The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[Gunny]

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.


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.

Just about says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Gunny]

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.



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

You keep going further and further into left field making comaprisons of your chosen sexually deviant behavior to normal people, race ... and you keep claiming discrimination.

Discrimination happens every day, like it or not. If it's discrimination that you are not financially rewarded by the US government for being abnormal, so be it. You don't DESERVE a damned thing just because you choose to live outside the conforms of normalcy and society.

 

[CockySOB]

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.

And either someone proves that homosexuality has a genetic basis which would enable the courts to act, or you acquire a legislative majority which can change the marriage laws at the state level.

So the marriage laws can be changed, but the best chance is via state legislature as regards that single state. First steps first.

 

[manu1959]

tell ya what.....gays can marry if they will:

give the rainbow back

cancel all their parades

after all they are the same as the rest of us

we don't get a special logo or a parade

 

[manu1959]

And either someone proves that homosexuality has a genetic basis which would enable the courts to act, or you acquire a legislative majority which can change the marriage laws at the state level.

So the marriage laws can be changed, but the best chance is via state legislature as regards that single state. First steps first.

it is the gene bent over taking it in the.....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ok.

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.

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.

I'm glad you agree. The Constitution/Bill of Rights does not include anything about accomodating deviancy in our marriage laws. In fact, I don't believe there's even anything in there about about marriage laws.

Why is that? I guess it was intended for us Americans to thrash out for ourselves such things as the particulars of marriage laws through our democratic system within the framework of the Constitution. That's where the "majority" comes in to make such decisions. That's why we elect politicians. These decisions are supposed to come through our Legislative Branch of government. We can't have a couple of high-and-mighty judges making all those decisions for us...as that would be tantamount to a dictatorship.

I disagree with your claim that nobody is hurt because it's only between "consenting adults". There are a myriad of reasons why and how people can be hurt by allowing gay marriage into our society. That's one reason why we, the people, have voted through our representatives to have incentives put in place to promote marriage between a man and a woman. You can take advantage of those incentives if you so choose. If you choose not to because you have a different preference, well that's your preference.

Maybe someday we will understand better why some people are homosexuals. Maybe someday homosexuality will be considered like a skin color and then gay marriage will be allowed like inter-racial marriage. Or maybe a cure will be found and it will be treated like smallpox. However, in the meantime, I don't see a compelling reason why we should change our marriage laws to accomodate what we recognize to be an unknown deviancy.

 

[musicman]

Even if homosexuality is not produced through genetics or INAH differences, you haven't yet ruled out abnormal biochemical levels in the womb which could affect the brain in a myriad level of ways.

Nor have I yet ruled out sunspots, or the mother having watched "Brokeback Mountain" during gestation. But, it is not incumbent upon me to rule ANYTHING in or out; I'm not the one trying to sell the public on the idea that homosexuality is a trait people are born with. Without compunction, I can leave that particular exercise in futility to those with a vested interest in its advancement, like Simon LeVay:

First of all there is the question of research bias. Now I know it is very difficult to find anybody completely biased, one way or the other, or completely unbiased on the subject of homosexuality. But the fact remains that Dr. LeVay is on record as saying that he set out to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality after his lover's death. Dr. LeVay is openly gay, and said IF HE DID NOT FIND SUCH A CAUSE, HE MIGHT ABANDON SCIENCE ALL TOGETHER. He studied the cadavers of men and women who he assumes to be either homosexual or heterosexual, and found that a certain cluster of brain cells in the hypothalamus were larger in the allegedly heterosexual men than they were in the allegedly homosexual men and the allegedly heterosexual women.

From the link.

 

[Gunny]

Well, let's see, morally, legally and scientifically HAMMERED. Is that "gay-bashing"?

 

[Reneer]

Just about says it all, doesn't it?

Yeah, it does, doesn't it?

You keep going further and further into left field making comaprisons of your chosen sexually deviant behavior to normal people, race ... and you keep claiming discrimination.

Discrimination happens every day, like it or not. If it's discrimination that you are not financially rewarded by the US government for being abnormal, so be it. You don't DESERVE a damned thing just because you choose to live outside the conforms of normalcy and society.

Yeah, discriminaton does happen every day. And homosexuals do in fact deserve the same benefits that heterosexuals do, if the homosexual couples are willing to put the same commitment into a relationship that a heterosexual couple does in order to obtain the benefits (a.k.a state-sponsored marriage.) If you disagree that homosexuals cannot love / be in the same kinds of relationships that heterosexuals can, then I'll just laugh at you, since there is absolutely no way you can possibly back that up scientifically.

Well, let's see, morally, legally and scientifically HAMMERED. Is that "gay-bashing"?

For the love of all that is funny... don't go into the comedy business, ok? :

The scientific community is still out on what causes homosexuality. And morally? Perhaps the majority dictates morality, but that doesn't make the majority morally right. They are just the moral majority. Legality is something that will change in time once the scientific and morality questions are answered.

I disagree with your claim that nobody is hurt because it's only between "consenting adults". There are a myriad of reasons why and how people can be hurt by allowing gay marriage into our society.

If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?

Nor have I yet ruled out sunspots, or the mother having watched "Brokeback Mountain" during gestation. But, it is not incumbent upon me to rule ANYTHING in or out; I'm not the one trying to sell the public on the idea that homosexuality is a trait people are born with.

You're correct. The burden of proof is on me. I simply was stating that you hadn't looked at all the different ways that homosexual may be created.

 

[musicman]

If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?

How is gay marriage being "allowed":

A. by the people, through their duly elected representatives, or

B. by a judge?

If your answer is not "A", I am being hurt by being denied my right to representative government.

You're correct. The burden of proof is on me. I simply was stating that you hadn't looked at all the different ways that homosexual may be created.

And, I reiterate, that particular exercise in futility is not my problem.

 

[MissileMan]

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?

No he's not. There are lots of things that have been or are considered deviations from the norm when it comes to marriage. Interracial marriage and interfaith marriage are two examples that come to mind.

 

[Reneer]

How is gay marriage being "allowed":

A. by the people, through their duly elected representatives, or

B. by a judge?

If your answer is not "A", I am being hurt by being denied my right to representative government.

I was thinking that ScreamingEagle was referring more to what would happen after gay marriage was, theoretically, allowed. And if 'by a judge' you mean the Supreme Court, well, if it ever gets to the Supreme Court then something might just be wrong with the representative government.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, it does, doesn't it?

It does indeed. You place youe selfish, personal desires above what is right and the desire of the majority.



Yeah, discriminaton does happen every day. And homosexuals do in fact deserve the same benefits that heterosexuals do, if the homosexual couples are willing to put the same commitment into a relationship that a heterosexual couple does in order to obtain the benefits (a.k.a state-sponsored marriage.) If you disagree that homosexuals cannot love / be in the same kinds of relationships that heterosexuals can, then I'll just laugh at you, since there is absolutely no way you can possibly back that up scientifically.

Too easy. NOWHERE is "love" a legal prerequisite of marriage, so this slant on your argument is screwed, just as the rest.

For the love of all that is funny... don't go into the comedy business, ok? :

The scientific community is still out on what causes homosexuality. And morally? Perhaps the majority dictates morality, but that doesn't make the majority morally right. They are just the moral majority. Legality is something that will change in time once the scientific and morality questions are answered.

Stupid argument. You choice to lead an abnormal lifestyle does not make the majority morally wrong, either, Einsten.

Science is not required to settle a question of morality. What is and is not acceptable to teh society in which you live is all that is required.


If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?

Again? Why should he? Don't you think we get tired of listing the same old shit, and you and those like you just running to another thread, making your same old bogus argument as if it hadn't been shot down. You got buried in the Iran Homosexual thread; yet, lo and behold, I find you acting as if everything presented to squash your argument in this thread.




You're correct. The burden of proof is on me. I simply was stating that you hadn't looked at all the different ways that homosexual may be created.

As seems to be your way, you are making assertions not based on any known facts. You don't know what Musicman and/or any of us have looked at. The mere fact that we can completely destroy all of your arguments without shifting position in our seats should be clear enough evidence that we have researched the topic much further than it is obvious by your posts that you have.

 

[Gunny]

No he's not. There are lots of things that have been or are considered deviations from the norm when it comes to marriage. Interracial marriage and interfaith marriage are two examples that come to mind.

Interfaith marriage is based on religious belief and/or the differences thereof.

Interracial marriage, and race itself has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Race is not a behavior.

 

[musicman]

... And if 'by a judge' you mean the Supreme Court, well, if it ever gets to the Supreme Court then something might just be wrong with the representative government.

I believe that YOU believe that. You don't want this issue going before the voters, do you?

 

[MissileMan]

Nor have I yet ruled out sunspots, or the mother having watched "Brokeback Mountain" during gestation. But, it is not incumbent upon me to rule ANYTHING in or out; I'm not the one trying to sell the public on the idea that homosexuality is a trait people are born with. Without compunction, I can leave that particular exercise in futility to those with a vested interest in its advancement, like Simon LeVay:

First of all there is the question of research bias. Now I know it is very difficult to find anybody completely biased, one way or the other, or completely unbiased on the subject of homosexuality. But the fact remains that Dr. LeVay is on record as saying that he set out to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality after his lover's death. Dr. LeVay is openly gay, and said IF HE DID NOT FIND SUCH A CAUSE, HE MIGHT ABANDON SCIENCE ALL TOGETHER. He studied the cadavers of men and women who he assumes to be either homosexual or heterosexual, and found that a certain cluster of brain cells in the hypothalamus were larger in the allegedly heterosexual men than they were in the allegedly homosexual men and the allegedly heterosexual women.

From the link.

I read your link MM and I'm trying to figure out exactly what you think the results of this study by Dr. LeVay are saying other than this: Dr. Levay postulated a theory about a correlation between the size of some neurons and homosexuality and it turns out his theory didn't hold water. Am I missing something? Is this study supposed to be irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is not something people are born with?

 

[MissileMan]

Interfaith marriage is based on religious belief and/or the differences thereof.

Interracial marriage, and race itself has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Race is not a behavior.

Religion is. But that's wasn't the point of the argument, it was about "norms" and deviations from them.

 

[musicman]

I read your link MM and I'm trying to figure out exactly what you think the results of this study by Dr. LeVay are saying other than this: Dr. Levay postulated a theory about a correlation between the size of some neurons and homosexuality and it turns out his theory didn't hold water. Am I missing something? Is this study supposed to be irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is not something people are born with?

No - nor is it in any way necessary that it be so. It is not incumbent upon society to disprove this fantasy. We're not the ones trying to sell it.

 

[Reneer]

I believe that YOU believe that. You don't want this issue going before the voters, do you?

Actually, it's already gone to the voters in my state. And I wouldn't mind it actually going to the voters, no. Then we could at least all shut up about it and I could start trying to figure out ways to immigrate to Canada or the UK.

It does indeed. You place youe selfish, personal desires above what is right and the desire of the majority.

*Shrugs* And your point?

Too easy. NOWHERE is "love" a legal prerequisite of marriage, so this slant on your argument is screwed, just as the rest.

I was talking about level of commitment, not love. Two people can cohabitate and not be married, but they can't file joint tax returns. If two people get married they make a symbolic and legally-binding commitment to one another. Then they can file joint tax returns. Homosexual couples, no matter if they cohabitate or their level of commitment, cannot file joint tax returns. If the two different couples are willing to show the same level of commitment, then why can't they both file joint tax returns?

Stupid argument. You choice to lead an abnormal lifestyle does not make the majority morally wrong, either, Einsten.

Science is not required to settle a question of morality. What is and is not acceptable to teh society in which you live is all that is required.

Again, simply because the majority believes something to be true / right / whatever, does not automatically make it so. Can we at least agree on that?

Again? Why should he? Don't you think we get tired of listing the same old shit, and you and those like you just running to another thread, making your same old bogus argument as if it hadn't been shot down. You got buried in the Iran Homosexual thread; yet, lo and behold, I find you acting as if everything presented to squash your argument in this thread.

Ever heard the expression 'same old shit, different day'? You could just as easily ignore me, you know, if it pissed you off that much.

As seems to be your way, you are making assertions not based on any known facts. You don't know what Musicman and/or any of us have looked at. The mere fact that we can completely destroy all of your arguments without shifting position in our seats should be clear enough evidence that we have researched the topic much further than it is obvious by your posts that you have.

You're right. I don't know what you or Musicman or anyone else on this thread has looked at. And no, you only think you are 'destroying' my arguments. My arguments are born out of my belief of what is right and wrong. You certainly aren't going to change my beliefs unless you provide some damn good evidence that makes me evaluate my world-view. And I'll attest right here that nothing that has been written on this forum has done that. So don't expect my arguments to go away anytime soon.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If there are a myriad of reasons why and how people could be hurt by allowing gay marriage, why don't you list at least one of them?

Here's one reason plus ten more:

1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
2. Children will suffer most.
3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
7. Social Security will be severely stressed.
8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm