[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:
If civil (as opposed to religious) marriage is essentially a contract, with rights and obligations defined by the state, what's to prevent the state from allowing gays to enter into such a contract? Nothing, other than the fact that some people just don't approve of homosexuality.

Marriage isn't a contract between a person and the state nor a between a person and another. If it were so then divorce wouldn't be needed.

[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:

It's logical to say "only male-female intercourse produces offspring" (which isn't really true anymore either, since we have artificial insemination, but let's assume).

Test tube offsrping still require men and women. Gay men can never have children and it's ironic that lesbians still need a man to donate sperm.

We already know this from the fact that childless couples can legally marry, any time, any place, any age.

Not true.

The biggest difference between two heterosexuals and two homosexuals is that no two homosexuals will ever reproduce. That is why the relationship will never be the same as a heterosexual one because both homosexual "parents" cannot be genetically related to the child. It's simply always going to be artificial.

[cpt kangarooski]

The biggest difference between two heterosexuals and two homosexuals is that no two homosexuals will ever reproduce.

Now, now. You really shouldn't use absolutes like that. Just recently the Japanese developed a mouse that only had female parents. I agree it will be quite a while at least before we're able to do the same with humans, but eventually it will indeed be possible. Go science!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by netgear:
Marriage isn't a contract between a person and the state nor a between a person and another. If it were so then divorce wouldn't be needed.

It is a form of contract - two consenting adults agree to be bound by legal rights and obligations defined by the state. That's precisely why divorce is needed - because the state is an interested party, although no-fault divorce has made that function almost moot.

In any event, there is nothing inherent in those rights or obligations that limits their application to heterosexuals. They could be applied to any two consenting adults. The only thing preventing it is tradition.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by netgear:
Test tube offsrping still require men and women. Gay men can never have children and it's ironic that lesbians still need a man to donate sperm.

But that doesn't invalidate my point, which is that all men and women have the biological capacity to reproduce, but they choose to use it, or not, for a variety of reasons. Unless you're prepared to say that childless heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry either, there's no particular reason to exclude homosexuals apart from the fact that some people just don't approve of homosexuality.

I wish people who oppose gay marriage would be honest and just say that they don't approve of homosexuality, period. The supposedly "logical" arguments that they come up with to rationalize their positions don't hold up under scrutiny. There is no logic behind the idea that Liza Minnelli and David Guest get to enjoy the privileges of legal marriage but two men or two women can't.

The biggest difference between two heterosexuals and two homosexuals is that no two homosexuals will ever reproduce. That is why the relationship will never be the same as a heterosexual one because both homosexual "parents" cannot be genetically related to the child. It's simply always going to be artificial.

That's true but it still doesn't prove that two men can't or shouldn't have the right to marry, whether they have children or not. If two heterosexuals can marry without having children, there's no reason why two men shouldn't be able to.

[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It is a form of contract - two consenting adults agree to be bound by legal rights and obligations defined by the state. That's precisely why divorce is needed - because the state is an interested party, although no-fault divorce has made that function almost moot.

In any event, there is nothing inherent in those rights or obligations that limits their application to heterosexuals. They could be applied to any two consenting adults. The only thing preventing it is tradition.

No, untrue. Find me state statutes which explicitly define the contract you are speaking about. The fact that there is no contract for marriage is the precise reason divorce proceedings exist.

This is why marriage is special because there isn't a written or verbal contract. Everything is made up as you go along. If I marry there is nothing in the law which obligates me to spend one penny to support my spouse. I am not "under contract" to do anything. This is why divorce law exists.

[netgear]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Now, now. You really shouldn't use absolutes like that. Just recently the Japanese developed a mouse that only had female parents. I agree it will be quite a while at least before we're able to do the same with humans, but eventually it will indeed be possible. Go science!

Because we all know that everything applicable to mice is always the same in humans

[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:
But that doesn't invalidate my point, which is that all men and women have the biological capacity to reproduce, but they choose to use it, or not, for a variety of reasons. Unless you're prepared to say that childless heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry either, there's no particular reason to exclude homosexuals apart from the fact that some people just don't approve of homosexuality.

As long as the law excludes heterosexuals who can reproduce from marrying then there's no reason to include homosexuals in those who are eligible to marry.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
The federal government has no business recognizing any marriages.

Whether or not the federal government "has no business" doing something is irrelevant. I'm telling you how it is, not how you think it ought to be. The fact is that federal law bootstraps off of state law. If your marriage is recognized by a state, then you are married for the purposes of federal law.

That's how you get to claim marital filing status for taxes, and so on. Someone has to decide whether someone is qualified. That someone is the states. All the feds do is take the states' word on it. But those state standards aren't always the same. So who can be married varies state by state and the federal government just goes long with those differences.

The interesting thing will be when states recognize same-sex marriages. That will run headlong into the Defense of Marriage Act, which so far, hasn't been tested.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by netgear:
No, untrue. Find me state statutes which explicitly define the contract you are speaking about. The fact that there is no contract for marriage is the precise reason divorce proceedings exist.

This is why marriage is special because there isn't a written or verbal contract. Everything is made up as you go along. If I marry there is nothing in the law which obligates me to spend one penny to support my spouse. I am not "under contract" to do anything. This is why divorce law exists.

That it doesn't say who does the dishes doesn't mean that it doesn't have contractual qualities. The agreement to marry creates all sorts of legal rights (joint tax returns, consent to a spouse's medical treatment) and potential obligations (alimony, community property).

Divorce law exists in order to make sure everyone meets the legal and equitable obligations that marriage gives rise to. If one person decides to break the marriage contract, the court has the power to compensate the other. In other words, you have it backwards - divorce law exists precisely because marriage creates rights and obligations. If people could just walk away from a marriage, we wouldn't need divorce law.

Even if what you're saying were true, it wouldn't change the fact that, other than cultural tradition, there's nothing about civil marriage that is unique to heterosexuality. The law could just as easily govern homosexual relationships.

[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That it doesn't say who does the dishes doesn't mean that it doesn't have contractual qualities. The agreement to marry creates all sorts of legal rights (joint tax returns, consent to a spouse's medical treatment) and potential obligations (alimony, community property).

Divorce law exists in order to make sure everyone meets the legal and equitable obligations that marriage gives rise to. If one person decides to break the marriage contract, the court has the power to compensate the other. In other words, you have it backwards - divorce law exists precisely because marriage creates rights and obligations. If people could just walk away from a marriage, we wouldn't need divorce law.

Even if what you're saying were true, it wouldn't change the fact that, other than cultural tradition, there's nothing about civil marriage that is unique to heterosexuality. The law could just as easily govern homosexual relationships.

You're wrong about the marriage contract. Divorce laws exist precisely to determine who owes what to whom because there isn't any such contract during marriage.

If marriage were indeed a contract then why is the state even involved? The state doesn't get involved when I buy a house, buy a car, buy a yacht, buy any numbers of things that involve a legal contract.

We have divorce laws because divorce is an adversarial process establishing rights to things that don't exist in marriage. And stop confusing rights with benefits. Joint tax returns, etc. are not rights but benefits.

You still have failed to explain why any homosexuals should marry when we deny some heterosexuals the same benefit.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by netgear:
You're wrong about the marriage contract. Divorce laws exist precisely to determine who owes what to whom because there isn't any such contract during marriage.

If marriage were indeed a contract then why is the state even involved? The state doesn't get involved when I buy a house, buy a car, buy a yacht, buy any numbers of things that involve a legal contract.

We have divorce laws because divorce is an adversarial process establishing rights to things that don't exist in marriage. And stop confusing rights with benefits. Joint tax returns, etc. are not rights but benefits.

You still have failed to explain why any homosexuals should marry when we deny some heterosexuals the same benefit.

"It is also to be observed that, while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more [125 U.S. 190, 211] _ than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is of course essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. This view is well expressed by the supreme court of Maine in Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 481, 483. Said that court, speaking by Chief Justice APPLETON: 'When the contracting parties have entered into the married state, they have not so much entered into a contract as into a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations of which rest not upon their agreement, but upon the general law of the state, statutory or common, which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations. They are of law, not of contract. It was a contract that the relation should be established, but, being established, the power of the parties as to its extent or duration is at an end. Their rights under it are determined by the will of the sovereign, as evidenced by law. They can neither be modified nor changed by any agreement of parties. It is a relation for life, and the parties cannot terminate it at any shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make. The reciprocal rights arising from this relation, so loug as it continues, r e such as the law determines from time to time, and none other.' And again: 'It is not then a contract within the meaning of the clause of the consitution which prohibits the impairing the obligation of contracts. It is rather a social relation like that of parent and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the creation of the law itself, a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life, and the true [125 U.S. 190, 212] _ basis of human progress.'"
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)

Things have changed somewhat since then but the principle still stands about the distinction between a marriage and a contract, doesn't it?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by netgear:
You're wrong about the marriage contract. Divorce laws exist precisely to determine who owes what to whom because there isn't any such contract during marriage.

If marriage were indeed a contract then why is the state even involved? The state doesn't get involved when I buy a house, buy a car, buy a yacht, buy any numbers of things that involve a legal contract.

We have divorce laws because divorce is an adversarial process establishing rights to things that don't exist in marriage. And stop confusing rights with benefits. Joint tax returns, etc. are not rights but benefits.

One has to be able to think in a multi-faceted way. Life isn't either/or. Marriage has contractual aspects. Two consenting adults agree to be bound by the marriage laws of the state. That's a contract. That the state has an interest and governs the relationship doesn't mean it has no contractual aspects. It can be some of each.

Even the commercial contracts you refer to are partially governed by law. The state says there are certain things you must do and must not do. And if one person breaches and the other sues, it's given over to the courts.

Joint tax returns might be a benefit rather than a right, but it's still a privilege restricted to married couples, and there are other rights that adhere to marriage that you've ignored.

But it doesn't really matter what we call it. Let's assume you're correct - that marriage has no contractual aspects. The fact remains that there's nothing about civil marriage that is unique to heterosexuality - the law could just as easily govern homosexual relationships.

You still have failed to explain why any homosexuals should marry when we deny some heterosexuals the same benefit.

Which heterosexuals are you talking about?

[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:


But it doesn't really matter what we call it. Let's assume you're correct - that marriage has no contractual aspects. The fact remains that there's nothing about civil marriage that is unique to heterosexuality - the law could just as easily govern homosexual relationships.

It could but why change it?

Which heterosexuals are you talking about?

I would contend that if marriage is opened up to homosexuals then we should open marriage to anyone and do away with all restrictions. Let a man marry 5 women or 5 men. Why must we limit a marriage to only two people if we are going to open marriage to those who cannot possibly reproduce? Otherwise it's just concealed hypocrisy.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by netgear:
As long as the law excludes heterosexuals who can reproduce from marrying then there's no reason to include homosexuals in those who are eligible to marry.

"The judge in the Superior Court endorsed the first rationale, holding that �the state�s interest in regulating marriage is based on the traditional concept that marriage�s primary purpose is procreation.� This is incorrect. Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (�The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity�). [FN22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry. See G.L. c. 207, � 28A. While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage. [FN23]

Moreover, the Commonwealth affirmatively facilitates bringing children into a family regardless of whether the intended parent is married or unmarried, whether the child is adopted or born into a family, whether assistive technology was used to conceive the child, and whether the parent or her partner is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. [FN24] If procreation were a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means. The attempt to isolate procreation as �the source of a fundamental right to marry,� post at (Cordy, J., dissenting), overlooks the integrated way in which courts have examined the complex and overlapping realms of personal autonomy, marriage, family life, and child rearing. Our jurisprudence recognizes that, in these nuanced and fundamentally private areas of life, such a narrow focus is inappropriate.
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _The �marriage is procreation� argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage. Like �Amendment 2� to the Constitution of Colorado, which effectively denied homosexual persons equality under the law and full access to the political process, the marriage restriction impermissibly �identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board.� Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996). In so doing, the State�s action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect. [FN25]"
Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health

Any particular reason why this argument doesn't have broader application?

[netgear]

Why should it?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whether or not the federal government "has no business" doing something is irrelevant. I'm telling you how it is, not how you think it ought to be. The fact is that federal law bootstraps off of state law. If your marriage is recognized by a state, then you are married for the purposes of federal law.

That's how you get to claim marital filing status for taxes, and so on. Someone has to decide whether someone is qualified. That someone is the states. All the feds do is take the states' word on it. But those state standards aren't always the same. So who can be married varies state by state and the federal government just goes long with those differences.

The interesting thing will be when states recognize same-sex marriages. That will run headlong into the Defense of Marriage Act, which so far, hasn't been tested.

... and as was pointed out repeatedly on these boards, marriage doesn't need to be defended because;

"Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. [FN28] If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit. [FN29]"

[zigzag]

Originally posted by netgear:
It could but why change it?

I dunno - why change anything? Ever? Maybe because it's the fair and reasonable thing to do?

I would contend that if marriage is opened up to homosexuals then we should open marriage to anyone and do away with all restrictions. Let a man marry 5 women or 5 men. Why must we limit a marriage to only two people if we are going to open marriage to those who cannot possibly reproduce? Otherwise it's just concealed hypocrisy.

Marriage is already open to those who can't or don't intend to reproduce - what difference does it make if they're the same gender?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Why should it?

Perhaps?

[netgear]

Funny, I see nothing about sex or marriage in that document anywhere. Care to elaborate? Bowers v. Hardwick perhaps?

[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I dunno - why change anything? Ever? Maybe because it's the fair and reasonable thing to do?

In order to legitimize behavior which the majority of society deems unacceptable there must be a good reason.

Marriage is already open to those who can't or don't intend to reproduce - what difference does it make if they're the same gender?

It's not apparent when two heterosexuals get married that they will never reproduce. It is always apparent when two homosexuals get together that reproduction is impossible.

Despite the disaster that was the 1960s I still think only those who can or will reproduce should get the benefits of marriage. The rest should work it out some other way.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Funny, I see nothing about sex or marriage in that document anywhere. Care to elaborate? Bowers v. Hardwick perhaps?

Disingenuous.
Care to elaborate. Read backwards through this thread and follow the links and the links within them. All the elaboration is there.

What about Bowers **"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled." v. Hardwick?
**Lawrence v. Texas but you knew that already, so why bring it up?

Why shouldn't the argument extend to the rest of the U.S.? A unique state constitution?
14 Amendment been suspended?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by netgear:
In order to legitimize behavior which the majority of society deems unacceptable there must be a good reason.

Fine, but let's stop pretending that the reason has to do with anything other than cultural prejudice. It has nothing to do with whether people can reproduce or not - it's a distaste for homosexual behavior, plain and simple.

It's not apparent when two heterosexuals get married that they will never reproduce. It is always apparent when two homosexuals get together that reproduction is impossible.

Despite the disaster that was the 1960s I still think only those who can or will reproduce should get the benefits of marriage. The rest should work it out some other way.

Therefore my mother, a widow who neither could nor would reproduce, should not have been allowed to remarry at age 70? This just shows how hollow the "reserved for people who can reproduce whether they want to or not" argument is.

Again, it's a distaste for homosexual behavior, plain and simple. I wish people would just be honest about that rather than couch their opposition in pretzel logic.

Enough said.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by netgear:
In order to legitimize behavior which the majority of society deems unacceptable there must be a good reason.

Hmm maybe you really didn't read Lawrence? Maybe you disagree? If so, on what grounds?

�Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of �liberty� protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.� 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Lawrence v. Texas

[Spliffdaddy]

orig. posted by zigzag:

"Again, it's a distaste for homosexual behavior, plain and simple. I wish people would just be honest about that rather than couch their opposition in pretzel logic."


careful what you wish for.

if we create an environment where it's acceptable or encouraged to voice our (honest) distaste for homosexual behavior - then won't that be returning us to the same environment that gay activists just spent decades trying to get us out of?

If you expect honesty - you need to accept the fact that, honestly, most people don't want homosexuals to marry.

So are you happy now?

no?

Well don't expect honesty. Expect courtesy, instead.

There are many things done out of courtesy...but very few of them are done out of honesty.

Do you really want to stand there for 90 seconds holding the door for that slow-moving old lady? heck no, but it's the correct and courteous thing to do for a fellow human being. Are you expecting honesty in this situation? Do you tell passers-by that you honestly couldn't give less of a **** whether you held the door or not? Just to be honest.

expect less, zigzag. these are humans we're dealing with.

[netgear]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
Disingenuous.
Care to elaborate. Read backwards through this thread and follow the links and the links within them. All the elaboration is there.

What about Bowers **"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled." v. Hardwick?
**Lawrence v. Texas but you knew that already, so why bring it up?

Why shouldn't the argument extend to the rest of the U.S.? A unique state constitution?
14 Amendment been suspended?

We simply cannot "14th Amendment" the country to death based on chosen behavior. Enough said, echoing the words of Justice White.

[netgear]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
Hmm maybe you really didn't read Lawrence? Maybe you disagree? If so, on what grounds?

�Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of �liberty� protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.� 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Lawrence v. Texas

So what? So we have one court disagreeing with what another prior SCOTUS ruling stated. And in the future another one might just do the same. This is the danger in allowing a bench full of unelected officals to legislate and overturn what the majority of this country decides.

Right now the majority of this country has decided that homosexuals may not marry and that's the way that it is because there is no compelling benefit to allowing any homosexual to do such in the first place (for obvious natural and biological reasons).

[Spliffdaddy]

Ok, zigzag, I'll take you up on that 'honesty' offer, just for kicks.

let me play the "honest guy" - and you'll see how defenseless your position becomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------

[honestguy]I don't think gays should marry because I don't like the idea of homosexual sex. It honestly turns my stomache to think about it. Promoting behaviour that turns my stomache is not something I can support. thank you and good day.[/honestguy]

---------------------------------------------------------------

he was honest about his position. so what now? what do you do?

[netgear]

Originally posted by zigzag:


Therefore my mother, a widow who neither could nor would reproduce, should not have been allowed to remarry at age 70? This just shows how hollow the "reserved for people who can reproduce whether they want to or not" argument is.

But she did reproduce, didn't she? Care to show me any two homosexuals in this world who can reproduce amongst themselves, EVER?

That's why there's no complelling argument to ever allow gays to marry. They are a genetic dead end. A burden. It's why I'm not entirely gay because I do choose to sleep with women too.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Ok, zigzag, I'll take you up on that 'honesty' offer, just for kicks.

let me play the "honest guy" - and you'll see how defenseless your position becomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------

[honestguy]I don't think gays should marry because I don't like the idea of homosexual sex. It honestly turns my stomache to think about it. Promoting behaviour that turns my stomache is not something I can support. thank you and good day.[/honestguy]

I'm gay and I oppose homosexual marriage.

On what basis do we deny a father and daughter (both over age of consent) to marry? What if neither can reproduce? Should we stop them from marrying? Why stop at only two people in a marriage? Aren't all those merely objections to behavior which society has always deemed to be unacceptable universally?

[GRAFF]

Originally posted by netgear:
That's why there's no complelling argument to ever allow gays to marry. They are a genetic dead end. A burden. It's why I'm not entirely gay because I do choose to sleep with women too.

So you won't be a "burden" to society? Is that really what you think of gays (or for that matter, anyone who does not breed)? Funny how their tax contributions are readily accepted by the government burden such as they are.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Deleted: on second thoughts, I'd rather ask you some questions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
So what? So we have one court disagreeing with what another prior SCOTUS ruling stated. And in the future another one might just do the same. This is the danger in allowing a bench full of unelected officals to legislate and overturn what the majority of this country decides.

Lawrence was about criminal sodomy statutes. Are you really saying that it is OK for the state to criminalize your private sex life because that is what "the majority of this country decides"?

If you agree with such a law and think that it is constitutional, why didn't you turn yourself in to the authorities?

Next question:

Originally posted by netgear:
We simply cannot "14th Amendment" the country to death based on chosen behavior. Enough said, echoing the words of Justice White.

Is it your contention that you chose to be gay?

[SimeyTheLimey]

dp

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lawrence was about criminal sodomy statutes. Are you really saying that it is OK for the state to criminalize your private sex life because that is what "the majority of this country decides"?

If you agree with such a law and think that it is constitutional, why didn't you turn yourself in to the authorities?

I don't partake in sodomy due to the disgusting nature of it, thank you very much. Perhaps that's why the majority of the public thinks homosexuals are nasty creatures?

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Is it your contention that you chose to be gay?

Yes. I just as easily can form a relationship with a man as I can with a woman.

Perhaps this gives me a different perspective, a sort of "super-human."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
I don't partake in sodomy due to the disgusting nature of it, thank you very much. Perhaps that's why the majority of the public thinks homosexuals are nasty creatures?

Sodomy includes any non-vaginal sex. It's not just anal sex. Are you saying that you are a (gay) virgin?

If not, why didn't you turn yourself in?

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lawrence was about criminal sodomy statutes. Are you really saying that it is OK for the state to criminalize your private sex life because that is what "the majority of this country decides"?

I do think it fully Constitutional for the state to regulate and prosecute victimless crimes and to regulate public behavior.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
Yes. I just as easily can form a relationship with a man as I can with a woman.

Perhaps this gives me a different perspective, a sort of "super-human."

Are you saying that you are bisexual? Did you choose to be bisexual? Do you believe that anyone else (be they heterosexual or homosexual) has the same choice?

I'm talking orientation here, i.e what goes on between your ears. I'm not talking what you choose to do and with whom.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
I do think it fully Constitutional for the state to regulate and prosecute victimless crimes and to regulate public behavior.

You didn't answer the question. If you think the law is OK, why didn't you turn yourself in?

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sodomy includes any non-vaginal sex. It's not just anal sex. Are you saying that you are a (gay) virgin?

If not, why didn't you turn yourself in?

Sodomy is only oral and/or anal sex. Nope, can't turn myself in for what I haven't done.

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you saying that you are bisexual? Did you choose to be bisexual? Do you believe that anyone else (be they heterosexual or homosexual) has the same choice?

I'm talking orientation here, i.e what goes on between your ears. I'm not talking what you choose to do and with whom.

Yes, it's all chosen. When I choose to settle down it will be with a woman.

[cpt kangarooski]

netgear--

So what? So we have one court disagreeing with what another prior SCOTUS ruling stated. And in the future another one might just do the same. This is the danger in allowing a bench full of unelected officals to legislate and overturn what the majority of this country decides.

Oh, they didn't just disagree. They said that the previous decision was wrongly decided; that's far stronger. And at any rate, courts value stability. They don't buck precedent often generally, and certainly are unlikely to go back and forth constantly.

As for courts generally, they don't legislate particularly, and it's important for them to ignore, at least to some degree, the will of the populace, because the mission of the courts is to ensure justice, regardless of whether it's politically popular to do so. Surely you didn't think they were given life terms and ensured pay for fun? It's so that they won't be beholden to anyone. Let Congress and the President respond to political pressures. But 'majority rules' has flaws that make it unsuitable for all aspects of a functional government, and the framers were well aware of it.

In order to legitimize behavior which the majority of society deems unacceptable there must be a good reason.

Actually, I'd say it's the opposite: to delegitimize behavior, the majority of society deems unacceptable there must nevertheless be a good reason. Democracy is not license for a tyrrany of the majority; if that's what we had wanted, we wouldn't put checks on Congress, would structure the judiciary differently, and would've ignored the Bill of Rights and numerous later amendments.

At a minimum, rationality is called for. I doubt that squeamish prejudice, which is all there is against homosexuals, to tell it like it is, is at all rational. In fact, such prejudiced people likely agree -- otherwise they wouldn't use such tortured arguments over and over so as to try for a semblance of rationality.

[netgear]

What's rational is keeping things just as they are.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
Yes, it's all chosen. When I choose to settle down it will be with a woman.

OK, I have tried to humor this and I have tried to keep an open mind here. But please stop with the claiming to be gay thing because as far as I am concerned, you are not and cannot be. No gay or bisexual man in all the years I have been out has ever described the behaviors and attitudes that you have described. I don't know whether to make an amateur psychological diagnosis, or whether to simply declare that my BS meter is off the scale.

Basically, I know one individual who is bisexual and would probably agree with some of what you say. But certainly not all of it. He's the sorryest closet case I know, but he wouldn't regard his orientation as dirty, which you seem to do. And he wouldn't call his orientation a choice.

I've been out for quite a while now. I have dealt with people who have serioous issues accepting themselves. I've watched a few jump in and out of the closet. I know many who have had serious religious crises because they felt their orientation conflicted with their religious upbringing. I know others who could not bring themselves to admit their orientation in public, or even to accept themselves. I also came out relatively late myself so I have some understanding of how hard it can be. But I have never met a single individual who is gay or bisexual who has claimed that there was any choice in the matter. At least not a male. Some women do seem to have a more fluid sexual identity. I know a couple of women who have gone back and forth. But a choice for men? Never.

So where does that leave me thinking about your claim that you are gay yet hold views pretty much identical with Pat Buchanan? Frankly, if I had to guess, I'd say that you are simply making the claim to be gay up because you think that gives you cover to make your anti-gay statements. I couldn't help but notice that you never mentioned it until you got backed into a corner. But your posts don't reflect your self-declared identity one bit. I don't think anyone is quite this self-loathing. So I'm calling it BS.

I don't have a problem with you holding anti-gay views. And I don't have a problem with your opposition to gay marriage, or the fact that you seem to be wilfully ignorant about even straight marriage. Go ahead, it's a free country. You are entitled to your views. But to make your argument by inventing a persona like that is pretty contemptable. It's a real insult to those of us who are gay.

Bye bye.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
orig. posted by zigzag:

"Again, it's a distaste for homosexual behavior, plain and simple. I wish people would just be honest about that rather than couch their opposition in pretzel logic."


careful what you wish for.

if we create an environment where it's acceptable or encouraged to voice our (honest) distaste for homosexual behavior - then won't that be returning us to the same environment that gay activists just spent decades trying to get us out of?

If you expect honesty - you need to accept the fact that, honestly, most people don't want homosexuals to marry.

So are you happy now?

no?

Well don't expect honesty. Expect courtesy, instead.

There are many things done out of courtesy...but very few of them are done out of honesty.

Do you really want to stand there for 90 seconds holding the door for that slow-moving old lady? heck no, but it's the correct and courteous thing to do for a fellow human being. Are you expecting honesty in this situation? Do you tell passers-by that you honestly couldn't give less of a **** whether you held the door or not? Just to be honest.

expect less, zigzag. these are humans we're dealing with.

I see your point, but:

(a) I'd still rather have honesty than tortured logic. Maybe it's because I'm not gay and don't take the prejudice personally, but I prefer honesty. I feel that way about race as well.

(b) There's a third option: courteous honesty. Many people here simply say "I think homosexuality is wrong." They don't get nasty about it. I've defended their right to that opinion more than once - I've even defended Zimphire, who disapproves of it but as far as I can tell doesn't hate anyone for it. It's when people start in with "I have no problem with homosexuality but we can't have gay marriage because [insert tortured logic - the law can't accomodate it, the word "marriage" is fixed, etc. - here]" that I object.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by netgear:
But she did reproduce, didn't she? Care to show me any two homosexuals in this world who can reproduce amongst themselves, EVER?

That's why there's no complelling argument to ever allow gays to marry. They are a genetic dead end. A burden. It's why I'm not entirely gay because I do choose to sleep with women too.

Yes, my mother reproduced, much to her regret. But that doesn't lend any credence to the notion that infertile 70-year-old women should be allowed to marry but two people of the same gender shouldn't. By arguing that marriage should be limited to a class of people who could reproduce but choose not to, or have reproduced in the past, you dig yourself a deep illogical hole. Just admit that you don't approve of homosexuality or homosexual marriage and leave it at that.

Even if gays are genetic dead ends, that's still not an argument to exclude them from civil marriage. As has been demonstrated over and over again, civil marriage is not conditioned on reproduction.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by netgear:
I would contend that if marriage is opened up to homosexuals then we should open marriage to anyone and do away with all restrictions. Let a man marry 5 women or 5 men. Why must we limit a marriage to only two people if we are going to open marriage to those who cannot possibly reproduce? Otherwise it's just concealed hypocrisy.

Now we are going out of the bounds of the original topic of the thread.

The debate is Marriage vs. Civil Unions.

Nuff said, read that other thread.

Originally posted by netgear:
Right now the majority of this country has decided that homosexuals may not marry and that's the way that it is because there is no compelling benefit to allowing any homosexual to do such in the first place (for obvious natural and biological reasons).

Note that was also the argument against the womans suffrage movement, abolishing slavery, and segregation.

On all of those cases, the majority were against it... but were all wrong? Should we go back to slavery because southerners made money and northerners made a profit selling the southern comodities?

Should we go back to segregation because southern whites liked it, and the north didn't want those southern issues wasting valuable time and effort of the government?

These were all very popular sides back when they were current events. But where they right? Should the South still be segregated? Should there still be slavery?

Originally posted by netgear:
I'm gay and I oppose homosexual marriage.

On what basis do we deny a father and daughter (both over age of consent) to marry? What if neither can reproduce? Should we stop them from marrying? Why stop at only two people in a marriage? Aren't all those merely objections to behavior which society has always deemed to be unacceptable universally?

1. Based on your answers, your at best confused, but not gay. Most likely just a troll thinking this is funny. But it's annoying. Grow up.

2. again read the other thread. That's been discussed before. It's more than just genetics. It was outlawed well before there was anything known about genetics because of the other human rights issues associated with it.

Originally posted by netgear:
I don't partake in sodomy due to the disgusting nature of it, thank you very much. Perhaps that's why the majority of the public thinks homosexuals are nasty creatures?

Well an interesting bit of research a few years ago (I believe Opera brought it up a few years ago giving it some attention) found that the majority who tried anal sex are heterosexual, not homosexual. Most don't like the activity because it risks tearing the rectum, which sometimes can have lifelong problems. That's the major risk. Other than that, it's not proven to be much more dangerious than other sexual conduct. In any method (oral, anal vaginal) there is a tearing of skin, allowing for viral transmission. All 3 run the risk, though social stigma make anal the one that spreads AIDS. When in fact, just brushing your teeth, or eating potato chips before oral sex could very well allow you contract AIDS.

So that's a *personal* choice.

Originally posted by netgear:
I do think it fully Constitutional for the state to regulate and prosecute victimless crimes and to regulate public behavior.

Again, is it public behind a locked bedroom door with the windows closed in a private dwelling? All sexual activity is outlawed in public places. In quite a few areas, even kissing (technically) can be classified as "sexual"... though I don't think anyone has been prosecuted in the past 80-200 or so years.

It's also illegal to be naked in public. Can you take a shower in your home without a bathing suit? Can you sleep naked? Could I type this post naked?

Originally posted by netgear:
Sodomy is only oral and/or anal sex. Nope, can't turn myself in for what I haven't done.

Well, that's you... but when you include the fact that both hetero and homosexual populations conduct both of those... I think your talking about 80%+. Look at the statistics over oral sex and teen.

Originally posted by zigzag:
I see your point, but:

(a) I'd still rather have honesty than tortured logic. Maybe it's because I'm not gay and don't take the prejudice personally, but I prefer honesty. I feel that way about race as well.

(b) There's a third option: courteous honesty. Many people here simply say "I think homosexuality is wrong." They don't get nasty about it. I've defended their right to that opinion more than once - I've even defended Zimphire, who disapproves of it but as far as I can tell doesn't hate anyone for it. It's when people start in with "I have no problem with homosexuality but we can't have gay marriage because [insert tortured logic - the law can't accomodate it, the word "marriage" is fixed, etc. - here]" that I object.

I agree. I buy the argument to believe that marriage and civil unions should be separate (religion vs. state documents). But the state should't discriminate because of a religion.

Originally posted by zigzag:
Even if gays are genetic dead ends, that's still not an argument to exclude them from civil marriage. As has been demonstrated over and over again, civil marriage is not conditioned on reproduction.

Yep. Many couples don't reproduce. Americans are having *less* kids, and waiting until later (when fertility problems are more commont) to try. And some perfer career over family. Some perfer to stay single... add all that up, and there's a ton of people who will never have a kid. We didn't even include abortion, condoms, into that among the thousand other issues.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by netgear:
Yes. I just as easily can form a relationship with a man as I can with a woman.

Perhaps this gives me a different perspective, a sort of "super-human."

You may choose who you have the realtionship with, but you can't choose which one will actually arouse you sexually.

[Meneldil]

Seems like a good place...

So, there's less than three weeks till May 17th. I've read there are a couple requests up for the Massachusetts Court to delay the decision until after the amendment is decided. How are those going? Any chance they'll pass, or are we about to see that gay people getting married doesn't cause the world to end?