The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[Gunny]

I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.

I don't know WHAT it takes. You've been shot down from just about every conceivable angle. NOTHING is good enough for you unless its complete agreement with your choice of abnormal behavior.

Sell your story to mattskramer. He'll swallow ... pun intended.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.

People don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be sick with cancer either.

Is cancer caused by environment, chemical imbalance, genes, or what??
Whatever the cause, just like homosexuality, the result is not good.

 

[mattskramer]

People don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be sick with cancer either.

Is cancer caused by environment, chemical imbalance, genes, or what??
Whatever the cause, just like homosexuality, the result is not good.

I am sympathetic to homosexuality. I think that we should at least have “civil unions” for gay couples as we have marriage licenses for heterosexual couples. Yet I think that I disagree with many homosexuals in that I think that, for the most part, homosexuality is a choice. It is a choice to the same extent as heterosexuality is a choice. It may be subconscious or conscious but it is a choice. As choices, it can be altered through extensive psychological and physical treatment. A homosexual can be turned into a heterosexual and a heterosexual can be turned into a homosexual.

People don’t wake up and directly decide to be sick with cancer but – indirectly – they do make such decisions. For years people make small choices that influence their chances of getting cancer. Instead of planning for tomorrow’s lunch and putting a nutritious salad together, they decide to grab a quick cheeseburger at McDonalds. Instead of buying a low sodium V-8 drink, they get a Coca-Cola at a drive-through. The many small choices that people make add up through the weeks and month and years until they wake up one day and discover that they have serious health problems. So, yes, in a manner of speaking, people do make such choices.

 

[Reneer]

I don't know WHAT it takes. You've been shot down from just about every conceivable angle. NOTHING is good enough for you unless its complete agreement with your choice of abnormal behavior.

Sell your story to mattskramer. He'll swallow ... pun intended.

And I will keep getting back up no matter how many times you or anyone else might 'shoot me down.' I will only be placated when I wish to be.

People don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be sick with cancer either.

Is cancer caused by environment, chemical imbalance, genes, or what??
Whatever the cause, just like homosexuality, the result is not good.

Your personal opinion aside, people can only understand homosexuality when they understand its cause. People will only be able to 'cure' themselves of homosexuality if it is understood what causes it in the first place. Masking the 'symptoms' of homosexuality through 'reparative therapy' is only half the battle for those who wish to remove themselves from the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Your personal opinion aside, people can only understand homosexuality when they understand its cause.

I could agree with that. Would you agree that, until we know for sure, homosexuality can be classified as a deviancy? Just like cancer is a deviancy from good health?

 

[Reneer]

I could agree with that. Would you agree that, until we know for sure, homosexuality can be classified as a deviancy? Just like cancer is a deviancy from good health?

Classified as a deviancy? Yes (though I'm not implying a 'good or bad' implication along with that word.) The question of whether it is (in of itself) dangerous to physical or mental health I believe should be conducted on a case-by-case basis.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Classified as a deviancy? Yes (though I'm not implying a 'good or bad' implication along with that word.) The question of whether it is (in of itself) dangerous to physical or mental health I believe should be conducted on a case-by-case basis.

Then why should we change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?

Especially since we don't know the cause and all that much about it?

 

[mattskramer]

I could agree with that. Would you agree that, until we know for sure, homosexuality can be classified as a deviancy? Just like cancer is a deviancy from good health?

ScreamingEagle –

Why did you throw in that extra “question”? I would have agreed with you in that homosexuality is a deviancy – that which differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from “accepted social standards”. You could have left it at that. I disagree with you in equating it with cancer. Though cancer is a deviancy, it is a concrete and completely 100 percent life-threatening condition. If you do not remove cancer it will grown and kill you. The other is merely a sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. It is not so certainly fatal. You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Reneer]

Then why should we change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?

Especially since we don't know the cause and all that much about it?

Even if homosexuality is a deviancy, gay marriage / civil unions would still be two people wanting to make a commitment to each other, both personally and financially. That is essentially the idea of state-sponsored marriage as I understand it.

Let's say that the state wants marriage to happen because it supports children. If that is the only reason it supports marriage, then it is supporting a deviancy from the 'stated goal' (for this example) of marriage when it allows two infertile people to become married, or two people who do not wish to have children or adopt to be married. My question then would be why not homosexuality, if there are already exceptions being made for couples who cannot / will not have children?

 

[mattskramer]

Then why should we change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?

Especially since we don't know the cause and all that much about it?

Marriage customs, rules, and even laws have changed throughout the ages for various reasons. See:

http://www.glad.org/rights/OP3-historyofchange.shtml

Please read the entire article.

"Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In Perez v. Sharp the Court stated that:

“A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains.”

The decision was controversial, courageous and correct. At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision.

Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide. A Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ScreamingEagle –

Why did you throw in that extra “question”? I would have agreed with you in that homosexuality is a deviancy – that which differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from “accepted social standards”. You could have left it at that. I disagree with you in equating it with cancer. Though cancer is a deviancy, it is a concrete and completely 100 percent life-threatening condition. If you do not remove cancer it will grown and kill you. The other is merely a sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex. It is not so certainly fatal. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Well I don't know about that. One could say that homosexuality is much like a cancer in that it can grow, sicken, and eventually kill society as we know it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Even if homosexuality is a deviancy, gay marriage / civil unions would still be two people wanting to make a commitment to each other, both personally and financially. That is essentially the idea of state-sponsored marriage as I understand it.

Let's say that the state wants marriage to happen because it supports children. If that is the only reason it supports marriage, then it is supporting a deviancy from the 'stated goal' (for this example) of marriage when it allows two infertile people to become married, or two people who do not wish to have children or adopt to be married. My question then would be why not homosexuality, if there are already exceptions being made for couples who cannot / will not have children?

You're straying away from the question….why would we want to change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?

You only provide biased argumentation. Instead, can you provide a good reason why society should accomodate (in such a major way) a deviancy?

 

[Reneer]

You're straying away from the question….why would we want to change our marriage laws to accomodate a deviancy?

You only provide biased argumentation. Instead, can you provide a good reason why society should accomodate (in such a major way) a deviancy?

How am I providing 'biased argumentation'? An argument is an argument. I only made one assumption: that the stated goal of marriage is to help the parents support children. Everything else after that is logically sound.

1. The state supports the union / marriage of a couple by providing incentives, hoping that a child will be created / adopted through that union.
2. The state also provides incentives if the couple is not capable / not willing to have children (hospital visitation rights, sick leave, bereavement leave, etc.) This goes directly against the 'purpose' of state-sponsored marriage. Not having children, for whatever reason, is a deviancy (of state) from what state-sponsored marriage is supposed to support, yet the state supports this deviancy anyway.
3. How is gay marriage (aside from gender, of course) any different from heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children? (aside from some people considering it to be 'wrong' or 'against nature.') Gay marriage / civil unions would simply be a deviancy like the state allowing non-child rearing heterosexual couples to marry, even though it goes against the 'stated goal.'

And as to the 'why' of changing the laws, America has typically been a nation of freedom - I think it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to keep two people who love each other from sharing in state-sponsored benefits simply because they share the same gender.

Well I don't know about that. One could say that homosexuality is much like a cancer in that it can grow, sicken, and eventually kill society as we know it.

Personally I think you're stretching the homosexuality = cancer link just a wee little bit.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Personally I think you're stretching the homosexuality = cancer link just a wee little bit.

Well forget the cancer allegory if that bothers you.

Can you answer the basic question?

 

[Reneer]

Well forget the cancer allegory if that bothers you.

Can you answer the basic question?

Sorry, I edited the above post (#133) instead of making a new post.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How am I providing 'biased argumentation'? An argument is an argument. I only made one assumption: that the stated goal of marriage is to help the parents support children. Everything else after that is logically sound.

1. The state supports the union / marriage of a couple by providing incentives, hoping that a child will be created / adopted through that union.
2. The state also provides incentives if the couple is not capable / not willing to have children (hospital visitation rights, sick leave, bereavement leave, etc.) This goes directly against the 'purpose' of state-sponsored marriage. Not having children, for whatever reason, is a deviancy (of state) from what state-sponsored marriage is supposed to support, yet the state supports this deviancy anyway.
3. How is gay marriage (aside from gender, of course) any different from heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children? (aside from some people considering it to be 'wrong' or 'against nature.') Gay marriage / civil unions would simply be a deviancy like the state allowing non-child rearing heterosexual couples to marry, even though it goes against the 'stated goal.'

How did our conversation veer off into this topic? Sorry, I'm not going to bother getting into this, maybe some other time. btw, what I meant by biased argumentation is that you are only proferring arguments to support your reasons for changing the laws. I was asking for reasons why we should change the marriage laws.

And as to the 'why' of changing the laws, America has typically been a nation of freedom - I think it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to keep two people who love each other from sharing in state-sponsored benefits simply because they share the same gender.

OK, so you think that the majority of America should change our marriage laws because if we don't it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

How so? I don't see anywhere where it says our marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy. Perhaps you could point it out for me.

 

[mattskramer]

OK, so you think that the majority of America should change our marriage laws because if we don't it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

How so? I don't see anywhere where it says our marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy. Perhaps you could point it out for me.

We changed marriage laws to accommodate Whites who wanted to get married to Blacks and for Blacks who wanted to get married to Whites. Interracial relationships / marriage is a rare and, to some, a deviant desire / behavior. I see no reason why we can’t change our marriage laws again for men who want to get married to men or for women who want to get married to women.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We changed marriage laws to accommodate Whites who wanted to get married to Blacks and for Blacks who wanted to get married to Whites. Interracial relationships / marriage is a rare and, to some, a deviant desire / behavior. I see no reason why we can’t change our marriage laws again for men who want to get married to men or for women who want to get married to women.

Yes, we did change those laws. Race is something we understand. We know why one person is black and another person is white. The color of your skin is not considered a deviancy or something we do not understand.

 

[Reneer]

How did our conversation veer off into this topic? Sorry, I'm not going to bother getting into this, maybe some other time.

Ok.

OK, so you think that the majority of America should change our marriage laws because if we don't it would go against the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

That's correct. I note that you said 'majority of America' - the laws are not 'owned' by any one majority, we all own the laws. But maybe that's not what you meant.

How so? I don't see anywhere where it says our marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy. Perhaps you could point it out for me.

I never said that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights explicitly states that marriage laws must accomodate a deviancy. But racial intermarriage was a 'deviancy' in the 1940s. And we changed the laws for that.

I was simply saying that the principle of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would dictate that no personal freedoms should be forbidden by the government - that they hurt no one except consenting adults - and choosing to associate with someone is a personal freedom. The government has decided that it will provide incentives for people to marry... to associate with a specific person in regards to housing, finances, etc. If the government gets involved and provides incentives for people to associate, they need to provide these incentives to everyone who wishes to associate with another person and share finances, housing, etc. Not doing so would, I believe, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, since if all 'men' are created equal, they should be equal under the law.

But perhaps I'm veering away from the argument again... sorry if that's so.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, we did change those laws. Race is something we understand. We know why one person is black and another person is white. The color of your skin is not considered a deviancy or something we do not understand.

The issue is choice. There was a time and place in which people were not allowed to choose people outside their race for marriage. I still don’t fully understand why White people would prefer relationships with Black people or why a Black person would prefer a romantic and sexual relationship with a White person. Yet, even without fully understanding why people choose from outside their race, we allowed them to make such choices. The same basically applies to homosexuality. Why would someone prefer to have a deep and personal relationship with someone of his same sex? I don’t know but let’s allow it.