Senate panel backs gay marriage ban

[007]

Can you start backing up some of your assertions please? Like homosexual relationships are inherently unstable? Huge numbers of hetrosexual people get divorced every year.

Do YOU have any proof that they ARE stable?

Do you also have any idea how many times over the years this topic has been argued on this board? Let me tell you, MANY, MANY, times. It gets old and tiresome to have educate you people time after time, just to be told the considerable amount facts that can be dug up are bullshit.

Tell you what, since YOU are arguing AGAINST nature, then the burden to prove that everything in fagdom is honky doory is YOUR'S. Go ahead and start.

And how do you know homosexual "behaviour" can be changed? Are you a behavioural psychologist? You said facts are facts. Time to start backing them up, no?

See above paragraph.

 

[Kagom]

Of course it would. Homosexual relationships are not stable relationships. Allowing them to marry wont change that.

Dunno about that. From personal experience, I've had very stable relationships save for two. But problems in them were the same as could be found in a heterosexual couple's.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Between 2001, when the Dutch law permitting same-gender marriages went into effect, and the end of 2005, <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands>some 6600 same-gender couples</a> were married. Hardly a flood of marriages, and the divorce rates are about the same as for the straight population.

As for your assertion that same-gender marriages have somehow undermined the institution of heterosexual marriage, you are just so WRONG. In many of the 9 European countries that permit the marriage or domestic partnerships of same-gender couples the rates of marriage for heterosexual couples are actually <a href=http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/>higher than they were</a> before same-gender marriages were permitted.

The worries expressed by you, and other right-wing ideologues, is no more than the anxious hand wringing of a bunch of "Chicken Littles" worried that the sky is falling.

So stop worrying that you're going to wake up queer because your neighbors are gay...It's not going to happen.

I don't know what statistics M.V. Badgett, an associate professor of economics from Amherst and head of their gay studies dept., manipulated to come to his various conclusions in that article....instead why don't you read some stuff by Jan Latten, a Dutch demographer (and liberal too) as Stanley Kurtz did:

The Decline

First let's have a look at Dutch demographer Jan Latten's 2004 portrait of Dutch marital decline. To all appearances, Latten is a social liberal who would happily defend recent changes in Dutch family life. That only makes Latten's account of marital decline more powerful.

Here is Latten's summary of the state of marriage in the Netherlands: "More cohabiting, more children born to unmarried couples, more family breakups among unmarried couples....The development of relationships and families is seen as a strictly private affair, while restrictions imposed from the outside&#8212;in the form of marriage, parenthood or divorce-could only serve to limit the freedom of individuals within these settings." "The citizen," says Latten, "has retreated from the public square." He continues, "More and more children are born out of wedlock. Here too we find a shift away from formal frameworks....people view not just relationships but even parenthood as an exclusively personal affair."

We already know that the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate began increasing more quickly in the mid-1990s. Latten's more extensive data confirm this: "the number of informal two-parent families as a share of the total number of couples has almost tripled between 1995 and 2003. The number of formal two-parent families (married couples with children) on the other hand, has decreased."

Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that these increases in the out-of-wedlock birthrate are less disturbing than they appear because many cohabiting parents eventually marry. Latten's data tell a different story. Even the practice of marrying before the arrival of a second child is now in decline. Says Latten: "Remarkably, the number of second and further children born to unmarried parents in the period 1995-2003 has risen relatively sharply. This could be an indication of the fact that the norm of staying unmarried is spreading at an increasing pace. It means the informalisation of parenthood has reached a stage where the very concept of family life has become a subject of diffusion."

The increase in unmarried parenthood for even second-born children (and later ones as well) is probably Latten's most striking finding. But the numbers for first-born children are also arresting: "Today, 40 percent of all firstborn children are born out of wedlock. Marriage is fast losing its status as the essential sine qua non condition of parenthood." (Remember, just a few years ago the Netherlands was touted for its unusually low out-of-wedlock birthrate.) Since unmarried parents break up at substantially higher rates than married parents, the end result of all this, says Latten, is more "informal" divorce among cohabiting parental couples.

Latten goes on to report on a survey of Dutch attitudes toward marriage. Whereas in 1992, 68 percent of Dutch men and women said that "marriage mattered to them," that number had declined to 45 percent by 2003. And the key change in Dutch family life in the intervening period? Gay marriage, of course.
---
By the way, Latten predicts that Dutch marriage will continue to decline. He expects that the number of unmarried parents will increase by what he calls "a stunning 119 percent" by 2050.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODcyNzgxNGNkMzEwMDZhNmQzYzhjZDU4MDcwOWRmODA=

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Most of what I hear from those who oppose gay marriage is &#8220;children children children&#8221;. Read message number 66 and come up with something new.

In addition:At least most of the items I listed do require, at the very least, civil unions for gays. Otherwise the gay couple must &#8220;jump through hoops&#8221; not required of my heterosexual married couples.

Yeah, isn't it a bitch that conservatives have turned the tables and are now using the liberal mantra "the children! the children!" However, in this case it's for real.

You very neatly avoided my questions about polygamy. Why do you think we don't we allow polygamous marriages?

Regarding your post #66:
1) Yes, I've heard about adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm banks. So what? Those are all manipulative measures for gays to obtain children by other means than the normal, biological means. Frankly, I don't like messing with Mother Nature. And children should not be denied either a mother or a father.
2) You ask "is every child a benefit to society?" What a question! I'm beginning to think you have a very dangerous mind to even ask such a question.
3) Yes, they should be allowed to get married because they have the normal potential to have children. There are obviously some medical problems with some couples but those are the exceptions. Gays don't have medical problems, they just plain can't have children together.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do YOU have any proof that they ARE stable?

I'm not the one making the claim they are unstable. It is up to those making the accusation to prove their point...

Do you also have any idea how many times over the years this topic has been argued on this board?

No. I am relatively new to this board..

Tell you what, since YOU are arguing AGAINST nature, then the burden to prove that everything in fagdom is honky doory is YOUR'S. Go ahead and start.

It isn't "natural" to dive into water with breathing apparatus, but we do it. It is not "natural" for us to fly in the air, but we have the means and we do it. It is not "natural" to nuke food in a microwave but we do it.

 

[Dr Grump]

The argument that it is "normal behavior to them" is pretty lame. There really is no argument. All facts. logic, common sense, and history point to the fact it is NOT normal behavior. I guess if you throw all that out the window, you might have a point.

And who are you do decide what is natural and what is not?

 

[Stephanie]

Evidently a lot of people feel it's not natural.
It's been put up for a vote before the people of the states, and they voted against it. That's how it's done, has been done that way for a long time. And they have said no to marriage between homsexuls.
I suppose you can whine all you want, but it's not going to change much...
I think most people have gone as far as their going to with tolerance of the gay lifestyle. But their stopping with the marriage thing..
Call us all the names you want, the people HAVE spoken.
I suppose sometimes it can be a bitch to live in a democracy, eh.

 

[jillian]

And they've done studies where when "put to a vote" people "vote" for segregation, too. Luckily, we have a Constitution that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Stephanie]

And they've done studies where when "put to a vote" people "vote" for segregation, too. Luckily, we have a Constitution that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Oh Pleeeeesssseeee...
I've asked this question before..
If homosexual is so natural, than WHY is the homosexual population in the United States only between 5-10 percent. If they are born that way, wouldn't the ratio be something like 20-80% 30-70%, 50-50%.
And your study thing on segregation, I'm sure that includes all the NON WHITES ALSO.
Give me a break.

 

[jillian]

Oh Pleeeeesssseeee...
I've asked this question before..
If homosexual is so natural, than WHY is the homosexual population in the United States only between 5-10 percent. If they are born that way, wouldn't the ratio be something like 20-80% 30-70%, 50-50%.
And your study thing on segregation, I'm sure that includes all the NON WHITES ALSO.
Give me a break.

Homosexuals being about 10% of the population is about the same as the occurrence of a recessive genetic trait.

 

[Stephanie]

Homosexuals being about 10% of the population is about the same as the occurrence of a recessive genetic trait.

And?
10% is on the high side. I think the figure is more towards the 5%.
But whatever it is. Nobody is denying homosexuals their basic rights of freedom.
The homosexuals have been trying to change the peoples mind now, for quite some time, that this is normal. Evidently it's not working.
And I'm sure their way of calling people a bigot and a racist hasn't helped. But oh well

We still live in a democarcy. Deal with it...

 

[MissileMan]

Oh Pleeeeesssseeee...
I've asked this question before..
If homosexual is so natural, than WHY is the homosexual population in the United States only between 5-10 percent. If they are born that way, wouldn't the ratio be something like 20-80% 30-70%, 50-50%.
And your study thing on segregation, I'm sure that includes all the NON WHITES ALSO.
Give me a break.

By your reasoning, would you expect 50% of people to be born blind and the other 50% to be born deaf?

 

[Dr Grump]

Evidently a lot of people feel it's not natural.
It's been put up for a vote before the people of the states, and they voted against it. That's how it's done, has been done that way for a long time. And they have said no to marriage between homsexuls.
I suppose you can whine all you want, but it's not going to change much...
I think most people have gone as far as their going to with tolerance of the gay lifestyle. But their stopping with the marriage thing..
Call us all the names you want, the people HAVE spoken.
I suppose sometimes it can be a bitch to live in a democracy, eh.

1) The tyranny of the majority is not always the best way.
2) You live in a federal republic, not a democracy...

 

[Stephanie]

By your reasoning, would you expect 50% of people to be born blind and the other 50% to be born deaf?

Whatever, Your reasoning didn't make any sense, mine did.
Homosexuals are NOT being denied their basic rights of the Constitution.
Their the ones trying to change things, by asking the majority of people to give them a special right to marry...
The Majority said no.
Don't know what else to tell ya.
Move to all the other countries that recognize same sex marriage, if we're all so backwards rednecks....
Let's see all them other countries is hmmmmmm..
One. The Netherlands as far as I know.
So Maybe we're not as backwards and bigots and racist, as you all make us out too be....
Hey the cold hard truth hurt's sometimes, but such is life....

 

[Stephanie]

1) The tyranny of the majority is not always the best way.
2) You live in a federal republic, not a democracy...

Well, thank you for correcting me..
I'm sure you knew what I was saying, but if you needed to get that dig in, so be it..
You can throw that word, tyranny around all you want...
I believe the homosexual movement are the one's who are the tryants, just because they can't get the majortity of people too bend over, and accept their lifestyle as normal.
How many states have voted on this ammendment, I forget.
The fact's are it was voted down in all of the states that brought it up for a vote....
Take it or leave it, that's just how it is. Life's a bitch....

 

[Dr Grump]

Life's a bitch....

How benevolent of you....

 

[Stephanie]

How benevolent of you....

I'm just calling it as I see it.
I stayed out of this argument just for that reason.
And yes I am a very charitable person, but no I will not be made too feel guilty for not seeing homosexual as being normal.
I don't deny them their choice of lifestyle, I know most are genuine good people.
I just don't condone their lifestyle, and I'd be the first to tell them that right up front. We can go on from there and be friends......or not, that would be up to them I suppose...
PC I am not, I believe in being straight up front, honest... And what happens from there.

And yes, life is a bitch... I've been around long enough to know that. Sometimes we don't always get we want.. But what do you do, you move on and live the life that you have, and cherish it, as if there's no tomorrow.
And not dwell on all the things that we were denied...

But it's evident that there's a small minority of people that will NEVER be satisfied. Being a victim plays well, but it gets old and worn out.
Well, that's not our problem... That's for them to go and get a life...

 

[KarlMarx]

Homosexuals being about 10% of the population is about the same as the occurrence of a recessive genetic trait.

Correction..... Homosexuals make up less than 4% of the population. The 10% figure came from a study by Kinsey which has been refuted.

 

[KarlMarx]

And they've done studies where when "put to a vote" people "vote" for segregation, too. Luckily, we have a Constitution that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, let's talk about segregation......

Segregation was upheld (actually "established" would be a better word) by the Supreme Court in Plessy vs. Fergusson in 1896. It was eventually overturned in Brown vs. Board of Education circa 1954.

So, a tyranny of the minority helped to establish segregation, not a vote.

It is not a well known fact, but some Supreme Court justices of the past were racist. In one case, a Supreme Court justice was associated, either directly or through a family member, to the Ku Klux Klan.

As to the comparison between homosexual sex and bestiality. If the judiciary can find a right to homosexual sodomy in the constitution, the argument goes, then where will it take us? It could then, at least hypothetically, find a right to cannibalism, bestiality, free cable TV, creamy peanut butter, Coca Cola and anything else.

This is not an argument against homosexual sex, but an argument against interpreting the Constitution in a free handed manner. The 14th amendment provides for equal protection under the law, but.... does that give gays the right to marry? I say no, because marriage is not a right. The institution of marriage was established to create families and to provide stable environment to raise children. If marriage is a right, then divorce is unconstitutional. Do you want to go there?!?!??

Strict constructionists, e.g., yours truly, believe that strictly interpreting the Constitution helps prevent abuses like Plessy vs Fergusson, the Dred Scott decision (which upheld slavery) and Roe vs. Wade.

P.S. Coca Cola as a right.... that might not be a bad idea! Pepsi... definitely invented by Satan!

 

[jillian]

Yes, let's talk about segregation......

Segregation was upheld (actually "established" would be a better word) by the Supreme Court in Plessy vs. Fergusson in 1896. It was eventually overturned in Brown vs. Board of Education circa 1954.

I think the word you're looking for is "upheld". And, yes, the Court upheld Segregation in Plessy v Ferguson. However, they upheld something that already existed by virtue of the will of the "majority", or at least the white, voting population in the South. (Cause, let's not forget, there were a few, ummm, problems with black voter registration in the South at the time, too).

So, a tyranny of the minority helped to establish segregation, not a vote.

I disagree. Sometimes we just have a set of bad Justices. I can't imagine that the determination of this current configuration would be all that different. They might say that they don't want to interfere in the power of the State, or they might say that separate but equal is a problem best left to a legislature, or that there was a legitimate governmental purpose for it. But rights are kind of funny....they require that the Court actually enforce them and protect the minority from those who "vote".

It is not a well known fact, but some Supreme Court justices of the past were racist. In one case, a Supreme Court justice was associated, either directly or through a family member, to the Ku Klux Klan.

Might be the case. I'm not sure. But that's why there are nine of 'em. And seems it should have been something sussed out BEFORE he took the robe.

As to the comparison between homosexual sex and bestiality. If the judiciary can find a right to homosexual sodomy in the constitution, the argument goes, then where will it take us? It could then, at least hypothetically, find a right to cannibalism, bestiality, free cable TV, creamy peanut butter, Coca Cola and anything else.

Silliness...you have better arguments to make. You're talkikng about telling a group of people they have to live their lives differently from the rest of us. Again, I don't think the word marriage is any big deal. But people who have been life-partners for 20 years shouldn't have fewer rights vis a vis each other in terms of inheritance, social security benefits, etc, that a marriage couple has as soon as they utter the words "I do". And you can couch it anyway you'd like, but that's really what we're talking about.

This is not an argument against homosexual sex, but an argument against interpreting the Constitution in a free handed manner. The 14th amendment provides for equal protection under the law, but.... does that give gays the right to marry? I say no, because marriage is not a right. The institution of marriage was established to create families and to provide stable environment to raise children. If marriage is a right, then divorce is unconstitutional. Do you want to go there?!?!??

Two people who choose to spend their lives together are a "family" whether they have children or not. If I had been unable to have a child, should I have been prohibited from marrying? And your syllogism is off. If marriage is a right, divorce is a right. Personally, I think that we should have no fault divorce because in some (most) states people pump up their allegations against each other and make things more heated during the process cause they have to make their case for the Court. This isn't good for kids of the marriage and isn't condusive to the parties resolving their differences amicably.

Strict constructionists, e.g., yours truly, believe that strictly interpreting the Constitution helps prevent abuses like Plessy vs Fergusson, the Dred Scott decision (which upheld slavery) and Roe vs. Wade.

I know the cases

And the thing I'll say to you is that the Court was never intended to be strictly constructionist. From Marbury v Madison, which first established the right of the Court to undertake judicial review, our entire caselaw has been one of the Court construing the Constitution is the fashion that most protects individual freedom. It's like this...the Constitution limits the POWERS of government and expands the RIGHTS of the individual. Using it to limit freedoms, as has only been done once before when our government in its lack of infinite wisdom thought it a good idea to outlaw alcohol. Not only did they have to repeal it, but they allowed a criminal underclass to gain a foothold.

P.S. Coca Cola as a right.... that might not be a bad idea! Pepsi... definitely invented by Satan!

RAFLMAO!! So long as you make mine a Diet Coke