Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[mskafka]

why not?

1) Eeeeewwwwwww!

2) There's this little problem with inbreeding and redundant genes...

i'll bow to your experience on this point

new banjo?

Damn, del! What I wouldn't give to have 1/8 of your wit. You truly have a gift!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?

Of course not, that’s ridiculous; laws banning such marriages are legal because they’re applied to everyone equally, regardless race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, as opposed to laws restricting homosexuals only.

Now, marriage is a privilege…

Incorrect:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942).

 

[Gadawg73]

So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?

Of course not, that’s ridiculous; laws banning such marriages are legal because they’re applied to everyone equally, regardless race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, as opposed to laws restricting homosexuals only.

Now, marriage is a privilege…

Incorrect:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942).

Privileges have to be earned. You have to do something to earn that.
What does one have to do to earn the privilege of getting married?
Take a test?
What? What does a heterosexual couple have to do to earn that privilege?
One needs to understand the definition of the word privilege before they use it to define something.
And what does someone have to do to LOSE that privilege? Hell, a driver loses his license if he gets a DUI or goes blind.
A damn death row inmate convicted of mass murders of 117 people CAN FRIGGIN GET MARRIED.
So we now know the privilege argument makes no sense if a death row mass murderer can get married and a gay person can not.
So what are we left with in a democratic republic?
A privilege is something EARNED by us or given to us after birth.
A right is something WE ARE BORN WITH. So how can our genetically decided hard wired sexual preference at birth decide what our future rights and privileges are?
Is that a precedent we want to set in this country? Rights are given to people at birth. No matter what the circumstances they are born into.
Those that want to deny the right to marry to same sex couples believe the state should have the power to what freedoms we deserve BASED ON OUR GENETIC CODE.
Civil law is civil law. Laws should not be created to cater to Christian voters.

 

[Qball]

Well, since the brain isn't fully formed until the teen years, I'd be willing to say that it's 85 percent biological at birth, with the remaining 15 percent being the environment the child grows up in.

But, the 15 percent won't override the 85 percent, which is why you have people coming out of the closet after marriage.

I don't know about that random 85/15 split. I'm sure there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality that's more or less determined at birth, but I don't think we really know the extent to which environmental factors play a part in developing one's sexuality. I don't think it's mostly any one thing

Explain what environmental factors influenced your sexual orientation.
Explain how you chose your sexual orientation and how long did you contemplate each choice?
Specifics please.

I'm sure witnessing the relationship between my parents played a big part in it. Seeing how men and women interact with one another in our society I'm sure had something to do with it. The relationship I had with my mother. The relationship I had with my father. My interactions with various and sundry people, male and female, throughout my life, has influenced my orientation. I can't say I ever contemplated liking males.

Not according to the SCOTUS. They have declared it a fundamental right. You can have your opinion on that, but those are the FACTS.

You're leaving out some important facts by citing those cases. For one thing, all three of them involved heterosexual (male/female) couples, not couples that would be considered deviating from the norm (i.e. same-sex, polygamous). All three of them pertained to laws that abridged what would otherwise be a traditional marriage -- anti-miscegenation laws, laws that denied marriage certificates to people in arrears for child support, and laws against inmates marrying -- and were primarily used for penal (see: punishment) purposes.

Conversely, none of those cases were over the legal definition of "marriage" or a couple's supposed right to call their union "marriage". None of those cases make the argument you need them to make -- that there exists some right for two men and two women to have a legally recognized marriage because the law recognizes male/female unions as marriage.

Interestingly, there are two cases in which someone went to the SCOTUS to argue that their marriage is a legal marriage too. Reynolds v. US (or is it the other way around?) was about a polygamist who said a state's law against polygamy infringed on his 1st amendment religious freedom -- he lost -- and Baker v. Nelson was a case where a gay couple claimed MN not recognizing gay marriage was in violation of their 9th and 14th amendment rights. The case was dismissed on the merits, five years after the Loving decision.

When arguing against allowing interracial marriage, it was claimed that such laws did not violate the constitution because they applied equally to men and women.

First of all, that wasn't the argument they used. They said the law wasn't racial discrimination since it pertained to both blacks and whites. That argument didn't work, for one, because it was plainly incorrect. The Racial Integrity Act precluded whites and nonwhites from marrying, not any type of interracial marriage two people could formulate. But it also failed because it ran afoul of the spirit of the 14th amendment, which was to do away with laws denying blacks of certain rights simply because of their race. The entire notion of race-based laws is more or less unconstitutional, up to and including marriage restrictions.

But that's all academic. The real point is, it doesn't matter. Just because an argument doesn't work in one case doesn't make the argument invalid altogether.

Your "man/woman" argument isn't going to stand up to the constitution anymore than theirs did.

There is no societal harm in allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule in favor of gay masriage.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. All these marriage amendments do is define marriage. They don't criminalize and punish people, i.e. by promising jail time or fines, just because someone's relationship lies outside of what's the norm.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

Well...... Marriage is an institution, and institutions are where they put crazy people of whatever sexual orientation.

 

[uscitizen]

Why should gays be denied the joys of divorce?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, PredFan, universal marriage is not a special right at all, it is a civil and human right guaranteed to all of us.

Grow up.

Reality check. There are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942". That's how fast rights disappear. What we have are privilages that the rest of society recognizes. Now, marriage is a privilage. We are redefinng the privilage, and I don't see any reason why it should be denied to same-sex couples. As long as we do it the right way and through the democratic process. But society is not going to recognize incest or polygamy any time soon, nor should it. There's no compelling reason. I can see a good reason for recognizing gay marriage, because the alternative is gays pretending to be straight, and getting into loveless marriages to please society, making themselves and their partners miserable.

Libertarian twaddle above from a confused atheist, who apparently does not approve of Jefferson's insistence on inalienable rights that flow from Nature's Creator.

That's Joe's problem, not one of humanity.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, since the brain isn't fully formed until the teen years, I'd be willing to say that it's 85 percent biological at birth, with the remaining 15 percent being the environment the child grows up in.

But, the 15 percent won't override the 85 percent, which is why you have people coming out of the closet after marriage.

I don't know about that random 85/15 split. I'm sure there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality that's more or less determined at birth, but I don't think we really know the extent to which environmental factors play a part in developing one's sexuality. I don't think it's mostly any one thing

Explain what environmental factors influenced your sexual orientation.
Explain how you chose your sexual orientation and how long did you contemplate each choice?
Specifics please.

I'm sure witnessing the relationship between my parents played a big part in it. Seeing how men and women interact with one another in our society I'm sure had something to do with it. The relationship I had with my mother. The relationship I had with my father. My interactions with various and sundry people, male and female, throughout my life, has influenced my orientation. I can't say I ever contemplated liking males.

When arguing against allowing interracial marriage, it was claimed that such laws did not violate the constitution because they applied equally to men and women.

First of all, that wasn't the argument they used. They said the law wasn't racial discrimination since it pertained to both blacks and whites. That argument didn't work, for one, because it was plainly incorrect. The Racial Integrity Act precluded whites and nonwhites from marrying, not any type of interracial marriage two people could formulate. But it also failed because it ran afoul of the spirit of the 14th amendment, which was to do away with laws denying blacks of certain rights simply because of their race. The entire notion of race-based laws is more or less unconstitutional, up to and including marriage restrictions.

But that's all academic. The real point is, it doesn't matter. Just because an argument doesn't work in one case doesn't make the argument invalid altogether.

Your "man/woman" argument isn't going to stand up to the constitution anymore than theirs did.

There is no societal harm in allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule in favor of gay masriage.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. All these marriage amendments do is define marriage. They don't criminalize and punish people, i.e. by promising jail time or fines, just because someone's relationship lies outside of what's the norm.

"I can't say I ever contemplated liking males"
Exactly. NO ONE chooses their sexuality. YOU were born with yours.
Bingo.

 

[Gadawg73]

Allowing government to "define" marriage is the worst thing a true conservative would ever want.

 

[Dragon]

So Adult family members should be allowed to marry? How about 3 or more people?

why not?

1) Eeeeewwwwwww!

2) There's this little problem with inbreeding and redundant genes...

I'm actually working on an article on that very subject. I would like to see the incest taboo disappear (applying only to adults, of course).

The risk of genetic abnormality arising from any one close-related reproduction is only very slightly higher than otherwise, and still very low. The real problem comes in when close relatives interbreed consistently over numerous generations. That's when you run into small-gene-pool situations. It's unlikely that would happen.

As for your #1, I submit that it's "Eeeeewwww" only in concept. Anyone who denies ever being sexually attracted to a close relative (parent, child, sibling, cousin, etc.) either is lying to himself or has a very ugly family.

 

[Qball]

Well, since the brain isn't fully formed until the teen years, I'd be willing to say that it's 85 percent biological at birth, with the remaining 15 percent being the environment the child grows up in.

But, the 15 percent won't override the 85 percent, which is why you have people coming out of the closet after marriage.

I don't know about that random 85/15 split. I'm sure there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality that's more or less determined at birth, but I don't think we really know the extent to which environmental factors play a part in developing one's sexuality. I don't think it's mostly any one thing



I'm sure witnessing the relationship between my parents played a big part in it. Seeing how men and women interact with one another in our society I'm sure had something to do with it. The relationship I had with my mother. The relationship I had with my father. My interactions with various and sundry people, male and female, throughout my life, has influenced my orientation. I can't say I ever contemplated liking males.



First of all, that wasn't the argument they used. They said the law wasn't racial discrimination since it pertained to both blacks and whites. That argument didn't work, for one, because it was plainly incorrect. The Racial Integrity Act precluded whites and nonwhites from marrying, not any type of interracial marriage two people could formulate. But it also failed because it ran afoul of the spirit of the 14th amendment, which was to do away with laws denying blacks of certain rights simply because of their race. The entire notion of race-based laws is more or less unconstitutional, up to and including marriage restrictions.

But that's all academic. The real point is, it doesn't matter. Just because an argument doesn't work in one case doesn't make the argument invalid altogether.

Your "man/woman" argument isn't going to stand up to the constitution anymore than theirs did.

There is no societal harm in allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The SCOTUS will have no choice but to rule in favor of gay masriage.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. All these marriage amendments do is define marriage. They don't criminalize and punish people, i.e. by promising jail time or fines, just because someone's relationship lies outside of what's the norm.

"I can't say I ever contemplated liking males"
Exactly. NO ONE chooses their sexuality. YOU were born with yours.
Bingo.

It's actually not that simple. It's more like, "No one will admit to choosing their sexuality". I'm sure for most people it isn't a conscientious decision they make one day to like one sex or another. But the company you keep and how you keep it is always a choice, and there are people who more or less have done that. There are plenty of women, for example, who date women/don't date men because they've been abused in some way, and that's all they know. So they actively distrust men and disassociate themselves from them. Of course, unless you know them and their backgrounds well enough, you wouldn't know that's the reason they date other women, and they're probably not going to admit to dating women simply because they hate men. So they, like those who have been more or less gay from birth, will use the same excuse that they were born that way, they can't help it, and that there's nothing wrong with it.

Also, like it or not, we're meant to reproduce. That's why men and women create babies and two people of the same sex don't. That's why men have sperm and women have ovaries. You can't just compare heterosexuality and homosexuality as if they're just two sides of the same coin. One is the norm, the other is a deviation of it. That doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong, per se, but it's not as simple as "some people are gay, some people are straight". It's "most people are straight, few people are gay".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry. The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept. Universal marriage will be happen and soon.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population.

Even in Iran.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't know about that random 85/15 split. I'm sure there is some genetic predisposition to homosexuality that's more or less determined at birth, but I don't think we really know the extent to which environmental factors play a part in developing one's sexuality. I don't think it's mostly any one thing



I'm sure witnessing the relationship between my parents played a big part in it. Seeing how men and women interact with one another in our society I'm sure had something to do with it. The relationship I had with my mother. The relationship I had with my father. My interactions with various and sundry people, male and female, throughout my life, has influenced my orientation. I can't say I ever contemplated liking males.



First of all, that wasn't the argument they used. They said the law wasn't racial discrimination since it pertained to both blacks and whites. That argument didn't work, for one, because it was plainly incorrect. The Racial Integrity Act precluded whites and nonwhites from marrying, not any type of interracial marriage two people could formulate. But it also failed because it ran afoul of the spirit of the 14th amendment, which was to do away with laws denying blacks of certain rights simply because of their race. The entire notion of race-based laws is more or less unconstitutional, up to and including marriage restrictions.

But that's all academic. The real point is, it doesn't matter. Just because an argument doesn't work in one case doesn't make the argument invalid altogether.



I wouldn't be so sure about that. All these marriage amendments do is define marriage. They don't criminalize and punish people, i.e. by promising jail time or fines, just because someone's relationship lies outside of what's the norm.

"I can't say I ever contemplated liking males"
Exactly. NO ONE chooses their sexuality. YOU were born with yours.
Bingo.

It's actually not that simple. It's more like, "No one will admit to choosing their sexuality". I'm sure for most people it isn't a conscientious decision they make one day to like one sex or another. But the company you keep and how you keep it is always a choice, and there are people who more or less have done that. There are plenty of women, for example, who date women/don't date men because they've been abused in some way, and that's all they know. So they actively distrust men and disassociate themselves from them. Of course, unless you know them and their backgrounds well enough, you wouldn't know that's the reason they date other women, and they're probably not going to admit to dating women simply because they hate men. So they, like those who have been more or less gay from birth, will use the same excuse that they were born that way, they can't help it, and that there's nothing wrong with it.

Also, like it or not, we're meant to reproduce. That's why men and women create babies and two people of the same sex don't. That's why men have sperm and women have ovaries. You can't just compare heterosexuality and homosexuality as if they're just two sides of the same coin. One is the norm, the other is a deviation of it. That doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong, per se, but it's not as simple as "some people are gay, some people are straight". It's "most people are straight, few people are gay".

Sexual attraction is never "choosing the company you keep".
Who you fall in love and what sex you are attracted to is not a choice.
No matter how many ways folks bull shit their way around it.
If it is then explain how you made your choice:
How long did you contemplate schlong "Hmmm, let me see what my choices are. I can choose to be with men and let me see all of the advantages of that" or the same with women.
Never happened that way with me. I never chose my sexual orientation and attraction. A boner coming up is not a choice. Deviation of the norm does not mean choice. Red hair and left handed folk are deviations of the norm and that is not a choice.
But at one time they claimed being left handed was.
Bottom line sexual attraction is hard wired and no one should be penalized because of it in marriage.
Because gay marriage AFFECTS NO ONE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population. Even in Iran.

Please don't confuse homosexual contact that does not lead to lifetime orientation.

About 1% of females and 3% of males are oriented to lifetime homosexuality.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population. Even in Iran.

Please don't confuse homosexual contact that does not lead to lifetime orientation.

About 1% of females and 3% of males are oriented to lifetime homosexuality.

Got links to back up those figures? Because this link has actual stats for the US.

LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gadawg73]

Gay/lesbian orientation happens in about 10 percent of the total human population. Even in Iran.

Please don't confuse homosexual contact that does not lead to lifetime orientation.

About 1% of females and 3% of males are oriented to lifetime homosexuality.

According to who?

 

[Qball]

Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry. The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept. Universal marriage will be happen and soon.

Asking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.

 

[Qball]

"I can't say I ever contemplated liking males"
Exactly. NO ONE chooses their sexuality. YOU were born with yours.
Bingo.

It's actually not that simple. It's more like, "No one will admit to choosing their sexuality". I'm sure for most people it isn't a conscientious decision they make one day to like one sex or another. But the company you keep and how you keep it is always a choice, and there are people who more or less have done that. There are plenty of women, for example, who date women/don't date men because they've been abused in some way, and that's all they know. So they actively distrust men and disassociate themselves from them. Of course, unless you know them and their backgrounds well enough, you wouldn't know that's the reason they date other women, and they're probably not going to admit to dating women simply because they hate men. So they, like those who have been more or less gay from birth, will use the same excuse that they were born that way, they can't help it, and that there's nothing wrong with it.

Also, like it or not, we're meant to reproduce. That's why men and women create babies and two people of the same sex don't. That's why men have sperm and women have ovaries. You can't just compare heterosexuality and homosexuality as if they're just two sides of the same coin. One is the norm, the other is a deviation of it. That doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong, per se, but it's not as simple as "some people are gay, some people are straight". It's "most people are straight, few people are gay".

Sexual attraction is never "choosing the company you keep".
Who you fall in love and what sex you are attracted to is not a choice.
No matter how many ways folks bull shit their way around it.

Don't start lecturing me, especially if you're going to be passive-aggressive about it. You don't have to be in any relationship, regardless of your attraction. I said that because some people choose to not keep the company of the opposite sex, for a litany of reasons. It might not be totally because of natural attraction, but it doesn't matter.

If it is then explain how you made your choice:
How long did you contemplate schlong "Hmmm, let me see what my choices are. I can choose to be with men and let me see all of the advantages of that" or the same with women.
Never happened that way with me. I never chose my sexual orientation and attraction. A boner coming up is not a choice. Deviation of the norm does not mean choice. Red hair and left handed folk are deviations of the norm and that is not a choice.
But at one time they claimed being left handed was.
Bottom line sexual attraction is hard wired and no one should be penalized because of it in marriage.
Because gay marriage AFFECTS NO ONE.

There's a difference between something that's purely genetic (left vs. right- handedness, hair color) and something that might be partly genetic and partly psychological. And you know it.

Sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth...at least, not for everyone. Who knows, maybe not for most people. You're trying to make it seem like it is to make opposition to gay marriage seem worse than it is. And if you own a penis, you know you don't necessarily have to be horny to "have a boner coming up".

And by the way, saying "gay marriage AFFECTS NO ONE" makes no sense. Why should anyone care if they can't get married, since it affects no one? And that's disingenuous anyway since we're not just talking about two consenting adults of the same sex living together. They can do that now. But when you start talking about conferring benefits and legal statuses on a union, that becomes a matter for, well, everyone else.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry. The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept. Universal marriage will be happen and soon.

Asking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.

So, heterosexuals should continue to enjoy the right of marriage at the denial of marriage to the gays?

Why?