science psychology. Then there are the behaviorists and the cognitive type, most of which have a very strong scientific basis. And then there are well, people like Titus Rivas.

Your ignorance of anthroplogy is rather amazing as well, it uses as much science and guess work as physics. The main problem in anthroplogy is the amateurs who muck around in the field.


Philosophy is not science. By incorporating the two we get soft-science, and it's handmaiden pseudo-science.

You left out social darwinism!


So since you are of a differing opinion, tell me why mental health professionals reclassified homosexuality?

Back off zilla, your ignorance is showing, the writimg of the DSM is not a scientific model in the least and the history of it is rather complex. It is about as scientific as the 'main sequence' description of stars. The DSM is meant to be a statistical tool for helping clinicians get a handle on labeling people, They also did away with "Passive Agressive Personality" and "Multiple Personality Syndrome", the scientific end of psychology has little to do with the way the DSM is composed. And it is political process to say the least.
The DSM is a useful tool, because it points to the nature and treatment of the disorder.

Paraphillias are still in the DSM, however , they dropped the "Religous Whacko" category!

If it is science, how can they one day have a recognised mental illness, and the next day by virtue of the change in societal attitudes and the stroke of a pen, no longer have a mental illness?

This must be hyperbole because it is like asking why doctors don't use leeches anymore.(Except is very special cases)


Could any real, hard science be manipulated thusly? Well?

-z

Why don't you ask the President?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon

Being gay is not a choice.

Requesting societal approbation for aberrant (and what I at least would expect remain private) sexual behavior is a choice.

Next time a hetero is forced to perform homosex against the will, I'll buy the comparison to slavery; i.e. damn that's Wrong.

Also please advise how one's behavior can mask the fact that an individual possesses negroid characteristics (Yup, skin color is one of those characteristics ... but there are others that are also apparent); cause I also agree that different treatment based solely on those characteristics can be rationally defined as (illegal)discrimination.


Suddenly; good points raised pro; care to balance them against the cons, and answer to yourself which side of the ethics would you, in your gut, prefer to be arguing?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by hammegk



Suddenly; good points raised pro; care to balance them against the cons, and answer to yourself which side of the ethics would you, in your gut, prefer to be arguing?

Care to point out a "con" that doesn't invove simple cultural or religious factors? So far I have seen "just because" and "ewww" as the points against.

How is gay marriage going to hurt society as a whole? None of this circular moral standards garbage, I want claims of real harm similar to the concrete benefits I theorized.

I am 100% for government making no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I'd rather they get out of the whole business, but if they are going to be in the relationship business, they need to stop baseless discrimination.

I'm beginning to believe all of this "best for the children" noise coming from the opponents to gay marriage is simple cynical pandering and not real concern. Unless somehow having a child grow up in a safe prosperous loving home with two parents that happen to be the same gender is somehow worse than having that same child grow up as a ward of the state.

"What about the children" indeed...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Care to point out a "con" that doesn't invove simple cultural or religious factors?
Sure. Undeserved access to retirement benefits private and public.

And I don't believe that you cannot think of several 'cons' on your own. I asked about your personal ethics, not the legal variety.


How is gay marriage going to hurt society as a whole? None of this circular moral standards garbage, I want claims of real harm similar to the concrete benefits I theorized.
Yeah, and I'd like to hear how gay marriage is going to help society at large. Oh, it feels good & I wanna helps a couple of individuals; on the raising kids issue, see my next sentence.

On popularizing homosex: Question, "What acts or ideas does a child emulate that have not been provided for his initial consideration? I'll posit -- nope no proof offered -- that the earlier and more intensely an idea is presented the more likely the child is to buy into it. I also posit that NOTHING will be even close to the bond a sane mother has for her own child. With dna results in hand even Dad will have added reason for empathy. You actually have faith that 2 females or 2 males can offer what a real family (should, yes it sure doesn't seem to too often) offers to kids?


Does the fact that you (or I) can rationalize nearly anything make it "moral" or change Wrong -- we seem to know it when we see it -- to Right?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, and I'd like to hear how gay marriage is going to help society at large.

Sure, no problem. Just like in heterosexual marriage it provides more stability in our society. It also encourages homosexuals, like heterosexuals, to be monogamous. Monogamy is an admirable trait in heterosexuals so it is admirable in homosexuals as well. Further, this monogamy should decrease the rate of STDs whcih is a public health issue.

That enough for you?

Lurker

[nightwind]

Read many of the post here. Don't really see how gays getting married is going to have any real negative effect on others.

So go ahead and do it.

The denial of rights to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation seems pretty ridiculous to me.

It seems that a lot of the resistance to this is from homophobes, and the hypocritical religious right, which go pretty much hand in hand.

Go ahead and let homosexuals have all of the rights of heterosexual couples including the right to marry.

If society falls apart, we can change things back, but I doubt that it will.

With all of the true evil in the world, this seems a minor issue to me.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Lurker


Sure, no problem. Just like in heterosexual marriage it provides more stability in our society. It also encourages homosexuals, like heterosexuals, to be monogamous. Monogamy is an admirable trait in heterosexuals so it is admirable in homosexuals as well. Further, this monogamy should decrease the rate of STDs whcih is a public health issue.

That enough for you?


As opposed to celibacy or solitary rather than mutual masturbation, which solve the same problems even more completely? I'm missing that societal stability you are suggesting; seems like an incredibly divisive issue to me.

If you buy the bald assertion that aberrant publicized sex is as societally valid as is implicit sex per a man-woman marriage, you got it licked (so to speak). I disagree.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by hammegk

Sure. Undeserved access to retirement benefits private and public. Undeserved? How exactly is that conclusion reached? How are heterosexual marriages OK in that regard but not gay marriages?

And I don't believe that you cannot think of several 'cons' on your own. I asked about your personal ethics, not the legal variety.
I have no problem with homosexual activity. None. It doesn't bother me. I may not want to partake in that sort of thing, but if that's what other people want, bully for them.


Yeah, and I'd like to hear how gay marriage is going to help society at large. Oh, it feels good & I wanna helps a couple of individuals; on the raising kids issue, see my next sentence.

On popularizing homosex: Question, "What acts or ideas does a child emulate that have not been provided for his initial consideration? I'll posit -- nope no proof offered -- that the earlier and more intensely an idea is presented the more likely the child is to buy into it. If indeed you are insinuating that a child raised by gay parents is more likely to be gay, then I would say 1) so what? and 2) if the sexual preference of the parents was determinative we would never have gays in the first place.

If you are not insinuating that then my response is: :confused: I also posit that NOTHING will be even close to the bond a sane mother has for her own child. With dna results in hand even Dad will have added reason for empathy. You actually have faith that 2 females or 2 males can offer what a real family (should, yes it sure doesn't seem to too often) offers to kids?
I don't think this stands up. Most gay parents adopt, but some could have children of at least one of the parents or given advances in technology perhaps both.

Comparing biological parents to adoptive parents is a different issue completely, and I'm not so sure it is a clear as you assume it is.

I see no reason gay adoptive parents would be any worse (or better) than a set of hetro parents.

But I can see how gay adoptive parents can offer more than state custody for a child, and that is the relevant comparison. Gays aren't going to take children from stable biological families, but they will take them from state custody.

So, would you rather be in a dark alley with a child that was 1) raised by the state in a boys home or 2) raised by loving and propserous gay men in a stable family enviroment?

Does the fact that you (or I) can rationalize nearly anything make it "moral" or change Wrong -- we seem to know it when we see it -- to Right?

Wrong. You seem to assume a sort of immorality to homosexual behaviour. I think that is unfounded and without rational basis. I theorized where this morality comes from in an earlier response to Rikzilla, and I showed where I disagree with the concept of sexual perversion in general.

I'll take rational thinking w/r/t ethics and morality over arbitrary acceptance of dogma every time.

[hammegk]

I think our most basic disagreement could be characterized as:

Suddenly (etal) -- morality resembles a box of matchstick in orderly alignment, and removing one or reversing it is irrelevant.

hammegk (etal) -- morality resembles a multitude of jackstraws after they've been dropped in a pile, and touching any one of them may have unwanted, possibly chaotic, consequences.

And imo measurements of the societal value of moral systems occur over "longer" rather "shorter" periods of time.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by hammegk


Requesting societal approbation for aberrant (and what I at least would expect remain private) sexual behavior is a choice.

So what you're saying is that while you don't have any problem with Negroes, it's the uppity ones that are fighting for their rights that you disagree with.

[hammegk]

I neither said, nor implied, any such thing (you bigot you -- you surely meant Afro-American).

Good try though..... ;)

[LFTKBS]

Uh, if we haven't been successfull in convincing hammegk that nonwhites are not inferior to whites, I doubt we're changing his mind on the "homosex" issue.

[hammegk]

But I agree that nonwhites are not inferior to whites. Would you also state that no culture is inferior to another, iff you want to evaluate culture as it plays an effective role in today's 1st world?

[Roadtoad]

Geez, what I miss when I'm on the road...

Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago said today he'd have no problem supporting gay marriage. When someone countered, saying that it would debase marriage as an institution, he retorted that this had already taken place. After all, look at the divorce rate in the U.S.

I could add, look at the divorce rate among those who claim marriage is the cornerstone of our civilization, the Christian Right. Oddly enough the divorce rate among that group is equal to the national average.

Something to think about.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Suddenly

There are two discussions going on here, and your final point relates nicely to one of them.

The first is whether legal recogniton of gay marriages are something we as a society want. In that regard you are correct that the burden comes from the side seeking change. I haven't really worried too much about this argument, as my position is that if we are doing what is best then government should get out of the buisness of rewards and punishments based on marital status. All marriage rights and such can be done via contract and estate avenues having nothing to do with traditional notions of romantic love.

The second discussion is more (suprise) legalistic. Does the government have the right to favor one group with a benefit it denies to another group. The answer is absent a legitimate governmental reason, no, they can't.

When we are judging the legitimacy of a governmental function, the status quo is not relevant. We are not looking to create or establish any new concepts or ideas, rather we are applying existing concepts of fair government to the policies of that government. Thus, once it is shown that a distiction in being made, the distinction can be defended by presenting a legitimate reason for it.

That is where I'm coming from when I am looking for a reason for excluding gays from government recognition of marriage.

I see. I'm not surprised, nor disappointed by your "legalistic" response. But let me ask you this, what informs the law? Let me as a non-lawyer attempt to tackle the question, and you can tell me where I've gone wrong. First is the Constitution, but as far as I know the Constitution does not address homosexual marriage. Or marriage at all for that matter. (Would our fore-fathers have even imagined homosexual marriage as an issue?) Second is the people through their representatives who make the law. Third is your realm, the courtroom where law is interpretted.

Your second point only addresses the third point I make above. If the Constitution remains silent on the issue then it is ultimately up to the people to enact the kinds of laws they as a society want. This is of course why only certain state and local jurisdictions allow civil unions, or homosexual marriages....and also why most do not. In absence of a Constitutional amendment, it is obviously up to the local jurisdictions to decide for themselves. Personally I think this is the way it should be. I am not personally in favor of a Constitutional amendment to codify what looks so much like a form of discrimination into so sacred a document.

But saying this let me tell you what I personally feel. Although I can offer no good reasons to disallow these marriages I still feel it is damaging to our culture to allow a minority to force their disgusting lifestyle down our throats. This is my bias. I'm not an old guy, nor am I young. (44).... But I'm old enough to remember how American culture presented itself 40 years ago. What I remember most was that there was almost no overt vulgarity. None allowed on the airwaves....none apparent in most daily social situations. Nowadays you get to see the finger from strangers on the highway,...or JJ's boob on tv,....or gays not just quietly living their lives in peace but flaunting their, once well recognised "perversion", in the street, on tv,....and now in the church and city hall.

Honestly I've about had enough. I'm pissed....and it has very little to do with gay individuals....it has to do with being force-fed their culture and political agenda against my will. So even though I admit there are some decent reasons for allowing this change in the marriage law, I'm still against it on general principle.

I thank you Suddenly for helping me to examine this issue in ways I'd never thought of before. I've examined my own reasons why I dislike gay marriage, and it has nothing at all to do with any animosity toward gay individuals. I am as touched as anyone else when seeing pictures of those people in SF and their obvious happiness. I truly would not begrudge one person his happiness. But that's not really the question. The question is: "what is best for society as a whole?" The jury is still out on that one. But remember, the jury is the American people....and this is an election year.

-z

[LFTKBS]

"The question is: "what is best for society as a whole?"

Rik, I appreciate your honesty, and I have to say I respect you a lot more for that last post.

Now: which of the following do you personally think marriage equality will raise?

a) murder rate, b) drug use, c) violent crime, d) terrorist attacks, e) swearing on TV, f) nudity on TV, g) giving the finger, h) all of the above.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by me
[B]Firstly, behaviorism isn't a 'crackpot social'-ism"

Subsequently posted by Skeptic
You're quite right, I shouldn't have used that example.
Um... thank you?

What I had in mind was the "blank slate" view of human nature (man SOLELY a consequence of his enviorment) that some extreme behaviorists claim.
It's not extreme behaviorists who claim that. It's a tenet of behaviorism that things like mind and human nature cannot be tested in any kind of scientific way, so they concentrate on behaviour which can be tested, and ignore the rest. For instance, John Watson, grandaddy of behaviorism, said:
Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior. Introspection forms no essential part of its methods, nor is the scientific value of its data dependent on the readiness with which they lend themselves to interpretation in terms of consciousness.
Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh13wa.html)
Watson most famously said:
" Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select-doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors." Source (http://www.indiana.edu/~edpsych/topics~/behavior.html)
And from this work, we know that environment plays a huge part in our personalities, almost to the exclusion of other factors, because we're learning beings and can monitor and adapt our behaviour in hundreds of different ways. because of this, talking about "human nature" as this thing which is unaltered across geography and history is no more meaningful than talking about god(s) or pink unicorns dancing on the rings of Saturn.
Skeptic: It is this idea--human nature can be radically changed by society--which caused fascists, communists, and others utopian catastrophes.
Sorry, but that doesn't follow; Watson is recognised as the first behaviorist, and he didn't start the Behaviorist school until 1913, by which time Marxism and communism were already pretty popular. Before that, the major psychological paradigm was psychoanalysis of Freud and his ilk, which is almost the complete opposite of behaviorism.

(German) Fascism misappropriated a number of Nietzsche's ideas which were written in the late 19th century; behaviorism is closer to Wittgensteinian philosophy anyway.

Me: if your argument is that what society wants isn't always legitimate, then how do you conclude that society's rejection of gay marriage is legitimate?

Skeptic: Because society can be right on some things and wrong on others. Society was wrong to accept slavery (and right to change its mind and reject slavery), but right to oppose murder. I think opposing gay marriages is one of those things society is correct about.
But if society is wrong on some things, how do you know that it's right on this? Do you have anything more than a gut feeling about this?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
"The question is: "what is best for society as a whole?"

Rik, I appreciate your honesty, and I have to say I respect you a lot more for that last post.

Now: which of the following do you personally think marriage equality will raise?

a) murder rate, b) drug use, c) violent crime, d) terrorist attacks, e) swearing on TV, f) nudity on TV, g) giving the finger, h) all of the above.

:big:


all of the above of course!

Mine is the old refrain of the terminally stuck-in-the-mud I guess. I don't like the way society is changing...but then again, maybe I'm wrong. :confused: Of course the gay agenda once turned it's sights on the military and for all their efforts got a "don't ask, don't tell" policy inacted. Seems to me they could have saved their breath. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

-z

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Hey, I'm here to learn and grow my friend. Please show me where I have misunderstood Shermer's work. Saying I'm wrong is easy....showing me where I've erred would be more instructive to us all.
When I feel someone is taking cheap shots at me (re: your "If you have to ask this question..." comment) I tend to respond in kind; not exactly the moral high ground I admit. Anyway, Silicon highlighted the problem with your interpretation when s/he said: "I think you have simplified the issue down to one argument, which seems to be basically 'majority rule'", and this is not what Shermer is proposing; he's suggesting a kind of metaphysical measure to test a moral judgement (see his discussion on abortion), and as such, what is "true for most people in most circumstances" is not what they all want, but what can be shown to be true for most people in most circumstances.

Look,...I'm not into repeating myself...please go back and look at my earlier posts. Your question is rhetorical, you know the answer....I have no time for stupid games.

-z
:rolleyes: Let's try Shermer's measure here; do you think if I knew what you considered to be the moral basis of marriage that I'd bother asking you? I have my own understanding of the moral basis, but this doesn't preclude gay marriage; yours does, which is why I'm asking. Look, if you've addressed this already, my apologies for my inattentiveness and please direct me to your post which deals with this.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BillyTK

When I feel someone is taking cheap shots at me (re: your "If you have to ask this question..." comment) I tend to respond in kind; not exactly the moral high ground I admit. Anyway, Silicon highlighted the problem with your interpretation when s/he said: "I think you have simplified the issue down to one argument, which seems to be basically 'majority rule'", and this is not what Shermer is proposing; he's suggesting a kind of metaphysical measure to test a moral judgement (see his discussion on abortion), and as such, what is "true for most people in most circumstances" is not what they all want, but what can be shown to be true for most people in most circumstances.

Well that's obviously not exactly the way I interpreted it. The way I see it Shermer has developed a great theory for understanding human morality. I doubt if he ever thought the morality of a given populace could be changed in fundamental ways in a short period of time by "testing" our moral choices. But I do agree that putting our moral choices, individually, to the test is a fine way to gain greater personal insight. Realistically, morals can and do evolve in a populace over time but societal attitudes, especially in a democracy, ARE formed by the majority.


:rolleyes: Let's try Shermer's measure here; do you think if I knew what you considered to be the moral basis of marriage that I'd bother asking you? I have my own understanding of the moral basis, but this doesn't preclude gay marriage; yours does, which is why I'm asking. Look, if you've addressed this already, my apologies for my inattentiveness and please direct me to your post which deals with this.

Well here's what you originally said:
<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870322021"></iframe>

So you said the moral basis, not my moral basis.
Whereas to me the moral basis is well known to all. It was my understanding that you wanted me to quote the Bible so that you could attack my position as any good heretic would. ;) And the Bible is certainly a large part of the historical basis, but not just Christianity...lots of other religions including Taoism reject homosexuality, and by extension homosexual marriage, divorce, and dog-owning. But morality is not just religion based, some of it comes from our evolutionary survival as a species. You know, the ideas that informed religious thought before there were well organised religions.

ooops...gotta go...

-z

[Silicon]

And my moral basis is this:

If I were in the other person's shoes, would I get equal treatment to what I get now?

Assuming that the other person is similarly situated to me, ie not a convicted felon, etc.


So for me, the question is, is it easy or hard for me to sympathize with my mother-in-law's situation? Can I look at my daughter's grandmother and her love for her partner every single day, and how close they both are to our lives, and still live with myself if I had to lie to myself and deny that they have every emotional bond and strength that my wife and I share?

For me, the question and its answer are beyond obvious. They are certainly married. Their marriage is much stronger than my mother's first two marriages that ended in divorce, or my father's first two. Their marriage is as strong and healthy and as loving as my own.

How can I NOT want the same for them that we have? How can I tell them, "no, your love does not equal my love."?

That is my moral code. Does my answer to the question come from love and respect for the other person, or from a desire to distance myself from them? Can I say "there but for the grace of God go I"?

As we know (see multiple posts above) gayness is inherited. It's a biological trait. (Actually, scientifically, it's a whole range along a spectrum, but certainly biological in origin.)

If there were a quirk in my birth order, or if I inherited a certain trait through my mother's line, I would be in the same boat as a good deal of my family. So certainly, I can see myself in the same shoes as others in my family.

The bible? I don't think that's a good judge of modern morality.

After all, Jesus spoke out multiple times against divorce, and He never once spoke out against gay marriage.

But which one is common within even religious people today, and which one is illegal?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Silicon
And my moral basis is this:

If I were in the other person's shoes, would I get equal treatment to what I get now?

Assuming that the other person is similarly situated to me, ie not a convicted felon, etc.

Sure you would. You have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, as does your MIL. Your MIL never lost that right. She does not though, have the right to marry someone of her same sex,...nor do you. So tell me, isn't the law treating you both equally?


So for me, the question is, is it easy or hard for me to sympathize with my mother-in-law's situation? Can I look at my daughter's grandmother and her love for her partner every single day, and how close they both are to our lives, and still live with myself if I had to lie to myself and deny that they have every emotional bond and strength that my wife and I share?

For me, the question and its answer are beyond obvious. They are certainly married. Their marriage is much stronger than my mother's first two marriages that ended in divorce, or my father's first two. Their marriage is as strong and healthy and as loving as my own.

I don't doubt your emotional response, or their emotional response. These emotions will exist and thrive with or without the state's sanction. The question is: "Is it in the best interest of larger society to promote and allow gay marriage?" My answer is maybe, but I doubt it.

How can I NOT want the same for them that we have? How can I tell them, "no, your love does not equal my love."?

That is my moral code. Does my answer to the question come from love and respect for the other person, or from a desire to distance myself from them? Can I say "there but for the grace of God go I"?

That's all fine to consider, but does it answer the real question? No, it doesn't. All people are different,...but all people are not in the process of having themselves declared "oppressed minorities". But what if they were? Aren't pedophiles also "oppressed minorities"?? (more oppressed than gays I'd venture) Can you muster the same emotional response for the "beauty" of Michael Jackson's love for little boys. Isn't he just about the most oppressed gay man in America??

As we know (see multiple posts above) gayness is inherited. It's a biological trait. (Actually, scientifically, it's a whole range along a spectrum, but certainly biological in origin.)

We have most certainly not established that.

From Science, 1994:


Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}





-z

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Sure you would. You have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex, as does your MIL. Your MIL never lost that right. She does not though, have the right to marry someone of her same sex,...nor do you. So tell me, isn't the law treating you both equally?
No, it is not.

Sure, you can ride the bus, as long as you are at the back.

Sure, you can get a drink of water, just go to that fountain over there.

Sure, you can go to school, but you have to go to that underfunded one over there.

Sure, you can get married - but not to someone that you are attracted to, fell in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with.

The question is: "Is it in the best interest of larger society to promote and allow gay marriage?" My answer is maybe, but I doubt it.
On what do you base these doubts? I would answer unequivocally that it is in the interests of society at large to allow gay marriages. I would also say that your question is not what should be asked. We should ask whether there is any justification for denying gay people the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. I have yet to see any justification.

We have most certainly not established that.
Agai, it simply doesn't matter if it is genetic, like race, or a choice, like religion. The discrimination is still wrong.

[Silicon]

RIK

We also haven't found the gene sequence for blue eyes or left-handedness,

But we know from twin studies that it certainly is genetic.


Did you not look at the twin study after twin study I listed above? With seperated at birth twins with no contact after birth?

Do you choose to ignore the scientific evidence? Or merely quote someone ten years ago who stated that we had as yet found no gay gene when looking at the DNA.

TEN YEARS AGO.

Nice.

We had barely even begun sequencing the Human Genome then.

Genetics is about more than just looking at DNA. Do you get that?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I see. I'm not surprised, nor disappointed by your "legalistic" response. But let me ask you this, what informs the law? Let me as a non-lawyer attempt to tackle the question, and you can tell me where I've gone wrong. First is the Constitution, but as far as I know the Constitution does not address homosexual marriage. Or marriage at all for that matter. (Would our fore-fathers have even imagined homosexual marriage as an issue?) Second is the people through their representatives who make the law. Third is your realm, the courtroom where law is interpretted.

Your second point only addresses the third point I make above. If the Constitution remains silent on the issue then it is ultimately up to the people to enact the kinds of laws they as a society want. This is of course why only certain state and local jurisdictions allow civil unions, or homosexual marriages....and also why most do not. In absence of a Constitutional amendment, it is obviously up to the local jurisdictions to decide for themselves. Personally I think this is the way it should be. I am not personally in favor of a Constitutional amendment to codify what looks so much like a form of discrimination into so sacred a document. The constirution is silent as to the subject matter but not as to the process of govenment. Now, what I am explaining is a massively simplified version of pretty well settled law, that government can't treat groups of people differently without reason. The quality of the reason needed is proportional to the 1) importance of the right and 2) kind of distinction. Voting and race scores very high. Marriage, even though not a necessary function, scores high on the rights scale. It is not clear where sexual preferrance rates, but it isn't very high. However, the more people make the vapid "sure gays can marry, just not each other" argument, the closer they come to the trap of making this a gender rather than a sexual preference issue, just as interracial marriage bans were considered a racial issue even though all races had the right to marry, just not each other.

These principles are universal and apply to all laws passed. While silence as to the issue in an applicible state constitution does give states the right to regulate as they see fit, the constitution still restricts the manner in which they may do so. One restriction is that when a law singles out a particular group, there needs to be an appropriate reason.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Silicon
RIK

We also haven't found the gene sequence for blue eyes or left-handedness,

But we know from twin studies that it certainly is genetic.


Did you not look at the twin study after twin study I listed above? With seperated at birth twins with no contact after birth?

Do you choose to ignore the scientific evidence? Or merely quote someone ten years ago who stated that we had as yet found no gay gene when looking at the DNA.

TEN YEARS AGO.

Nice.

We had barely even begun sequencing the Human Genome then.



Look,...I have no desire to piss you off. You are obviously emotionally close to this issue. I respect your feelings, but I still think you are wrong. I'm not ignoring scientific data, I'm just saying that this hypothesis of yours is still just that. If you have some clear evidence from scientists who have not only identified a "gay gene", but have had their work confirmed by their peers I'd like to see it. As far as I know, that kind of evidence does not at present exist. It seems to me that you are doing a little cherry-picking based upon your own bias. That's a natural thing,...but I think it also points up the reason why such debates should be left to more dispassionate parties. I do not trust the Christian right,.. but obviously neither do I trust the gay partisans.
Genetics is about more than just looking at DNA. Do you get that?
ge·net·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-ntks)
n.
(used with a sing. verb) The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.
(used with a pl. verb) The genetic constitution of an individual, group, or class.

If I am mistaken please correct me,...but it appears that since DNA is the genetic building block, and "genetics" is: "The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission".....that the very heart of "genetics" is indeed about "looking at DNA".

Why don't you tell us all what you "think" genetics is?

-z

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rikzilla



If I am mistaken please correct me,...but it appears that since DNA is the genetic building block, and "genetics" is: "The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission".....that the very heart of "genetics" is indeed about "looking at DNA".

Why don't you tell us all what you "think" genetics is?

-z

Genetics is the study of inherited characteristics that was begun in 1856 by Gregor Mendel.

103 years of genetic study passed before Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA.


http://www.biopoint.com/engaging/MENDEL/MENDEL.HTM


I guess I'm not going to win a scientific argument with someone who thinks genetics is the study of DNA, and the only tool to study hereditary traits.

By analogy, you must think Astronomy started when we launched the hubble space telescope.

DNA is but one of the tools that scientists use in studying genetics. But since the human genome is so large and our understanding is so very very small, we aren't likely to find any "gay gene" any time soon. Corrolations, perhaps. But no definitive "one gene" (which is a gross mischaracterization of how genes actually work).

So you use other methods. Twin studies, for example.


I'm not going to say that there's absolutely a "gay gene", anymore than there's a "baseball gene" that explains certain families tendency to produce baseball greats.

But I am saying that this is a biological process. Just as sure as I know that I am straight, and not socialized to be that way, I understand that gay people are also that way because of the way their hormones react when seeing their loved ones.

[Silicon]

Suddenly,

That is a very good point about interracial marriage. "Sure, the other races can marry, just not each other."


As I said, I have no doubt that sexual attraction isn't a conscious choice.

When I see a beautiful woman, I don't consciously say to myself "Heart, skip a beat... NOW". It just happens. (Don't tell my wife.)

And for me, it doesn't happen with guys.

I'm not sure why people think it's a conscious choice.

Of course if you were attracted to both sexes, you could make a choice there.

Straight people, take all the "yeeech factor" you feel about the image of you kissing another person of your sex, and realize that the more you retch at the idea, the more evidence you can feel in your body that sexual attraction is physiological.

If it were a choice, you wouldn't have a physiological reaction at all, right?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon


But I am saying that this is a biological process. Just as sure as I know that I am straight, and not socialized to be that way, I understand that gay people are also that way because of the way their hormones react when seeing their loved ones.
Are you also proposing nothing can effect biochem (& hormonal activity) other than dna hard-wiring? ;)

The nature/nurture question doesn't give an answer quite that easily.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by hammegk

Are you also proposing nothing can effect biochem (& hormonal activity) other than dna hard-wiring? ;)

The nature/nurture question doesn't give an answer quite that easily.

No, I'm not saying that so absolutely.

I'm saying its more of a biological process than the moralists seem to want to admit.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon


I'm saying its more of a biological process than the moralists seem to want to admit.

Nah, what moralists want you to admit is that humans actually have the ability to think and feel, but not do overtly what they are (covertly) thinking & feeling. See the difference?

Part of the reason some of us try not act like monkeys in the cage.

[Silicon]

No,

What the moralists want us to do is feel guilty about what comes naturally and harms nobody.

[hammegk]

What do you think aberrant might apply to? In humans I mean; we can leave the non-human-animal behavior to the other animals.

Lots of things "come naturally"; that does not mean they are acceptable and correct behavior. As to harms no one, I wish we knew, as a society interested in its' own survival rather than on an individual choice -- today -- basis.

[Silicon]

I realize that it's different.

I just don't think different is bad just for the sake of being different.

If being gay turns out to be only a choice, I'm still not against it, for the plain reason that within my circle of people, I see no harm in it, and within society I see no harm in it.

If being the same as you is normal, non-abberant, hammegk, I choose to live in a society where being different is just fine too.

[WildCat]

Somehow, I think that this (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/samesex.marriage/index.html) is a losing strategy:

[WildCat]

More of the same:

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by WildCat
More of the same:

Word.

And, yeah, that's one of the worst strategies I've ever seen.

It reminds me of those idiots who came out to SF from the Midwest to protest at Randy Shilts' funeral. One of the more chickensh** moves I've seen in my life.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon
I just don't think different is bad just for the sake of being different.

If being gay turns out to be only a choice, I'm still not against it, for the plain reason that within my circle of people, I see no harm in it, and within society I see no harm in it.
And you are welcome to that opinion, as are you friends. What you and they do as a private matter does not concern me. That you seem to think I'm wrong to disagree with you does. Actions made public usually have more consequences than those kept private.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Silicon
I realize that it's different.

I just don't think different is bad just for the sake of being different.

If being gay turns out to be only a choice, I'm still not against it, for the plain reason that within my circle of people, I see no harm in it, and within society I see no harm in it.

If being the same as you is normal, non-abberant, hammegk, I choose to live in a society where being different is just fine too.

Silicon,

When I disputed your "gay genetics" idea I didn't mean that I deny that some folks "seem to be born that way". I think you are likely correct, it's just that I have not seen any definitive science that lays it all out in a testable fashion.

Now, as I've said before, I have nothing against gay people nor do I have any wish to advocate a political position that unduly harms anyone. That's why I'm all for allowing civil union protections for gays while protecting the sanctity of marriage for those who would feel needlessly harmed by the change in the definition of marriage.

Apparently I'm not alone in this:
Kerry's campaign said yesterday he has consistently opposed gay marriage while rejecting legislation, like the 2002 amendment, that he believed jeopardized civil rights and recognition of gay relationships because it was worded so broadly.

"John Kerry favors civil unions, not gay marriage. It's that simple," spokesman David Wade said.


The only group harmed by Kerry's position is the so called "gay agenda" itself. Personally I'm sick of having "gay issues" shoved in my face every day. Since I don't feel the need to go out and "celebrate" my heterosexuality....I guess I can't empathise with people who regard their favorite sexual act as the one thing that defines them as human beings. I've been asked to have "tolerance", and I do....but now that's not good enough. Am I to be labelled "homophobic" if I abstain from "celebrating" the gay lifestyle? If so I don't think that's fair at all.

But as far as yours, and Suddenly's arguments go,...you're very compelling. I'm almost swayed....the only question I have left is why John Kerry's stated position on this issue is not good enough?

-z

[Silicon]

Rik,

Thoughtful comments. I have a couple of points.

Originally posted by rikzilla

That's why I'm all for allowing civil union protections for gays while protecting the sanctity of marriage for those who would feel needlessly harmed by the change in the definition of marriage.



There's "feeling harmed", and there's actual harm. I have no doubt that some straight people will feel harmed by gay marriage. But does that reach actual harm? I "feel harmed" when someone burns the flag, uses profanity in front of my child, etc.

But as far as actual, monetary harm, I have to say that my mother-in-law suffers from that. It's actual harm, I can set a price tag to it. That tag's in higher insurance rates, lack of health care benefits, the lawyers required to craft complex arrangements to jointly own property with a non-relative, etc.

You can say, "well, then pass a state law to bring those equal.", And coming up very soon the new California Domestic Partnership will provide gays with about 90% of the State rights as married couples. But then there's the issue of the roughly 1000 Federal rights. And for all of the President's conciliatory talk about respecting others, I cannot imagine he for an instant supports equality, even seperate but equal, rights on the Federal level.

Americans seem equally split between not allowing for any gay unions, and allowing for equality. Among those who are for equality, the word "marriage" seems to be the sticking point, and they are split evenly on that one. So we have about 50% of Americans for and against equality to straight marriage, and 25% who think that equal rights just shouldn't be called "Marriage."

But Bush isn't fighting for "separate but equal" civil unions. He's offering that States could chose to grant the limited equality of States rights to gay couples.

So the Civil Unions that the President offers, and Kerry for that matter, is about 1/2 the number of state and federal rights of Marriage.


That's where I say that half of equality is not equality. That's why I'm against Kerry's position that it's up to States. That locks my mother-in-law out of all the Federal rights that married couples are entitled to. Every year, for example, they file separate tax returns, even though their finances are co-mingled. Even though their two incomes are combined, and they would be getting more of a refund if they were married, they wind up paying higher taxes. So there's a real harm in Kerry's position. Call it a "gay tax".




The only group harmed by Kerry's position is the so called "gay agenda" itself. Personally I'm sick of having "gay issues" shoved in my face every day. Since I don't feel the need to go out and "celebrate" my heterosexuality....I guess I can't empathise with people who regard their favorite sexual act as the one thing that defines them as human beings. I've been asked to have "tolerance", and I do....but now that's not good enough. Am I to be labelled "homophobic" if I abstain from "celebrating" the gay lifestyle?


Not by anyone I know.

Listen, my mother in law isn't defined by her sexuality. She's a grandmother, defined by her love for her family. She's defined by her care for her granddaughter, by her care for her sick elderly father. By her interest in science, poetry, bird-watching and her passion for the Art of Calder, Henry Moore and Noguchi.

She's married to a woman. Big deal.

How often is sex discussed in our family? Never. It doesn't come up. It wouldn't come up if they were a straight couple, it doesn't now. How often do your parents discuss it in front of you?


When you talk about the "celebration of the gay lifestyle" please be aware that you are looking at a very small minority of the gay population. Do you have a member of your family that you love anyway, but, yes, they do embarrassing things?

Can I judge and disapprove of all Christians because of the guy with the "God Hates Fags" sign?

How about all Americans because of the idiocy of "Jerry Springer" or whatever trashy media? How about just the American South?


What if my complaint was this:

"Okay, I think all people should be equal and everything, but why do those darn Republicans have to have a big convention every four years, waving balloons, carrying signs... telling single moms that they're unfit, telling everyone that everyone should own a gun, telling gays they're sinful.... I respect their rights to their opinion, but do they have to do it in my face like that? It's like EVERY DAY the word Republican is on the television! Can't I raise my kids in peace?"

If that was my opinion, then yes I would "feel harmed" whenever the Republican Convention came to town.

But it wouldn't be real harm.


Yeah, Kerry's a waffler on this one. I don't agree with his position. Luckily the office of the President doesn't have any power when it comes to this issue. I can't see how less than equal counts as equality.

These are all steps. Can we make progress? Can it come in smaller steps? Sure. So maybe the Amendment will pass, and that'll be put out of reach until people get more used to the idea, and maybe find it less threatening.

People convieniently miss a few things about this struggle. They say that this is the last struggle for equality for gays. That's not correct. There's not equality in the military. There's not equality in job discrimination. There's not equality in health care benefits, or adoption or any of a number of issues that marriage won't settle. Hell, gay consenting adults couldn't even have privacy in their bedrooms until last year. How much more of a basic human right is that? The right to sexual privacy probably dates back to caveman times. People don't see it as a civil rights struggle, because they choose to forget that gays are lynched even today. (We had a gay bashing in West Hollywood last year. A man came from another city drove around to find a couple kissing, and baseball batted one of them. That could have been my mother in law.) People forget the sign on the front of a restaurant in Los Angeles that read "Fags keep out". People forget that Harvey Milk was assassinated. People forget the derivation of the slur "faggot", and how it constitutes a deadly threat, even today, not very many years after Matthew Shepard.

Gays are the invisible minority, when they need to be. And under threat of bodily harm, they have been. Sorry if you're seeing more of them now that it's safer, and if that troubles you.

But if you look at the line of people, hundreds of couples, linining around the block of City Hall, you would have seen one she-male, one guy with a bridal veil, Two women in Tuxedoes, and 1000 people that looked like members of a church, or a town hall meeting, or even the Republican National Convention.

Fathers with daughters, grandmothers, grandfathers, babies, pregnant couples, war veterans, doctors, rabbis, ministers, foster parents to disabled children, even dog owners and cat owners.

In short, Americans.

[Silicon]

On the issue of the "celebration of the gay lifestyle." And the people who are for gay equality, they just don't like gays flaunting their sexuality in public.


Can I pause for a brief interlude on the heterosexual flaunting going on in preperation for this Christian holiday?


I don't have a problem with heterosexuals. I just hate that they're always flaunting it. Does that make me a heterophobic bigot?


http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040224/lthumb.mdf478746.jpg


http://innglory.org/Photos/images2/PastorSon.jpg

http://www.shoulderridingclub.com/Gallery/MardiGras2.jpg

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Actions made public usually have more consequences than those kept private.

And the question I will ask is this, if the sexual behavior is private, which in most cases it is, what is the objection to the public joining of the two individuals.

then :
What about transgender people, do they have the right to marry?

(Hamme: I again have to say i admire you for admiting to the yuck factor. But what harm will be done to society?)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


And the question I will ask is this, if the sexual behavior is private, which in most cases it is, what is the objection to the public joining of the two individuals.
The implication by the "public" part that aberrant sex is as equally praiseworthy (certainly acceptable as a teaching in the schools, not to mention media) as is heterosex.

"Private" should remain just that, and imo, anything goes. (One may run afoul of some pesky Law or another ... although I've never heard of a case with Law Enforcement cameras in bedrooms used for such prosecutions.)


then :
What about transgender people, do they have the right to marry?

I really don't know what the word "transgender" means as you use it here.


(Hamme: I again have to say i admire you for admiting to the yuck factor. But what harm will be done to society?)
Thanks, but notice it really doesn't leave me any debate room on the issue.

On harm, what do you think of my analogy of morality being a dropped bunch of jack-straws rather than neatly boxed toothpicks. Remove a tootpick from the box, little harm done: touch a jackstraw and the entire pile may fall apart.

I haven't seen any societal benefits either; just benefit for individuals who choose alternatives their society doesn't traditionally accept as valid choices worthy of public acceptance.


Silicon: I don't care for the hetero behavior you mention either. Do you propose that most of "the public" do? IMO, most of us try to live and let live, until others begin to rub our noses in the mess they are making.

Sex In The City, and now The L Word. What cable, magazines, movies, even broadcast & much print media carry as a matter of course. What can be said about morality? Gayness is indeed just a minor issue -- but a real wedge with lots of emotion attached on both sides -- once verification as a sexual behavior as acceptable as heterosex is formally requested.

I sympathize with your personal situation, but thank my lucky stars not to have been forced to personally contend with any situation remotely similar. (My apologies in advance if my words anger you. :o )

[Skeptic]

The rationale behind the "it's genetic" argument here seems to be that, since it's not the person's choice to become homosexual (true), then it's "not fair" to not recognize a union due to this innate tendency as a marriage.

Why? The vast majority of blind people, say, did not CHOOSE to be blind, but were born or became blind due to illness or accident. This is hardly a reason to let blind people drive.

It isn't fair to be born blind; it isn't fair to be born a homosexual. In both cases, one is--though no fault of one's own--part of a minority that has only second-hand knowledge of some thing (sight, raising a family, etc.) that are central to the rest of humanity.

But pretending that blindness is somehow "equal" to being sighted and demanding blind people be allowed to drive, or that homosexuality is somehow "equal" to being heterosexual and demand homosexuals be allowed to "marry", is no solution.

It's merely an instance of wishful thinking: the belief that if the mantra "blindness is just the same as sightness", or "homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones" will be repeated often enough, it will magically become true.

[Earthborn]

This is hardly a reason to let blind people drive.What an incredibly strange comparison. The comparison might have been valid if you were arguing that blind people should not be married, or that homosexuals are unable to drive. But now the two things simply cannot be compared. I also haven't noticed blind rights advocates demanding the right to drive. I think most of them agree that they are unable to.

I don't know how this works in american law, but where I live there is no specific ban on blind drivers. Instead the law is worded in such a way that anyone can be prohibited from driving a motor vehicle if they are impaired in such a way that they are unable to safely operate it. This includes having a broken arm or being under the influence of alcohol.it isn't fair to be born a homosexual.What isn't fair is being treated more differently than strictly necessary.raising a familyHomosexuals have no trouble at all raising a family.But pretending that blindness is somehow "equal" to being sighted and demanding blind people be allowed to drive, or that homosexuality is somehow "equal" to being heterosexual and demand homosexuals be allowed to "marry", is no solution.The difference is that blind people are unable to safely drive a motor vehicle, while homosexuals are able to form a long term commited monogamous relationship. The only thing that stops them from being legally married is the ban on same sex marriages.It's merely an instance of wishful thinking: the belief that if the mantra "blindness is just the same as sightness", or "homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones" will be repeated often enough, it will magically become true.Not being able to see is not the same thing as being able to see, but a loving relationship is the same as a loving relationship. Even if one loving relationship gets a different name because of some arbitrary biological property of the people in it.

[KelvinG]

Fear not.
Gays will eventually get their wish and be able to marry. Actually, it's already happening in civilized countries in the world.

50 years ago you couldn't even admit you were gay. Tolerance has come a long way, although there is no doubt there is much more work to do.
But the conservative dinosaurs that populate the creepy regions of the US will eventually become extinct. Every year that goes by they are forced to be more and more liberal, often kicking and screaming, mind you. Yesterday's liberalism becomes todays "common sense."

This argument will be moot in a few years. Of course, that doesn't mean advocates should let up.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Silicon
On the issue of the "celebration of the gay lifestyle." And the people who are for gay equality, they just don't like gays flaunting their sexuality in public.


Can I pause for a brief interlude on the heterosexual flaunting going on in preperation for this Christian holiday?


I don't have a problem with heterosexuals. I just hate that they're always flaunting it. Does that make me a heterophobic bigot?


Silicon,

Sorry but now you are reaching. Spontaneous public nudity or sexual behavior is not the same thing as an organized celebration of sexual identity. Now if you want a fair comparison then juxtapose those pics of sexual behavior @ Mardi Gras with gay spontaneous sexual behavior @ Fantasy Fest in Key West over Halloween. Those two ARE comparable. But as far as I know there has never been a Hetero-march on DC, or anywhere else for that matter.

I first came to DC in '92, and the first major demo after I got here was the Gay March on DC. I came into town just to see a major demo first hand. There were topless lesbians, tranvestite "nuns", those "leather-men" with assless leather pants (who performed a circle jerk near the Washington Monument at high noon)...nearly had to claw my own eyes out after witnessing that...(shudder).... And then there were those in button down suits and ties, meeting with the politicians on stage in front of the Capitol. I later went home to watch the news, expecting an outpouring of revulsion. Instead I watched every newscast show only the "normal"...and skip over the army of sad-sack queens in their run down high heels....skip over the "nuns" with their sign that read: "Ruining it for Everyone!" (See, even they knew they were too out there for the good of the "Gay Agenda")

And yet on TV all was goodness and light. The burly topless lesbians (who all closely resembled Henry VIII with boobs) were likewise ignored by the news cameras. It was at that moment when I knew that the "Liberal Media" was an actual reality.

Since then I've had a really dim view of the whole "movement", yet I have never been against gay individuals.

In any case Silicone, your post previous to the pictures was elegant and forceful and should have stood alone. You add one brush stroke to a masterpiece, and it's easy to eff it up.

Going back to that post, I have to admit you have swayed me into the ranks of the undecided. Here's why I'm undecided, and not in favor at this time:

The government gives benefits to married couples in order to foster stable families for the raising of children. This amounts to a subsidy...whatever the government subsidises, it gets more of. Therefore it gets more new citizens raised in stable homes...(or at least that's the idea) Why then should the government subsidise gay marriage? They cannot create children, they can only raise adopted children. Is that compelling enough for the government to subsidise? Does society need lots of stable gay families? Why? (other than the obvious reason that it makes these people happier to live thusly)

If that can be answered sufficiently, I see no reason why I cannot join you in supporting the concept of gay marriages.

Regards,
-z

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Going back to that post, I have to admit you have swayed me into the ranks of the undecided. Here's why I'm undecided, and not in favor at this time:

The government gives benefits to married couples in order to foster stable families for the raising of children. This amounts to a subsidy...whatever the government subsidises, it gets more of. Therefore it gets more new citizens raised in stable homes...(or at least that's the idea) Why then should the government subsidise gay marriage? They cannot create children, they can only raise adopted children. Is that compelling enough for the government to subsidise? Does society need lots of stable gay families? Why? (other than the obvious reason that it makes these people happier to live thusly)

If that can be answered sufficiently, I see no reason why I cannot join you in supporting the concept of gay marriages.

Regards,
-z

I don't know if this applies in the US but I know that here in Ireland, the sort of "subsidies" you are referring to only apply to married couples who actually have children.

Also, I think those subsidies are only a (relatively small?) part of the rights that gay people are being denied by not being allowed to have a "normal" marriage.

Of more urgent concern to most gay people, I believe, as far as legal rights are concerned are issues like inheritence and the right to decide treatment for a sick loved one, etc.

Graham

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

The implication by the "public" part that aberrant sex is as equally praiseworthy (certainly acceptable as a teaching in the schools, not to mention media) as is heterosex.

"Private" should remain just that, and imo, anything goes. (One may run afoul of some pesky Law or another ... although I've never heard of a case with Law Enforcement cameras in bedrooms used for such prosecutions.)


I really don't know what the word "transgender" means as you use it here.


Thanks, but notice it really doesn't leave me any debate room on the issue.

On harm, what do you think of my analogy of morality being a dropped bunch of jack-straws rather than neatly boxed toothpicks. Remove a tootpick from the box, little harm done: touch a jackstraw and the entire pile may fall apart.

I haven't seen any societal benefits either; just benefit for individuals who choose alternatives their society doesn't traditionally accept as valid choices worthy of public acceptance.


[

Perhaps I agree on the sex education issue, I feel that children should be taught to not beat each other up. And that tolerance for others should be taughyt, I think that counseling should be available for those who are gay. I am not for the promotion of it as a lifestyle, just tolerance for those who are what they are.
Perhaps a slippery slope indeed.

Transgender, as opposed to cross dressing or transvestite, is someone who goes through the surgical procedure to change from one gender to another.

So should someone who goes through a sex change operation be allowed to marry? Is there a difference bewteen a pre operative TGI(trans gender individual) and a post operative (TGI). Another slippery slope indeed.

The morality as the jack straws, more like a ball of yarn , but we change the laws all the time without any regard for unintended consequences. I don't think that our society will collapse because of homosexual marrigae, what do you think might happen.

I think that the divorce courts might get a little more crowded. And that children in foster care might decrease and that partner benefits will increase.

[Dancing David]

posted by Sceptic

It's merely an instance of wishful thinking: the belief that if the mantra "blindness is just the same as sightness", or "homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones" will be repeated often enough, it will magically become true.



By that argument women who have had hysterctomies and men who have vasectomies can't marry either.

We do allow blind people to marry?

In what ways outside of the obvious sexuals ones are homosexuals relationship ifferent from hetero ones. can you say? What is really different.

[Snapper]

I've sought a rational argument against equal rights (including marriage) for years now and no one has risen to the challenge.

The failure of anyone in this thread to do so should be no surprise.

There simply is no rational basis for denying equal rights.

Hint: Religion is not a rational basis, it is a spiritual basis and those don't count.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Transgender, as opposed to cross dressing or transvestite, is someone who goes through the surgical procedure to change from one gender to another.Actually, you mean 'transsexual'. Transgender is just a container word that includes everyone from transvestites to transsexuals and everyone in between.So should someone who goes through a sex change operation be allowed to marry?If I remember correctly, it is in the States not different from most other western nations (except Britian). If someone has transitioned s/he can ask to change their birth certificate, and that would allow them to marry someone of the opposite sex as they transitioned to.Is there a difference bewteen a pre operative TGI(trans gender individual) and a post operative (TGI).In order to be able to change their birth certificate, someone is usually required to have had an operation that made them infertile, to prevent women from fathering and men from becoming pregnant.

Of course some people can't have an operation for medical reasons, even though they may want to. They are out of luck if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex. However, since they are still considered as belonging to their old gender, they can marry with someone of the same sex as they transitioned to!

Limiting rights to people based on an arbitrary legal status they might have can become very muddy indeed. One of the arguments against civil unions seperate from marriage, is that if someone wants to change their legal gender, they would have to divorce the person they are with first, change their birth certificate, and than get a different kind of marriage. The government can prevent that hassle by simply defining marriage as something between two people regardless of gender. It might save itself a lot of paperwork too, if it simply stopped registering people's gender in the first place.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Skeptic


But pretending that blindness is somehow "equal" to being sighted and demanding blind people be allowed to drive, or that homosexuality is somehow "equal" to being heterosexual and demand homosexuals be allowed to "marry", is no solution.


Ummm... blind drivers kill people. They are a physical deadly threat.


If you have to throw out all common sense for the sake of your argument, you need a new argument.

Just because you have freedom to worship, doesn't mean you can have a human sacrifice church.


In this country, we do restrict people's rights. And those restrictions are based on showing the harm.

I still haven't heard from anyone in a straight marriage who can show that their marriage will be harmed by someone in San Francisco getting married.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Silicon


I still haven't heard from anyone in a straight marriage who can show that their marriage will be harmed by someone in San Francisco getting married. And you won't...because the "harm" is imaginary.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Silicon,

Sorry but now you are reaching. Spontaneous public nudity or sexual behavior is not the same thing as an organized celebration of sexual identity. Now if you want a fair comparison then juxtapose those pics of sexual behavior @ Mardi Gras with gay spontaneous sexual behavior @ Fantasy Fest in Key West over Halloween. Those two ARE comparable. But as far as I know there has never been a Hetero-march on DC, or anywhere else for that matter.

Sorry, I don't see the distincion. To me, they are both shameful displays of public sex, and the people should be arrested in both cases. I think that the lot of public drunkenness and nudity and sex and violence that takes place in New Orleans every year should be cleaned up, and run out of town. But it's a tourist attraction, and people come from all over the world to take part in that, so it's an industry in New Orleans.

I know straight friends who go boating on popular local lakes, and the draw for them is the whole "girls gone wild" type of drunken public sex displays that happen there. These go on all over the country, every weekend, at least according to those "girls gone wild" videos! They just have the good sense not to do it in our nation's capital. And it's not interrupting some type of a rights march.

There hasn't been a hetero march on Washington because there's no need for it. Just like there hasn't been a white march on washington, or an "equal rights for men" March.


What the organizers of that gay march in 1992 failed to do was what King called "self-purification". Making sure that you don't have an element in the group of troublemakers, violence seekers, or others who would take any power from your message and use it to their own ends.




The government gives benefits to married couples in order to foster stable families for the raising of children. This amounts to a subsidy...whatever the government subsidises, it gets more of. Therefore it gets more new citizens raised in stable homes...(or at least that's the idea) Why then should the government subsidise gay marriage? They cannot create children, they can only raise adopted children. Is that compelling enough for the government to subsidise? Does society need lots of stable gay families? Why? (other than the obvious reason that it makes these people happier to live thusly)

If that can be answered sufficiently, I see no reason why I cannot join you in supporting the concept of gay marriages.


Good questions. About the subsidy for stable families to raise children. Here I'm thinking tax deductions. Straight families with a child get to deduct that child. Gay families with a child also get to deduct that child. Straight and gay families without children don't take a tax deduction for a child, so that subsidy is already equal.

But should the government promote stable monogomous gay relationships? I think yes. In whatever way they can, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Three big reasons the government has to promote heterosexual marriage in society: to protect existing children, to prevent disease, and to protect women from entering into a relationship where they could get pregnant and have the guy run off, or claim it's not his baby.

The third one isn't a big risk in a gay relationship, except when you are talking about some surrogacy arrangement, which would require a seperate legal contract anyway.

The first one does exist. Gays adopt, and also raise foster children, sometimes disabled children. (You remember the news story a couple of years ago about the gay couple in florida with about 7 disabled foster children, and one child who grew out of his disability, and the government wanted to take the child out of that home, because gay people weren't allowed to adopt him. So while the kid was disabled, and nobody wanted him, he was allowed to be cared for by the gay couple, but when he was healed, he could be taken from the parents who rasied him from an infant.) Since gay couples don't have biological children together, there's been an adoption boom. This has been a great area lately, since this means fewer children in institutional care. That should be promoted and protected by law, since it has a measurable societal benefit. Gays also have children from previous marriages and relationships, and if they're going to be in a household of two mommies, it's better that they have the legal protections that will ensure them of a parent and a home if the biological parent dies.

And as far as preventing the spread of disease, I think you'll agree with me that promoting stable, monogomous relationships among gays should be a priority.


So those are my main societal reasons for it, rather than the personal reasons of my family.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Perhaps I agree on the sex education issue, I feel that children should be taught to not beat each other up. And that tolerance for others should be taughyt, I think that counseling should be available for those who are gay. I am not for the promotion of it as a lifestyle, just tolerance for those who are what they are.
Perhaps a slippery slope indeed.
What is not at all slippery is that I -- and I suspect most heteros --abhore the potential for any child being exposed to the idea by peers, school, and media that a mom&dad, or mom, once in while dad even are all the same as mom&mom or dad&dad. What mom&mom or dad&dad do in private is their business, but the pretense that their life-style is mainstream acceptable behavior should not be even indicated to any child.


Transgender, as opposed to cross dressing or transvestite, is someone who goes through the surgical procedure to change from one gender to another.
Not by definition as I understand them.


So should someone who goes through a sex change operation be allowed to marry? Is there a difference between a pre operative TGI(trans gender individual) and a post operative (TGI). Another slippery slope indeed.
No problem. Just keep kids entirely out of it.


The morality as the jack straws, more like a ball of yarn , but we change the laws all the time without any regard for unintended consequences. I don't think that our society will collapse because of homosexual marrigae, what do you think might happen.
I don't "believe" so either; the straw & camel's back problem may never occur. Historically though, as I read things, when morality disintegrated, the society disintegrated not long after.


I think that the divorce courts might get a little more crowded. And that children in foster care might decrease and that partner benefits will increase.
Re children, not if many of us can stop, by law, any more such placements. The corporate & retirement benefit costs is much more significant imo. Divorce is just another straw -- I hope.

[Dancing David]

posted by HammeGK
What is not at all slippery is that I -- and I suspect most heteros --abhore the potential for any child being exposed to the idea by peers, school, and media that a mom&dad, or mom, once in while dad even are all the same as mom&mom or dad&dad. What mom&mom or dad&dad do in private is their business, but the pretense that their life-style is mainstream acceptable behavior should not be even indicated to any child.


An interesting point hmm, why should that be more important than alcoholism , child abuse and child support payments.

Here is the thing Hamme the horse is out of the barn, since most children go to school they are already exposed the idea ...gasp... that some people have homosexual parents. It is part of the whole blended family thing that happens.

Most kid's these days are used to all sorts of arrangements that the parents go through, most of them hetero sexual, but there are these people who are gay and they do have children. So gay marriage may increase the number of adoptions, that are already occuring. In Illinois there is no hetero-litmus test for adoption or foster care.

So if I say that in sex ed there will not be any mention of life styles but that children who request private couseling may recieve it. What would be the harm there.

What is the harm?

Victorian morals were a joke and they conquered the world!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

An interesting point hmm, why should that be more important than alcoholism , child abuse and child support payments.
IMO, it isn't. Just an issue that is emotion charged. And a behavior that can become illegal if societal pressures so dictate.


So if I say that in sex ed there will not be any mention of life styles but that children who request private couseling may recieve it. What would be the harm there.
Some of us -- yes. me too -- suggest the counseling should consist of "don't DO that, it's Wrong".


What is the harm?

Victorian morals were a joke and they conquered the world!
Harm unquantifiable so far as I know. How does one predict the effects and affects of a general coarsening and debasement of publicly acceptable behavior? Video games, entertainment, media, peers, etc. as they effect mores in general; sexual aspects have always been at the forefront of moral choice.

Licentious liberals are trying to overturn the gains 1st world culture -- including "civilized" morality -- have given the world at large. Which society that accepted aberrant behavior as the norm has persisted as an effective society?


As to the horses-out-of-the-barn analogy, comments occur to me but I won't make them, other than to note that situation has many potential, some individually harmful, solutions. :(

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Silicon


Sorry, I don't see the distincion. To me, they are both shameful displays of public sex, and the people should be arrested in both cases. I think that the lot of public drunkenness and nudity and sex and violence that takes place in New Orleans every year should be cleaned up, and run out of town. But it's a tourist attraction, and people come from all over the world to take part in that, so it's an industry in New Orleans.

I know straight friends who go boating on popular local lakes, and the draw for them is the whole "girls gone wild" type of drunken public sex displays that happen there. These go on all over the country, every weekend, at least according to those "girls gone wild" videos! They just have the good sense not to do it in our nation's capital. And it's not interrupting some type of a rights march.

There hasn't been a hetero march on Washington because there's no need for it. Just like there hasn't been a white march on washington, or an "equal rights for men" March.


What the organizers of that gay march in 1992 failed to do was what King called "self-purification". Making sure that you don't have an element in the group of troublemakers, violence seekers, or others who would take any power from your message and use it to their own ends.

I don't think you've closely read what I wrote...or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. The gay rights march on DC in 93 (not 92, my mistake) did not have "an element" of troublemakers. I saw it up close. If you "self purified" you'd have nothing more than a few stuffed shirts; politicians and celebs on stage, speaking to an empty mall. The vast majority of the crowd were doing their very best to be outrageous...and succeeding.

I was a first hand witness to this so called civil rights march. The experience has fed my distaste for the "movement" ever since. Perhaps there were also troublemakers at the 1963 civil rights march on DC....but I doubt they were having sex with each other in public next to our nation's most revered places.

The other things you said I do agree with. But the "movement" is not after equal rights for gay individuals. They are for promoting and flaunting their sexuality as if it were a fad that everyone should be sampling and celebrating. In the past it was all about tolerance...yet now that's not enough...is it?

-z

[BillyTK]

Sorry. Not been paying attention:
Originally posted by rikzilla


Maybe it is not a crackpot-ism....but neither is it hard science. There is no "rigorous scientific basis" for psychology. Psychology is a mushy science at best...personally I think it's more a philosophy than anything else.
Compositional fallacy: behaviorism is a discipline of psychology; not all the psychological disciplines have as rigorous a scientific basis as behaviorism, and some don't even want one. This does not in anyway detract from behaviorism.
Homosexuality was first recognised as a "mental illness" now it's not. But by what "rigorous scientific basis" did they change their classification of homosexual behavior? :confused:
Totally the wrong discipline; that's psychiatry, not psychology. And psychiatry is supposed to be a medical science as well...

No. Psychology is not science. The popular opinion of a society cannot and does not affect a scientific fact.
Particularly when that opinion is demonstrably uninformed as to its subject? ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Realistically, morals can and do evolve in a populace over time but societal attitudes, especially in a democracy, ARE formed by the majority.
This has little meaningful descriptive or prescriptive value. The attitudes held by the majority simply gives us a snapshot of the most popular attitudes of that particular time, but tells us nothing about their origins or development, and one thing we do know is that attitudes do change. But if these attitudes are formed by the majority, then no change could occur; majority attitudes would be static and minority challenges to these attitudes would be ignored. This doesn't happen.


Well here's what you originally said:
<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870322021"></iframe>

So you said the moral basis, not my moral basis.
It's your phrasing I've used; see the bit of your post I quoted in the post above.
Whereas to me the moral basis is well known to all. It was my understanding that you wanted me to quote the Bible so that you could attack my position as any good heretic would. ;)
That's... interesting; do you claim to be psychic as well? I carnt find any reference in my posts to a request for the Christian basis of marriage; I was attempting to elicit your views on the moral basis of marriage, with no preconceptions as to what form it would take.
And the Bible is certainly a large part of the historical basis, but not just Christianity...
But since you've brought it up ;), it's certainly true that Christianity has had a considerable effect on our norms and values, particular with regard to homosexuality, which is sad really, considering these are the result of un/intentional interpretation errors. But these days Christianity only really has anything to say on marriage for Christians, and as Christian marriage is not the only form of marriage available, it doesn't really have much to contribute to the debate.
You know, the ideas that informed religious thought before there were well organised religions.
Like, umm... marriage for instance? :)

Edited for sloppy tagging

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The other things you said I do agree with. But the "movement" is not after equal rights for gay individuals. They are for promoting and flaunting their sexuality as if it were a fad that everyone should be sampling and celebrating. In the past it was all about tolerance...yet now that's not enough...is it?


Then that's something that you and I are going to continue to disagree on.

The movement is about equality. Not getting straights to "turn gay", not making it manditory for everyone to have a rainbow sticker on your car. Equality.

You say that in the past it was about tolerance. Tell me, when did we achive that? I'm serious. You say it like that's a done deal. Tell me, do you think gays are even treated with mere tolerance today? It was only a few months ago when they didn't have privacy in the bedroom. You call that tolerance? People still live in the closet in most of the states in America because they fear bodily harm. Is that tolerance?

Only 12 states have antidiscrimination laws protecting gays from being fired because of their private life. So people stay closeted. There are no Federal laws protecting a gay who is fired just for the mere fact of their private relationship at home. Is that tolerance?

In my work and family life, I know about 100 different gay people, and not one of them has engaged in public sexual activity. They just aren't the type.

Now maybe that has more to do with the professional environment I work in, and the type of people who can hold a job in that environment.

But they are all active in the gay rights movement, to one extent or another.


Here's the deal. Punish lawbreakers who perfom lewd acts in public.

Don't punish law abiding citizens like my family by witholding rights because of what lawbreakers do.

Should black people not have rights because of the Watts riots and the Rodney King era riots?

There about 20 million gay Americans. Probably at least one in everyone's family.

I can't imagine that you can understand this, but the vast, VAST majority are pretty normal.

I'm not excusing what you saw. I'm glad I didn't see it. I think those people you saw should have been arrested.

It was stupid of them to allow that at a political rally, when it seems like they were having a political rally and a mardi gras at the same time.

That was foolish. It was also 10 years ago.

Today gay Americans are being accepted in the community at large. A rejection of public morality in the gay community is giving way to a desire to take part in mainstream society.

If you think gays are more likely to take part in immoral public sexual displays (which I doubt, since straights seem to ignore mardi gras and girls gone wild, and fort lauderdale, and Hooters wet t-shirt bars, etc), please help me pull these people back into the mainstream morality.

What could be BETTER than encouraging stable monogomous relationships?

The gay rights movement has changed in the last ten years. You may not believe it, but I've seen it. It's not about rebellion anymore, it's about acceptance.

Some people think this is all a ploy, and that all the gay people are acting normal now, so that we'll grant them rights, and then they'll whip off their normal clothes and all dance around with whips and ass-pants.

I don't buy that. If that's the case, my family didn't get the memo telling them of the secret plan, and they never had whips to begin with.

:)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon


There about 20 million gay Americans.

Umm, you have a source you'd care to defend? Otherwise:

Otherwise:

:bs:



And you know, personally, 100 gay people ??? Are you in SF or Key West? Or do you frequent gay bars?

Finally, equating negroid ancestry with a chosen, publicized, behavior is also b*llshit.

[Roadtoad]

Please note: My response will not have much in the way of objective data. If you're looking for something you can use in a scientific journal, you're out of luck. This is all personal observation.

First, permit me to say this: Most of the analogies here will simply not fit. This is actually a unique situation, something in and of itself. While, yes, there are overtones in other areas, the bottom line is that when you're talking about Gay Marriage, you're discussing something that's out on its own for the most part.

I don't have an easy answer for any of this, so like most folks, I'm groping my way through this as best I can. But, there are a few things I can see through the mire.

In making the comparison between what happened to Americans of African Ancestry, we're overlooking several key points. We're forgetting that they were supposed to have benefitted from the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, for starters, and could not be denied their Civil Rights to vote, to work, to earn, to exercise their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Keep in mind, that's the pursuitof happiness, which means equal rights does not guarantee equal results.) When the Civil Rights Movement made its first steps, one of the key things that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out was that the Jim Crow laws were patently unconsitutional.

Further, people who were fully citizens were being denied not only their rights to vote, but the RESPONSIBILITY to do so. This is critical, because we had people who were asking for not only the benefits of their citizenship, but the challenges that went with it as well. In other words, they wanted to be fully a part of the Social Contract which was central to American society. Allan Bloom pointed out that this was why the Civil Rights movement had the effectiveness that it did.

Before we demand our rights, we have before us the necessity of asking to fulfill our responsibilities. That's the first rule I see in this.

It's tough, in many ways, because how do you counter someone who correctly points out that the majority of those who decry the lack of Family Values (caps mine) are themselves the very ones who behave in a manner contrary to them. What's the point of Richard Roberts decrying the divorce rate, when he dumps his wife for a younger woman? How can you expect to hear anything of value regarding Family Values from Jimmy Swaggart, particularly when he was boffing some hooker in a motel room, to be followed by his defiance of the leaders of his denomination when they chose to defrock him? What weight is there to Newt Gingrich's words about Family Values when he's caught having an affair with another woman, particularly since that was how his previous marriage ended? What value does George Bush's opinion have, when he's made it clear to people like me that he's willing to make a political football of this issue, rather than deal with it head on.

The question is, do these people's words have weight when they speak of their opposition to Gay Marriage?

The short answer is no, but then, these are people who are losing their leadership in this issue anyway. They may have the loudest voices, but they're not the ones who have value in this discussion.

We are, believe it or not, the ones who have the greater voice in all of this, if not the necessary voice. We are the ones who must engage in the debate regarding what is and is not valid when it comes to marriage. In other words, if there is to be a renegotiation of the Social Contract, we're the ones to be involved. We can't simply pass this off to someone else's self-appointed proxies, someone chosen for us.

Permit me to digress for a moment on this: Julian Bond once commented on the racism inherent in the demand to appoint a "spokesman" for Blacks, this desire on the part of the media to have one telegenic guy with dark skin who shows up to give the "Black Perspective" on the news of the day. There is no one spokesman for all White people, because there's no one "White" response to current events. Since that's the case, it would occur to me that it's equally stupid to place the mantle of "Spokesman" on Jesse Jackson, Gloria Steinem, Barney Frank, or anyone else for that matter. I find it insulting, personally. It assumes I'm too stupid or bigoted to actually talk to people who are different from myself.

Since I am, by definition, a party to this social contract, I'd rather have an open discussion with all parties involved. I have no fear of any renegotiation of any social contract. It makes sense to take a long hard look at why we accept some things, and why we reject others.

My experience with Gays and Lesbians, believe it or not, has been positive in general. I've known gay men with whom I could have and did trust the care of my sons to, simply because they were of such character that I had no worries about my kids' safety and security. As I would have expected with a heterosexual couple, they did not conduct themselves in any manner that would have impacted my kids in a negative way while they were with these men. No kissing, no fondling, no nothing.

I endured a certain amount of ostracism because of my friendship with a few lesbian couples. The worst was over a couple of women who were neighbors of ours. I had a hard time convincing people at the church we attended a the time that, no, baking chocolate chip cookies was not some means by which Lesbians recruited new "deviants." (Although, Deanne, if you're reading this, I'm still pissed that you and the boys ate them all before I got home from work. You could have at least saved me a couple!)

For the most part, I had no problem with these people at all.

And yet, I still oppose Gay Marriage. A heterosexual relationship provides the best possible relationship in general for a child to grow up in. (Again, a caveat: I said in general.)

I'm not opposed in any way from gays and lesbians having the equal rights that they are due. There is no reason for anyone to block gays and lesbians from being teachers. Nor should they be barred from being Scoutmasters, or serving in the military. (Yes, this is a change for me.) Frankly, the only thing I would ask is that people conduct themselves professionally in such positions. (Yes, I am not in favor of scout leaders groping one another in front of the kids, and I'd kick a treacher's @$$ if he/she discussed anything personal about themselves beyond their name, and that includes bouncing checks, their upcoming divorce, or their transmission failure on the Interstate last week.)

It was right for gays and lesbians to object to being harassed by police. There is no reason for anyone to endure violence over whom they're sexually attracted. There is no reason for anyone who's willingly documented a relationship with another to be denied visitation in a hospital. Nor is there any reason for such a person to be denied a longtime companion's retirement, Social Security, or for that matter, half their stuff when a relationship ends. This could have, and should have, been addressed.

It wasn't.

Of course, there's plenty of irresponsibility to go around in all of this. I could wish discussion were open, but we do have the "ick" factor, behavior you see in eight-year-olds seeing mommy and daddy kissing in the kitchen being exhibited by people in their 40s and 50s, people who damn well ought to know better.

It's about time we stopped looking at what the issue does to/for "me," and start looking at what it does for our society at large. I appreciate that there are those who are hurt by a bar against same sex marriages. I don't have an easy answer for that. But if you were looking for easy answers, you're probably on the wrong Forum anyway.

I know there's gray areas in life. But why would you choose to live in the gray areas, instead of seeking solid ground one way or another?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
Finally, equating negroid ancestry with a chosen, publicized, behavior is also b*llshit.

Homosexuality a chosen behaviour? Umm, you have a source you'd care to defend? Otherwise:

:bs:

:id:

[schplurg]

Incest can harm a child. Homosexuality can't.

A married couple will not necessarily have children.

Non-married couples can have children.

Marriage is not about children, and until recently, it wasn't even about love. Legal marriage throughout history was used mainly for legal purposes, such as transfer of property, or for other business and financial reasons. It was used to find suitable heirs to thrones. There is no "sanctity of marriage", not as far as the government is concerned, nor should there be. If marriage is so highly regarded by so many, why is the divorce rate so high?

Marriage, or perhaps Civil Unions, should be a way for a couple to commit to each other...financially. Leave "marriage" to the religious.

[BillyTK]

Cherry picking:
Originally posted by Roadtoad
We are, believe it or not, the ones who have the greater voice in all of this, if not the necessary voice. We are the ones who must engage in the debate regarding what is and is not valid when it comes to marriage. In other words, if there is to be a renegotiation of the Social Contract, we're the ones to be involved. We can't simply pass this off to someone else's self-appointed proxies, someone chosen for us.
The social contract only indirectly impinges on marriage as a means of transferring property titles? So it's not a renegotiation as much as an extension to cover a group of people previously excluded.
Permit me to digress for a moment on this: Julian Bond once commented on the racism inherent in the demand to appoint a "spokesman" for Blacks, this desire on the part of the media to have one telegenic guy with dark skin who shows up to give the "Black Perspective" on the news of the day. There is no one spokesman for all White people, because there's no one "White" response to current events.
Because everyday is "White Perspective" day ;)

And yet, I still oppose Gay Marriage. A heterosexual relationship provides the best possible relationship in general for a child to grow up in. (Again, a caveat: I said in general.)
But how can you arrive to this conclusion in any kind of critical manner, considering such factors as the divorce rate, child abuse demographics (perpetuators are typical hetero, married males) and the infrequency of gay parentage which makes any kind of reasonably comparison problematic?

I know there's gray areas in life. But why would you choose to live in the gray areas, instead of seeking solid ground one way or another?
I was listening to a tribute to comedian Bill Hicks this morning by New Yorker critic John Lahr (it's a decade since Bill's death) in which John suggested that the reason for Bill's greater popularity in the UK than the US was because US culture is optimistic and prefers to see things in black and white, whereas Bill traded in irony and shades of grey. It strikes me that the world is shaded, and that solid ground of absolutes is not as safe as it may seem.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Homosexuality a chosen behaviour? Umm, you have a source you'd care to defend? Otherwise:


You are a dunce.

Do you perform acts of behavior you choose not to perform? Note the difference between unacted-on thoughts and behavior.

You also forgot the "publicized" part of the equation.

Homos most likely have some genetic pedisposition; other aberrant behaviors likely do too. So what? You deny you are human and cannot choose the non-private-behavioral response to a stimulus anymore than more than a dumb animal can?