This brings us back to the argument regarding infertile couples. Should they be denied the right to marry? If, after marriage, they become infertile before the birth of a child, should their marriage be forcefully annulled?



You might want to bring this up to the Supreme Court. I recall something about the 14th Amendment, Section 1. Why are you sick and tired of people expecting our government and legislative bodies to adhere to the constitution?


That may be because the main argument against gay marriage has come from the religious right? Where else does the argument that homosexuality is a deviance and an abomination come from?

Florida, a dislike and a sense of fear associated with gay marriage, while I don't really fully understand, is perfectly fine, in my opinion. I don't think anyone is thinking that you have to like it. You know? The idea of two dudes getting it on is kind of unappealing to me, on a direct personal level. But I don't think there's anything wrong with two gay guys getting it on, and in the abstract I realize it's just a beautiful thing as a guy and girl. When it comes down down to it, the idea of anyone I know getting it on is kind of icky to me, and I don't think I'd like to see all my personal ridiculous facial contortions and awkward movement, etc.

You commentary on the NAACP has nothing to do with the laws of our country, and I bet you could found the NAAWP if you wanted to. Assuming the NAAWP wasn't overtly racist, I guarantee you its legal, because the Klan is still around - and they are definately racist.

I agree that money talks, but I don't think that's germane to this discussion. There are some awfully rich gay people around.

I'd also guess that gays would fight for legal recognition of their marriages on the state level because it's a step in the inevitable process of national legalization.

I also agree that we don't have many rights, as American citizens, that we think we do and should have. I see that as a problem. I'm comfortable with people having more rights, pretty much all the time, unless there is a very good reason to curtail them. Perhaps you are not. That's a different discussion. But I don't think that its germane to this discussion.

I am curious as what is it about gay marriage that scares you, and why do you feel it drags your marriage through the mud? I'm not married, but if I do get married, I can't see how anyone else relationship will affect the importance of my own. All the meaning of that relationship comes from the couple involved and what they put into it, as far as I understand.

In a slightly different wrinkle, it occurs to me that this isn't actually true. What's the feeling on using genetic material from a male who is related to the non-getting-pregnant member of a lesbian couple, or a related female to carry the child for a gay male couple? I'd think it might be rather common, and then you do sort of the genetics of both parents involved.

I sort of wish I had a lesbian sister, and then she used my sperm to impregnate her wife. I could then brag that I'd knocked up my sister's wife. That would be so Alabama Man.

That would be me, but that's not exactly what I said. I said this debate is over civil marriage. This is a fact. There are two basic forms of marriage, religious/spiritual and civil. Churches and spiritual organizations are already free to conduct or not conduct and recognize marriages as they see fit.

Of course it does, and I applaud you for treating your marriage with such respect and for honoring it as you do. My marriage is the single most important thing in my life, and will be regardless of whether the government ever recognizes it. I said as much early on in the thread. My religious marriage is very important to me, I imagine in much the same way yours is to you. This debate, however isn't about that form of marriage.

Excellent. I feel the same about my marriage. We're quite a bit alike in that way.

I agree that it's a beautiful thing. That's part of why I married the woman I love.

The social conditions have never been right previous to now.

Like an amendment guaranteeing every person equal protection under the law? That would be the 14th.

That is a statement of legal and social principle, a goal to strive for, not meant to be taken as descriptive.

Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Except that if same-sex marriage is recognized, the "losers", the anti-gay marriage crowd, don't really lose anything, while those of us who are gay and do want to have the legal protections lose a great deal with every law that treats us unequally.

Yep, the child produced would have genes from the same grandparents, and thus be the carrier of the genetic line for both sides of the family.

It happens with some lesbian couples. Grace and I didn't go that route because it made my brother a little uncomfortable and I really don't care about having a genetic relationship with my children.

I think it's probably rare for gay male couples. Those I know with kids have adopted or have a child from a previous relationship.

Sissy once joked that it would be cool if she'd stored some sperm while she was still pre-op, then we could have used that to get Grace pregnant, resulting in my sister being the one who knocked up my wife.

You notice I_L hasn't touched this. His arguments aren't aimed at the people who are actually affected by this. He's grandstanding to those who--by his own argument--really shouldn't give a damn. When it comes to actually getting into the shoes of someone whose life is dramatically impacted by this particular brand of bigotry, he's notably silent.

Unlike, I'd wager, the anti-gay proponents in this thread, I actually know several gay people. I'm friends with them, including several in very stable, committed relationships. It would make a BIG difference in their lives to have the legal status that a married couple enjoys. And since I care about them, it would make a big difference in my life for them to have that.

How is my day-to-day living tangibly impacted by it (beyond the intangible impact of being happy for my friends)? Maybe not much. But given that I_L has just demonstrated that nobody's who's not personally impacted can say it makes that much difference to them, why not do the thing that's more in keeping with the spirit of what our forebears fought and died for--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for EVERY American?

Nope, because it's possible for an infertile couple to produce a child, thanks to modern science. There is absolutely, positively no way for a homosexual couple to produce children. What I can't understand is that if marriage isn't about producing children, then why wouldn't you agree to gay marriage without the child-producing benefits?

The notion that everyone is treated equally is great in concept, but absolutely unatainable in praotce. You still neglect the fact that, as you sit here and read this thread, you're benefiting from a certain group of people not having the same privileges as you do. If you could ask the Supreme Court whether or not they believe that everyone should have the exact same rights and privileges as everyone else, they'll flat out tell you no. The fact that one group is discriminated against for the good of the majority is an integral part of any society.

The fact is that homosexuality has long since been considered taboo by many cultures throughout history. As NCB pointed out earlier, many African, South American, Asian, North American and European cultures openly condemned homosexuality. That's where the argument that homosexuality is a deviance and an abomination come from. Simply because the religious right, as you want to call them, are the most boisterous doesn't mean that they're the only opposition.

I haven't told anyone not to care. I find it funny that you tell me not to care because it doesn't concern me yet you don't take your own advice. Oh, and just for the record, there's a difference with empathy and agreeance. I can empathize all day long with homosexuals; That doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with gay marriage.

I'd like to take that bet, please :D

Simply because I oppose gay marriage doesn't mean that I have a problem associating or making friends with homosexuals.

I never said that no one could care about anything which doesn't directly affect them. Just don't tell me that I can't care about whether or not gay marriage is legalized because it doesn't affect me when the same also applies to you. That just makes you a hypocrite.

By the way, our forefathers were bigots and slave-owners (In case you didn't know).

I just want to point out, I_L, your last post was a complete non-response to my post that preceded it. As far as responding to the points I was making, your answer was basically content-free.

I repeat my bottom line: What's the problem with choosing kindness and acceptance and inclusiveness? I don't get it at all.

There's nothing wrong with showing kindness towards others and accepting them as indivuduals, but simply because you're accepting of people doesn't mean you have to be accepting of their practices.

And that's the bottom line.

Because children are born to, adopted by, and raised by same-sex couples.

Yet you continue to argue against equal treatment.

You have yet to show how discrimination against homosexuals benefits society.

If I remove the uterus of a woman, or tie up a man's vas deferens, there is NO WAY they are making a baby, regardless of the advances of modern science. They can still get married. Do you believe they shouldn't be allowed to do so?

Yes, they are statistically a small portion of heterosexual marriages.

We've already established that gay people are a small percentage of our population.

Hey, at least that's not vague. ;) We talking illegal aliens, we talking exploited foreign labor, people who have been banned from the public library, what?

And this is germane how? What they will tell you is that everyone should have the exact same rights, unless there is a strong and compelling interest of the state to deny those rights. The proponents of gay marriage are saying there is no such compelling interest. You have failed to demonstrate that there is one.

That's not the point. See earlier plethora of posts. Without an actual account of why it would be harmful to society, (ie. compelling interest issue again), what that means is IL doesn't like gay marriage. No one really cares whether you agree with or like gay marriage.I think this argument is about the legality of it (again). I don't agree with or like casseroles. I don't think they should be illegal.



My grandfather didn't mind hanging out with black people. He just didn't want them to have the same rights that white people had. He was a racist. His point of view has gradually become less accepted, and legally his position was overturned. The same thing is happening right now with homosexuals.


No one said you can't care about it. It has been said that I (and others) don't understand why you care about keeping it illegal. Care about it til the cows come home. See earlier posts on this subject. There are about ten-fifteen of them.

And they founded a country, within their society's understanding, which was based on a set of general principles that espoused a respect for the freedom, liberty and justice (for all) of every citizen (and even people not citizens, but we've really moved away from that these days. "All men are created equal doesn't not mean all American citizens, but that's another topic). The more we've learned and evolved, the more inclusive our society has become. This is just one of the more recent cases. I'll be that polygomy will be legalized soon too, but once again - that's a separate thread.

edit: I just wanted to reiterate Gilda's point: gay people can and are having kids right and left.

To pick up an earlier point that I think we were discussing primarily with Ustwo concerning homosexuality and population control: I personally feel that people may be acted on by social pressures (much like game theory stuff, as far as I understand it) that may result in an increase in a tendency towards homosexual behavior, which could be considered something of a natural form of population control. However, this affect would be probably fairly small, due to the small percentage of homosexuals and the fact that we have more than just our instictual level of existance. Thus although in a biological vacuum a gay couple can't have children, there are obviously ways for them to overcome this limitation. And the whole point is sort of irrelevant to gay marriage, but I personally find it interesting to muse about.

In this case, actually, I'd say that it does. Homosexuality is a matter of identity. If you can't accept a gay person's gayness, I don't see how you could say that you're accepting of them in any appreciable way at all.

Once again I am reminding everyone that on page 6 I posted the 10 definitions of marriage from the dictionary and not one of them mentioned a single syllable about children or having them. I will repost for reference.

marriage Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

I am particularly fond of #4 and #6. Note not one of the above definitions say anything about children.

INCIDENTALLY! There's this process called Ovular Merging. Google it. It's still several years off in humans, but it's been done successfully in mice. Two ova are manipulated to produce a viable zygote. Only female offspring can be created. Perfectly healthy adult female mice exist in the world right now that were biologically parented by two female mice.

So... it's just a matter of time until technology rains on the "gay couples can't have kids" parade. At that point, what, we'll allow lesbian marriage but not gay men to marry? Because once they can have children together, then lesbians will have satisfied the requirement for marriage, right? I mean, that is what marriage is about, no? ;)

I'm going to remind everyone that I secretly want to knock up my theoretical lesbian sister's wife. ;)

Seriously, crap - I don't have anything serious to say right now. I should probably delete this post, but this entire thread is becoming a mockery of discussion on this subject. I really want to know what compelling interest the state could possibly have in keeping gay marriage illegal, I see it as the only relevant question any more on this topic, and its the one aspect that the critics aren't answering. There have been about fifteen requests for a logical explanation of that one point. Aside from that, as far as I can tell, every other post against gay marriage breaks down to 1. I don't like it. 2. A lot of other societies didn't let gay people get married. Hell, they used to beat 'em with sticks!!! 3. It's an abomination against my version of God, 4. Well, in a theretically isolated space, they can't make babies!!! 5. There's not a lot of them anyways, I don't wanna change or 6. Seriously, I really don't fucking like it.

None of those provide a legal grounds to maintain that gay marriage should be illegal. That's the whole enchilada.

It appears to me that IL's not opposed to accepting their homosexuality. It's the homosexual relations that he's opposed to accepting. Hell, there are a lot of homosexuals out there who - if I'm understanding IL correctly - agree with him.

I don't buy the idea that considering homosexual relations sinful is automatic bigotry.

edit: It does appear to be a case of bigotry with IL - unless he can start explaining himself better (IL, look to pigglet's request above) - but I'm not about to accept it as an absolute.

Sexual orientation's only one aspect of identity, anyway. What's stopping IL from tolerating (or not tolerating) one aspect and accepting others?

Nobody feels any pain
Tonight as I stand inside the rain
Ev'rybody knows
That Baby's got new clothes
But lately I see her ribbons and her bows
Have fallen from her curls
She takes just like a woman, yes she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.

Queen Mary, she's my friend
Yes, I believe I'll go see her again
Nobody has to guess
That Baby can't be blessed
Till she finally sees that she's like all the rest
With her fog, her amphetamine and her pearls
She takes just like a woman, yes she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.

It's was raining from the first
And I was dying there of thirst
So I came in here
And your long-time curse hurts
But what's worse
Is this pain in here
I can't stay in here
Ain't it clear that.

I just can't fit
Yes, I believe it's time for us to quit
When we meet again
Introduced as friends
Please don't let on that you knew me when
I was hungry and it was your world
Ah, you fake just like a woman, yes you do
You make love just like a woman, yes you do
Then you ache just like a woman
But you break just like a little girl.

blonde on blonde is such a great album. i haven't listened to that in years - think it's time to pull 'er up. thanks phil.

you're welcome...the man still has a lot to say...

Where did I ever say that I have a problem with someone being a homosexual or, better yet, where did I state that I couldn't accept homosexuality? Don't put words into my mouth. I simply don't believe gay marriage should be legalized; Nothing more and nothing less.

Yet you haven't put forward a reason why that has not been refuted. Your arguments have had nothing to stand on except your own soapbox, which is likely why you keep returning to the same responses without going to any lengths to back them up.

Yeah, if anti-gay-marriage folks would just admit it's a matter of faith for them, it would save everyone a lot of time. Pretending it's based in logic is just self-delusion; there's no logical foundation for bigotry.

By the way, I've got no problem with somebody who believes as a matter of their faith or their morals or their upbringing or whatever that gay marriage is wrong. That's completely unassailable, as far as I'm concerned. Policy shouldn't be based on such things, but people have every right to believe that.

That's nice to hear. I assume, then, that you'll be supporting other gay rights issues that are not marriage related, such as co-parent adoption and inclusion of orientation and gender identity in anti-discrimination codes related to equal housing and employment policies.

There's probably a gay rights organization somewhere in your area you can join. They're almost always happy to have straight allies.

I'd just like to chime in with a giant 'who cares', this is such a non-issue, what does it matter what people do when it never affects you or anyone else?

That pretty much sums it up for me. Bearing in mind that freedom to practice religion has a prerequisite of freedom from religion, you therefore cannot base public policy on non-secular justifications.

I'd also like to add, I found this very funny!

Sooo.... any compelling interest for the state to maintain illegal status of homosexual marriage? Thank God SC has an Amendment (Amendment #1 no less) on the ballot so that we can not only deny gay people the eventual right to marriage, but all same-sex benefits as well. That's totally awesome!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...,6998803.story

The California Supreme Court has overturned the ban on gay marriage. This is a victory for civil rights.

I was really glad to hear this news! :)

I'm GLAAD myself. Nyuk, nyuk.

But seriously, this is quite the big deal. So long as the ballot measure for November fails, California will remain an unsegregated state so far as equal rights for heterosexual and homosexual people. This is a step in the right direction, and I'm very proud that it's happening in my home state.