Massachusetts OKs gay 'marriage'
 

OK, not really. All the court did was state that gay marriage is not prohibited by existing law, then gave the legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." That sounds like an order to "fix the problem" to me. The quotes from gay activists about this being a "a momentous legal and cultural milestone" are rooted in ignorance.

My post is not about whether marriage should be extended to other than traditional couples. I'm floored at how this news is being interpreted by activists with a dog in the fight.

Link

Boiling a complex issue down to binary sound-bite options ("Great for us." vs. "This will end western civilization.") is endemic to mass media, imo, in this era. With literacy no longer required to consume news flashing video and telegraph key (I'm very old) vocal delivery is all that fits between commercials. The internet which can be helpful is not reader friendly unless you have a honkin' big monitor or enjoy buying toner.

Solution? Question authority and think for yourself. If you have the time..... if you care.

2Wolves

I don't see a reason for legally defined marriage for anyone. It would be a better world if individuals were treated individually for tax and property purposes.

The notion of a business partnership would cover the necessary economic and tax advantage items that seem to make a difference regarding marriage and the law. As for children, the same type of business partnership idea could work as well.

The whole idea of marriage just doesn't seem to create anything but another layer of conceptual problematics in our lives. If people want to overlay romantic love on their business partnerships, that's their call. I just don't see a reason to "legalize" it - doesn't matter which sex, gender, or preference is involved.

Marriage in its legal sense [I'm not referring to the bible-thumping Right's definition] is a "man-made" institution and should be adjusted to provide all people interested in entering into that institution with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it...
On a lighter note... if homosexuals want to be as miserable as heterosexuals and get married...why not let them?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - none of this would be a problem if we left "marriage" in the religious sense to the churches, and instituted some kind of secular civil recognition of conjugal rights by the government. Though I'm kind of with Art - a lot of the legal stuff can be handled through other channels, and if you're committed to each other, have a commitment ceremony or something. If you want to be "married" go talk to your clergy. I'm all for giving gay couples the automatic rights that heterosexual couples get upon marriage - otherwise it's hypocritical and unfair. But I think rather than extending a flawed process to more people we need to separate the religious and civil aspects of marriage at the legal level.

I agree. I don't think it should be up to the state to define marriage. There should be some sort of civil union that provides the benefits. How this is an attack on the sanctity of marriage, eludes me. Does this mean married people suddenly aren't going to love each other as much? Are my parents going to get a divorce over this, all because gays can marry each other? Although I can understand the arguments about whether or not the courts should have stayed out of it and let it go through the legislative channels, I am glad that this issue is being brought to the open for discussion. Most polls I have seen show a majority that opposes gay marriage, but I think that this majority is going to shrink within the next few years. Then again, polls are just polls, and the ones I saw were pretty close. It was 59% opposed Gay Marriage, but only 51% opposed civil unions. I'll try to find a source, it was an ABC News Poll.

I'm going to go ahead and show my ignorance here: I had never heard of a civil union before it suddenly became legal for gay men and women to get them in vermont, arizona(i think) and hawaii. Is that when a justice of the peace at the courthouse does it, as opposed to a religious service? Because the way a lot of latinos do it, is they get the justice of the peace to marry them (I guess he doesn't marry them, only 'civil unionize' them, heh), then they go and have a big old wedding in a regular church.

So second question is: If that indeed is what it is, how do your rights differ from having a justice of the peace 'civil unionize' you and a priest marry you?

On one hand you are seen as wed under the eyes of the state/government, on the other you are wed before God and the state/government.

I don't care if Gays get married, cause really there is no compelling LEGAL reason as to why they should not be allowed ( moral reasons aside). I will however get hella pissed when, not if, but when they start going after churches that refuse to marry them.

as long as its called 'marriage' people will say the church invented it yadda yadda, and the church should govern who can get married.

The word marriage should be wiped out of all statutes. The government should treat all citizens, not members of groups. People should then be able to enter into any contract with any other party able to enter legally enter into contracts. Bigamy anyone?

Yeah, I know, what Art said.

Personally, i think a man and a woman should be allowed to get married. But no same-sex couples. They should have a term, doens't matter what you call it, whereas same sex couples can enjoy the benefits and penalties of being "married" as far as the law goes....but i think a marriage is a man-woman thing and should remain that way.

But Massacusetts has decided otherwise...which is their right to do. If they want to allow the citizens of that state the ability...fine. I dont live there i dont hafta deal with it. Or do I ? I think this can bring up some serious issues. Mainly, the "full faith and credit" line in Article IV of the consitution of the United States. So if a couple gets married in Massachusets, they move to California, and now we have a legal same-sex marriage. We might not allow it to happen here, but we have to honor it if they get married elsewhere. This could be a serious problem. One court in Mass. can now make the other 49 states accept gay marriages, though they dont legally allow it to happen in their own state. Maybe i am way off base and dont understand the intent of that law, but i think there could be a serious Constitutional issue here that, maybe, should be addressed at the US Supreme Court level.

I read that states can't be forced to honor same-sex unions.

edit: here it is:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...es-oped-manual

That's exactly why the misguided gay rights advocates are calling this a triumph, Peryn.

I am for the civil and religious union of any number of people who want to become one unit.

I am flabbergasted by the naivete of the gay rights advocates in regards to this case. The courts in Massachusetts have said, basically, "Hmmm. We've looked at the books, and we can't really find anything that says they can't. You've got three months to throw together something that does say so." I would call this passing the buck, but it's more like passing the buck to an alcoholic lecher who's going to go buy expensive strip club drinks with it. If the Mass. state legislature manages to come to a compromise, then will it be a triumph.

mar·riage (n. )

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
5. A wedding.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sec...gecontract.asp

I agree with Peryn.

Gay marriage
 

I cringed today as I heard President Bush dance around the subject of gay marraige in the State of the Union. Forgetting about all the other questionable things in that speech, I'd like to open a debate on gay marraige and why it should certainly not be restricted. This summer I worked in a warehouse full of middle-aged Zambian workers, and one day, after reading about how Bush was planning to put a bill through to stop it, I got into a discussion with them. You have to understand that homosexuality is seriously frowned upon in much of Africa (excluding RSA) and is punishable by imprisonment. They were also all steadfast christians, and many of them began quoting the bible to me. In fact, the Zambian equivalent of the Surgeon General recently made a statement proclaiming that he believed homosexuality was a psychological ailment to be treated accordingly with medicaiton. Eventually the only point I could make to get them to think was to say that they think of gay men the way white colonials thought of blacks. That got them to listen a little. Anyway I'm itching for an arguement on this, so if anyone out there wants to come at me in a civilized fashion I'd be happy to go.

I'd argue with you, but I don't disagree. It's ridiculous to declare that only men and women can be married while preaching out the other side of your mouth to respect and love all your neighbors, even those who don't think the same as you. The idea of amending the constitution to forbid gay marriage makes me sick. #1: it's just NOT THAT IMPORTANT. there are so many other things that people could use their time and money for that would make a difference. why worry about something ridiculous that doesn't effect the populous at large anyway. will allowing 2 men to get married make my parents any less married? no. will it cause churches to spontaneously burst into flames? no. so what's the problem here, people?

Here are a few of my thoughts on this issue (keeping in mind the fact that it has been debated here before (probably many times) by people other than myself and probably you as well).

1. The government has no role in the management of consensual sexual behavior, except:

a. The sexual conduct of minors (however it is defined).
b. The determination of what consent really is. (For example, states of coercion, intoxication, etc.)

2. There is no justification for discriminating against a person because of who they decide to have (legal, consensual) sexual relations with.

3. It follows from 1 and 2 that gay marriage should be possible from a legal standpoint, and that "married" gays should have the same legal/common law rights as other married individuals. These rights should include (at least) inheritance, medical visitation, and tax breaks for couples.

4. The US Constitution forbids the federal government (and by extension the states) from discriminating against religious groups.

Amendment I:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Amendment XIV:

"Section 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm no expert on ConLaw, but from these two passages (upon which a whole lot of jurisprudence is based), you can conclude that someone could open a church and start marrying gays. I have no idea what legal standing that would give the couple, but it seems to me that the government would have to give them some form of recognition so that gays are given "equal protection."

====================

Well, that's my justification for gay marriage. To be honest, I'm no knee jerk supporter of it, but on its moral and legal merits, I can see no alternative.

What the president and other conservatives are trying to say is that marraige is a union of a man and a woman. he isn't trying to limit partner benifits to m/w, simply trying to establish that the term marraige has limited applications. the fact of the matter is the president is correct. The majority of American's claim to be christians, and that religion clearly teaches that god established the marraige bond between a man and a woman. Now, that may or may not be the proper way to view things( I actually agree with that and follow the Bible... let the roasting begin...), and our culture really does reflect the teachings of that book, wether or not you want to accept that.

And here I was thinking this would be a dry hole. I thought most everyone around here, regardless of other beliefs, was on the same page with regard to same sex marriage. Ah well.

That our culture follows the teachings of the Bible is not a logical prelude to basing our laws off of it. Although...we already do that. Well...sort of. See, we don't do everything the bible says. We don't punish unruly children with death. We don't punish farmers who mix crops, or people who touch the skin of a pig. We don't allow slavery any longer. On and on and on. "Because the Bible says so" just doesn't fly.

I agree with cheerios. This should go in the same bin as a flag burning amendment. That bin is labeled "Shit to cover when we're all fed and happy."

Noooooooooooo not again, we just did this a short while ago.

Basically my only worry about gay marriage has to do with adoption, other then that I don't care.

but this isn't a religious issue. The fact is, some sects of christianity are willing to marry gays, but legally it will not be recognised under the government based solely on the sex of those partaking in the contract. Now, the word is unimportant. It's a committment by two people to love & care for eachother, and with that commitment comes a lot of benefits that are being denied solely on the basis of sex. sounds pretty ridiculous when you think about it...

A better question is why would homosexuals want to get married?

Was some study done or some argument made that proves him wrong? As far as I know, science hasn't actually said anything about whether homosexuality is just a difference or also a deficiency.

I agree fully that gay marriage should be legal, however. The sanctity of marriage was broken way back when Las Vegas was created.

Utswo: inheritence, hospital visitation, child custody, tax breaks, legal status... shall I go on?

I think the difference or deficiency debate boils down to viewpoint. Is having non-blond hair or non-blue eyes a defficiency or a difference ?

I remember some comedian insisting that all gays get married, because he was tired of their happy-go-lucky lifestyle.

And I remember a rather comedic poster from another board stating his position as thus: "Gay marriage is fine, just as long as they're both from the same race."

...or dark skin, for that matter...

And the other viewpoint: Is being a kleptomaniac a deficiency or a a difference?

Certainly, people who are clearly bigots may claim that viewpoint, but I don't consider it inherently bigoted.

i'm not entirely against granting gays a sort of civil union status that gives them the same tax breaks and rights that a marriage does, but i think it is ludicrous to call that relationship a marriage. a marriage is a personal/social/legal bond between a man and a woman. it is NOT anything between 2 people of the same sex. that is how it has been defined since the birth of our language. why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?

Scipio:

when you say that the government has no right to legislate sexual behavior but list those caveats that you deem to be acceptable, you are just doing what those who you are arguing against are doing. (even though i personally agree with your list) you denounce their belief system, only because yours has one less bullet point in its description. there are some who have fewer/different ones than you and have the same legitimacy to enforce something completely different to yours under that logic.

Also... i'm genuinely confused where point number 4 comes into the argument. Could you develop that more for my benefit?

his point, i think, is that if a sect of a religion started marrying gays, and the law refused to recognise it, wouldn't that be inhibiting the free practice of that religion?

edit: and by the way, why is having 2 men marry hijacking the word marriage? language shifts meaning constantly, I don't see why this added flavor to the word shouldn't be appropriate. It takes nothing away, and harms no one. When i think "marriage" I don't think "MAN AND WOMAN!" i think "oh, a committment between people to love, care for, and support each other for life", with a sexual connotation in there somewhere.

Point 4 doesn't follow logically from the others. It kind of stands on its own. When marriage is predicated on a religion, and you have a government that can't discriminate among religions, the government should therefore legally recognize marriages performed in a church between two people of the same sex.

As an aside, I don't think that gay people will desanctify marriage. Straight people screw it up enough on their own, and don't need any help.

As for my exceptions (and note that I said no regulation of CONSENSUAL behavior, and all the exceptions are arguably not consensual):

a. The sexual conduct of minors (however it is defined).

In lots of other areas, we restrict the behavior of minors for various reasons, usually for their own protection. Minors are at a different level of development than adults (or people who are 16 or whatever), and the state is in the right when it protects minors from sexual activity. The reasoning is actually very similar to the following point, and this one probably fits under it.

b. The determination of what consent really is. (For example, states of coercion, intoxication, etc.)

I have little interest in making sex into something sacred, religious, or inviolable, however, people have certain rights to their own bodies that are recognized not only in the realm of sexual activity, but in daily life as well. For example, touching someone without their consent can be considered battery.

A person can lack the mental capacity to consent to having sex with someone. Things like mental retardation, age, chemicals, or physical intimidation count, and the state has a responsibility to identify them.

There are probably other justifiable exceptions that I'm leaving out, but here is one that doesn't work:

The only permissible sexual activity is vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman for the purposes of reproduction. (For whatever reason, be it God, Nature, whatever.)

It stretches the proper role of government to imagine that we ought to have cops running around keeping wives from giving BJs to their husbands (or whatever). Bear in mind here that I'm not talking about what's "morally" right and wrong sexually, but rather about what society and its government ought to allow. Under most circumstances, the government should err on the side of individual freedom when it comes to actions that don't harm anyone.

(hawkman2337 - If we're just going to base policy on the beliefs of what most of "christian" America would want, why not just set up a theocracy? Let the majority rule. It works in Iran, right?)

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I don't take arguments from individual morality and religion seriously. I don't take arguments that begin with "most Americans are Christians" at all.

I'm deeply confused by the bigot comment. Could you please make what you are implying/saying more clear ?

And for the Kleptomaniac thing it depends on the situation. If I am a professional thief/fence then being a kleptomaniac is an advantage. If I am a vault guard it might be a problem.

Okay. I mean that I don't consider it necessarily bigoted to believe that homosexual activity is a sin. But, certainly, some are bigoted about it. Like the father who disowns his gay son. I'm talking about the line between tolerating and not tolerating people who commit this alleged sin. It's the cliche of 'love the sinner, hate the sin.' Does that make more sense?

The same goes for considering homosexuality itself to be a sin. I don't consider this necessarily bigoted either, although I do think that it's a bad viewpoint, that it's not a matter of choice as such people believe.

The kleptomaniac thing, in the moral sense, doesn't depend on the situation. It's always immoral to steal. That's why I used it in a second analogy for homosexuality; the other viewpoint is that homosexuality is a desire to sin in a particular way. And that would be a deficiency.

Is it immoral to steal a gun from someone if they are going to use it to kill someone ? Is it immoral to steal food to survive ? Is it immoral to steal a bible from a fundie? ....okay that one might be immoral. Is it immoral to steal something that if unstolen would result in the destruction of the human race ?

When someone uses their property to threaten the rights of others, their property rights can be justly overruled for that particular piece of property. But kleptomania is not needed whatsoever to effect such 'theft' and as far as I know, kleptomania doesn't limit itself to that kind of theft.

You get what I'm saying, right? I have the feeling we're arguing over some unimportant technicality. Except the theft of food thing, which I'd rather not get into (unless you insist).

I was just pointing that most moral absolutes are rather non-absolute when details are involved.

Kelptomania might be an asset, you will develop a lot of dexterity if you are stealing all the time. You might also have a higher awareness of your surrounding.

All joking aside, mental "differences" as society sees them are just that, "differences", they have no weight on worth of the individual if their is such a thing.

If you really want to get into the defect vs. difference debate, I have somewhere in the range of 1500 pages of literature on the topic of mental health. :)

Debating the finer points of the law and morality doesn't really have to play into gay marraige, Under our govt. it makes sense... "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!" Even if that happiness invovles sex with the same sex, and perhaps financial and personal advantages through a union. Lets just call it a gaymarraige (a new word, so we don't' have to debate whether we can change the word marriage... I know a gay couple that really couldn't give a shit what their union is called as long as it holds all the advantages of a marriage). Of course, we've had problems granting this clause to many people in the past... it was probably first liket his "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all white men with land and wigs are created equal"
Eventually it had to become "all men and women of any race," and so now is it "all STRAIGHT men and women of any race?" I think not.
As for whether being gay is a mental deficiency... I thought we passed out of that school of thought many years ago, its really quite ridiculous. Which is why, as cheerio suggested, I told my Zambian friends that being gay is no more a mental disease than being black is a physical one.

Just because drinking is immoral to someone doesn't mean it should be illegal for everyone. Why should the same principle be ignored when it comes to same-sex marriage?

Honestly, some people should get a clue. They can't keep hiding behind their outdated religions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by irateplatypus
[B] why is it that people think it is ok to hijack words like this?

The meaning of words changes all the time...

for that matter, the word Citizen used to mean men, and for that matter only men of certain status...

Oh my God! Who hijacked that word... :eek:

charlatan:

no one was debating whether words were ever changed or not. that has nothing to do with whether that practice is proper or improper.

@ Zamunda: No governing document of the United States contains the words: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's in the declaration of independance, which predates the actual constitution by a few years.

I wasn't referring to kleptomania as a defect in that sense. It's a difference between something that should ideally be treated and that for which there is no reason for treatment.

You've heard of homosexuality being 'cured' by Christian groups, right? Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of it as well. But I haven't ruled out the possibility that science may be capable of 'curing' or 'controlling' it (and that it is a thing that one should seek to cure or control).

3 words that caused a LOT of problems in the past come to mind:
"seperate but equal"

I know i keep throwing the race card here, and I apologize, but when a situation parallells it so nicely it's hard to resist. I think the comparison is appropriate, and bears both repition and contempltaion. it was okay to allow blacks some rights... so long as they were seperate and pushed away...

See what we have here is a massive difference in opinion, I think homosexuality is natural for some people and their is no reason to attempt to "cure" it. You on the other hand believe that homosexuality needs to be curbed.

I so wish I could upload attachments because I have this great debate case from last year that involves curing homosexuality and irony, mostly irony.

Anyway I have a few of the link from that case and I think they might provoke some debate.

http://www.psychotherapistresources....totmframe.html


All from the Szasz interview:

"In the case of mental illness, we are dealing with a metaphorical way of expressing the view that the speaker thinks there is something wrong about the behavior of the person to whom he attributes the “illness.”

"In short, just as there were no witches, only women disapproved and called “witches,” so there are no mental diseases, only behaviors of which psychiatrists disapprove and call them “mental illnesses.” Let’s say a person has a fear of going out into the open. Psychiatrists call that “agoraphobia” and claim it is an illness. Or if a person has odd ideas or perceptions, psychiatrists say he has “delusions” or “hallucinations.” Or he uses illegal drugs or commits mass murder. These are all instances of behaviors, not diseases."

"Diagnoses are NOT diseases. Period. Psychiatrists have had some very famous diseases for which they have never apologized, the two most obvious ones being masturbation and homosexuality. People with these so-called “diseases” were tortured by psychiatrists — for hundreds of years. Children were tortured by antimasturbation treatments. Homosexuals were incarcerated and tortured by psychiatrists. Now all that is conveniently forgotten, while psychiatrists — prostitutes of the dominant ethic — invent new diseases, like the ones you mentioned."

"Only then could we begin to examine so-called “mental illnesses” as forms of behavior, like other behaviors."

I'm all for gay marriage. I think our failure to recognize gay marriages paints an incredibly ignorant picture of our country. I think that the generations who inherit this country from us will look back on this issue in this period the same way we look at the attitudes of society pre-civil rights and pre-women's suffrage movement. That is, with a furrowed brow and a shake of the head.

As far as protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, if you think divorce is in any way acceptable, then you have no right to pretend to defend the sanctity of marriage in any kind of religious sense.
I'm not saying that we should outlaw divorce, just that if you care about the sanctity of marriage from a christian standpoint you should be working towards outlawing divorce as well as defending the institution from homosexuals.
I just want to apply some consistency to all this "I just want to protect the sanctity of marriage" posturing, because it generally amounts to nothing more than a convenient way to rationalize bigotry. You only have look to the divorce rates in the u.s. if you want to see how much the average american cares about the sanctity of marriage.

No. I believe it's a possibility that it should be curbed. I don't believe that anyone's disproven it. Honestly, I lean toward your position. That's my intuition.

Kleptomania is something that should be treated, because the behavior that it can lead to is immoral.

Homosexuality might fit in the same category. It depends on whether the behavior that it can lead to is immoral. If you have some method of demonstrating that it's morally okey-dokey, then the analogy will be defeated.

Moral an immoral are such slippery terms. No behavior is ever always moral or always immoral. I don't think you can really compare kleptomania to homosexuality in that way. I think kleptomania is a compulsion, while homosexuality is no more a compulsion than heterosexuality. That is to say, a gay man likes to sex-up other men, but isn't compulsively sexxing-up another man at every opportunity. Kleptos steal uncontrollably. Stealing also requires a victim, homosexuality does not.

Funny thing is that you can "cure" anyone of anything depending on the method used. If you wanted, I could cure you of your will to eat through shock therapy. Funny aside, 13 methods have been developed to cure homosexuality. I like methods 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 for curing homosexuals.

"Thirteen Theories to "Cure" Homosexuality
by Don Romesburg
from Out in All Directions: An Almanac of Gay and Lesbian America

Since the late nineteenth century doctors and religious leaders have been attempting to cure the desire for same-sex intimacy. The desire to "cure" homosexuality comes from societal discomfort with same-sex love rather than from any real pathology on the part of lesbians and gay men. Despite claims to the contrary, none of these "cures" work.

1. Prostitution Therapy (late nineteenth century): Through sex with prostitutes, "inverted men" would experience co-gender sexual desire. Famous sexologist Havelock Ellis noted that "the treatment was usually interrupted by continual backsliding to homosexual practices, and sometimes this cure involved a venereal disorder."

2. Marriage Therapy (late nineteenth century): When presented with the option of courting and marriage, the "deviant" would naturally go "straight." Dr. William Hammond, a New York medical researcher, prescribed a gay man "continuous association with virtuous women, and severe study of abstract studies (like math)."

3. Cauterization (late nineteenth century): Dr. Hammond also suggested that homosexual patients be "cauterized [at] the nape of the neck and the lower dorsal and lumbar regions" every ten days.

4. Castration/Ovary Removal (late nineteenth century): In a pre-Hitler world, the medical community did not consider castration particularly horrific. Aside from believing that removal of the testes would eliminate the sexual drive of the homosexual, many doctors also thought homosexuality to be hereditary.

5. Chastity (late nineteenth century): If homosexuality could not be cured, then homosexuals had no moral choice but to remain chaste. Catholic doctor Marc-Andre Raffalovich confessed that "the tendencies of our time, particularly the prevalent contempt for religion, make chastity more difficult for everyone."

6. Hypnosis (late nineteenth/early twentieth century): New Hampshire doctor John D. Quackenbos claimed that "unnatural passions for persons of the same sex"--like nymphomania, masturbation, and "gross impurity"--could be cured through hypnosis.

7. Aversion Therapy (early to mid twentieth century): Reward heterosexual arousal and punish homosexual attraction, often through electric shock. In 1935, New York University's Dr. Louis Max said of a homosexual male patient that "intensities [of shock] considerably higher than those usually employed on human subjects definitely diminished the value of the stimulus for days after each experimental period."

8. Psychoanalysis (early to mid twentieth century): With Freud came a whole new discussion of possible cures through a psychoanalytic approach. In the 1950s, Edmund Berger, M.D., spoke of homosexuality as a kind of "psychic masochism" in which the unconscious sets a person on a course of self-destruction. Find the cause, such as resentment toward a domineering mother, and you find the cure.

9. Radiation Treatment (early to mid twentieth century): X-ray treatments were believed to reduce levels of promiscuous homosexual urges brought on by glandular hyperactivity. In 1933, New York doctor La Forest Potter lamented Oscar Wilde's being born too soon, because if he were still alive, "we could [have] subjected the overactive thymus to X-ray radiation, atrophied the gland, and suppressed the overactivity of its function."

10. Hormone Therapy (mid twentieth century): If homosexual men are too effeminate and lesbians are too masculine, steroid treatments would theoretically butch up the boys and femme out the girls. Prolonged use also had effects such as sterility and cancer.

11. Lobotomy (mid twentieth century): By cutting nerve fibers in the front of the brain, homosexual drives (indeed, most sexual and even emotional reaction capabilities) were eliminated. Lobotomies for homosexuality were performed until the 1950s in the U.S.

12. Psycho-Religious Therapy (mid twentieth century): Religious doctors and therapists combined religious teachings with psychoanalysis to inspire heterosexuality. Man on a Pendulum (1955) written by rabbi/psychoanalyst Israel Gerber, is the "true story" of such a treatment.

13. Beauty Therapy (mid twentieth century): All a butch lesbian needs is a good make-over. In Is Homosexuality a Menace? (1957), Dr. Arthur Guy Matthew tells of how he cured a lesbian by getting her hair "professionally coiffured," teaching her to apply cosmetics--"which she had never used in her life"--and hiring "a fashion expert (not a male homosexual) who selected the most elegant feminine styles for her to bring out the charm and beauty in her body."

Why must it be treated and why is it immoral ?

I'm pretty sure that any behavior can lead to immorality, however you choose to define that, and no behavior can be cleared against immorality. In essence, homosexuality is no more moral or immoral than any other activity on the face of the earth, including posting on the TFP.

Actually, someone was debating whether words were ever changed or not and that would be you, right here:
The underlining is done by me to point out he relevant parts of the quote.

I think it's pretty clear that you were talking about the evolution of language...

English is quite possibly the youngest of all languages (aside from Klingon or Esporanto) so it doesn't mean much to me if the word marriage hasn't changed in it's history.

Besides, words are hijacked all the time. What's the worry? I bet the definition of the word vertigo will soon be changed to mean the fear of heights...

Science also hasn't said anything about whether being a geek is just a difference or also a deficiency...

Theft for selfish reasons? Lying for selfish reasons? Rape? Murder?

Two good points. I'll conceed that it can't be a great analogy. The main point of it is the idea that homosexuality/kleptomania can lead to spiritually unhealthy (immoral) behavior, so it's a good idea to treat it.

Yeah, I know. The question is whether or not it should be cured.

Not 'must'. I leave that choice up to the person (or if a minor, his/her guardian). 'Should' is the word I used.

Are you really questioning whether theft is immoral?

But that's not what I said. I talked of the idea that the behavior itself immoral.

Homosexuality isn't an activity. It's a condition. Conditions can't be moral or immoral, they aren't choices.

Is moral relativism lurking about? Because if it is, I can make this really simple.

So anything that can lead to immoral behavior should be treated? If this is the case, we should be treating sexuality in general, as it can lead to rape, adultery, lust, etc.

This raises an interesting point. What would you call your sexuality if not "a condition"? Assuming you subscribe to the belief that it's not a chosen thing, I'd say "characteristic," like hair color or height.

"quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll

Homosexuality isn't an activity. It's a condition. Conditions can't be moral or immoral, they aren't choices.


This raises an interesting point. What would you call your sexuality if not "a condition"? Assuming you subscribe to the belief that it's not a chosen thing, I'd say "characteristic," like hair color or height."

Yeah I mis-spoke, homosexuality is a characteristic, not an activity. If you look at the stuff by Szasz I posted it is pretty evident that it is a characteristic and not a condition.

Someone is actually trying to make the argument that homosexuality is immoral and comparing it to a psychological disorder...

shakes his head and walks away...

Okay, toss condition. Characteristic suits me fine.

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this thread.

Sorry it took so long to respond, but I did not say it was in the constitution, i said it was in the govt, because it was one of the founding principles, the decleration of independence. If you think this document doesn't hold a foundation of our indpendence, then thats different.

When is consensual sexual behavior between two people ever immoral?

Here are a few thoughts as to why someone might think this.

1. Nature intended that sexual intercourse only take place between a man and a woman, and then only for reproduction.

Response: First, I don't know what "nature" is, and if "nature" even exists at all, I don't think it is capable of intending anything. This is similar to a religious or "intelligent design" argument, and there's a crucial question that needs to be asked. "If nature, or God, or whatever intended for us to live a certain way, why is sex so pleasureable, and why is our knowledge of this ideal life so elusive?" If our designer, or nature, intended that our sexual behavior be governed by point 1., they did a rather poor job of it.

In short, the creator designed us in such a way that immoral sexual behavior is rewarded, and we are designed with no innate way of telling which kinds of sex we ought to be having.

Now, how would I argue the immorality of homosexuality without an argument from religion or nature?

I don't see any need to restrict sex to increase the population, so it would be silly to say people can't have sex unless they want to have babies. Recreational sex ought to be allowed, as it increases happiness, interpersonal connections (between couples), and these gains in personal satisfaction translate to a more harmonious society. But this looks like an argument FOR permitting homosexuality.

So, can I make a secular argument against homosexuality? I can't think of anything now, so if someone else would like to attempt, I will help. :)

Well if you want to argue "Nature", homosexuality would definently be a dsiadvantage. Gay's don't reproduce, thus they will be eliminated from the gene pool.

I don't think a secular argument is possible.

and, since the government is not religiously-affiliated, they have no reason to deny homosexuals marriage, or the right to be gay, for that matter. thank you for wrapping that up nicely.

I can think of several dozen animals off the top of my head who engage in homosexual and bisexual activity outside of humans.

For instance, leave female cows cooped up long enough together and they will start humping each other. Not just a small percentage of them, but virtually all of the animals will attempt this.

So, since it isn't against nature, the only reason people can be against it is because "God says it's bad"
But if God thought that, why would he allow homo and bisexuality to be so prevalent in nature?

turn: And since a lot of people are anti-gay that would be an argument for allowing gay marriage...

You're not arguing nature, you're arguing natural selection, which in many ways, doesn't apply in the way your trying to apply it. For example, i know plenty of people with gay mothers or fathers. Gay people do reproduce. Gay men can donate sperm, lesbians can use donated sperm. It is feasable for a gay man to father a child through a lesbian woman. Don't say it isn't natural either because if "nature"(in the convenient, personified sense) didn't want us to be able to do it we wouldn't be able to do it.

We're talking about behavior, not the reasoning behind it. It takes only a brief look around this world of ours to find a "moral" justification for murder(war, self-defense), theft(stealing bread to feed the family), and if you want to get purely hypothetical, rape(well, if i didn't rape so and so they said they'd kill five people).

Sometimes, homosexuals reproduce with members of the opposite sex. It might be a slight disadvantage, but it doesn't preclude the transmission of genes either.

Now, the principle you're getting at probably isn't one that you want to follow through on. One of the greatest accomplishments of human civilization is that we no longer have to be subject to natural selection.

Why would heterosexuals want to get married?

I agree.

I've always taken murder to mean "unjustified killing". (Just replace 'murder' with this if you don't accept that definition.) Thus, war is not necessarily murder and self-defense is certainly not murder. "Lying/stealing for selfish reasons" is most certainly behavior, behavior distinct from "lying/stealing for altruistic reasons". And please, you aren't going to find an uncoerced instance of rape that isn't immoral.

All right, I wrote a big old response and my computer crashed, so I'll drop some quick science on you all. Assuming for one terrible, stupid moment that sexuality is a genetic trait and that homosexuality is recessive, if both parents have the trait, they have a 25% chance of having a homosexual child. This is junk science, not realistic, overly simplistic. It's just to remind people that gay parents do not necessarily have gay children, nor do straight parents always have straight children. Gays are in no danger of being eliminated from the gene pool, as evidenced by the fact that they're still around and have been for thousands and thousands of years. Enough.

not that this is exceedingly pertinent, but some people have also mentioned that homosexuality might be an evolutionary development as nature's way of controlling population. I think its hogwash but then again so are most arguements against homosexuality.

and, im very surprised by this because I long thought the only animals that engaged in homosexual sex and orgies as such were bonobo chimps.

Nope. It is not as uncommon as we were led to believe. :P

As for gay marriage, I will post what I have posted in the twelve other gay marriage threads on this board -- the government has no business involving itself in a social institution like marriage.

Word.

Coerced or not. Would the moral person rape someone if that meant that five more people wouldn't get raped? Completely hypothetical, but then i think any debate on morals has to be. I guess it depends on whether your morals are flexible to allow you to adapt to new situations on conditions.
Again, you have to consider the bahavior inepentdently to the motivation. Of course when you apply motivations that are inherently immoral to the majority of society to certain behaviors those behaviors seem immoral. Defining murder as "unjustified killing" completely ignores the fact that "justification" is in the eyes of the beholder. Some think all war is immoral, some think some wars are immoral. No doubt there is someone somewhere who thinks war is the ultimate form of morality.

Denotological- you can't morally rape the woman

Consequentialism- you have to rape the woman

done.

hehehehehehehe...

yeah, im really pissed about the hijacking of the word 'gay' too. not to mention 'black'!!

the government does not have the right to withold the same legal status and tax benefits to gay married couples as it does to mixed couples, the government also does not have the right to prevent any two consenting and reasonable adults marrying.

Of course, this can become difficult, should a daughter and a father be allowed to marry, if both genuinely wish to, or canwe assume the daughter cannot be reasonable if she wants to do so?

Once you start enforcing your own standards of reason on other people's actions, then it becomes a matter of degree what is repressive and what is necessary.

Clearly, we do not want parents to be able to marry their children, and most people would think it is right that this is illegal, and I believe most people do believe gay marriage should be allowed. We should always trust the democratic instincts of the people - not the media, the government, the religious zealots, those who cry the loudest - ordinary men and women normally will make the right decision if they are allowed to.

I am slightly biased though, since my mum is gay, and I dont think it is fair, legal, or decent that she should be prevented from marrying her girlfriend if she wants to.

I had gay rabbits when I was a kid, both male. They humped each other just about every 5th minute. Sometimes it looked like they did oral too. Bet God hated those pagan faggy bunnies.

Gay marriages should be forbidden by law.
The sacred institution of marriage should be protected for people like Newt Gingrich, Jimmy Swaggart, and Brittany Spears.

"Britney"

;)

At it's simplest, if you can find someone you can stand for more than 5 minutes, let alone a lifetime... more power to you. I support anyone who wants to make an attempt at a lifelong commitment. I mean, I've been with my girlfriend for over 4 years now, and no part of me has started to think marriage, so for people to think about loving someone strongly enough to want to spend a lifetime with the, awesome. Go for it.

I agree that amending the Constitution is a bad idea, just for the simple fact that it is an issue that can be dealt with in other forums, other than the Constitution.

The only way i know to make a gay person is to have two straight parents. obviously natural selection isn't working against it. "extra" adult individuals who do not bear children are an advantage in pre-modern societies-they can care for children, etc. their close relatives benifit, and the genes are passed on. two cousins are worth one child in terms of propagating your genome.

Exactly.

Aside from what has been mentioned in this thread already; in my opinion this is the one issue that truly gives gay couples having the same rights the most debate; because if they are recognized as legally married then they are entitles to ALL rights; correct?

What are your thoughts? Click here

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are a lot closer to the Oval Office than most people realize.

Gay marriages
 

I don't know if this topic is around already, but i tried to do a search and i didn't find a topic similar to this one, so i'm making one. sorry if it's already here.

I read this article at another forum site:



this article pretty much sums up my opinion on gay marriages.
what's your take?

Gotta agree. Government has no business regulating what is essentially a religious institution. "Marriage" should be an issue between a couple and their church; people who want to be committed to each other should have the same government-protected legal rights and responsibilities regardless of the genders involved. This has been pretty much argued to death around here, I think, but let's see if anybody has anything new to add.

Our elected officials voting to forever ban gay marriage and the rights that would come from civil unions with a constitutional ammendment is akin to voting against the civil rights act.

I could never in good conscience bring myself to vote for a single one of them, ever.

That is the proposed amendment. "legal incidents thereof" is the part of the amendment that will block gay couples from gaining any benefits whatsoever from being joined. No co-insurance, no co-adopt, no hospital rights, no tax benefits.

It really is, and I don't use this word much. It's reserved for special occasions, Evil

Fred Reed wrote this:

In the country where I grew up, if you found a naked intruder in your daughter’s bedroom with a Bowie knife and a hard-on, you shot him and arranged to have the rugs cleaned. The sheriff wasn’t greatly interested and the country prosecutor didn’t see anything to prosecute. The scum floating on the gene pool wasn’t a protected species. It wasn’t the driving engine of the culture. It was just scum.

Today you would be charged with the use of excessive force. The cadaver’s family would sue. They would end up with your house unless they just ran you broke with legal bills. The outcome would depend on the racial make-up of you, the intruder, and the jury. Your daughter would be married with grandchildren before the courts reached any conclusion.

and:

In the old country, the government was pretty much benign or actually useful. It built roads and largely left you alone. The public schools were not great but neither were they terrible. People ran their own lives. The federal government tended to be somewhere else, which was a splendid place for it, and you mostly didn’t notice.

In the country that is now where America used to be, the government is the cause of most major problems instead of a solution, however inefficient, to a fair number of them. The government keeps you from educating your children, holds standards down, prevents you from hiring the best people you can find to work in your business. It won’t allow local jurisdictions to control crime, prevents localities from enforcing such moral standards as they see fit, virtually illegalizes the religion, of most of the population, and generally won’t permit people to live as they like.

Sounds good to me, assfuck on, patriots. Stop fucking parading so much though.

Phaenx,

I don't understand what the Fred quotes have to do with the gay marriage issue. Do you mean the government is interfering too much in this case?

I missed all of the other discussions on this issue, so what I have to say may be repeating someone else. If it is, sorry about that.

The whole issue of gay marriages and benefits has only picked up steam in the last five or so years. This was not an issue 10, 15, 30, or 50 years ago. No one would have even brought it up back then. It has been a process where first gays gradually came out in the open about their sexuality, then lobbied for laws to be changed, now for marriage rights to be changed.

It seems like the main reason people want gay marriages to be allowed is because "two people are committed to each other". Well, how about this: let's say over the next 10-15 years, threesomes become more of a fad. 15 years from now, MMF and FFM "unions" are lobbying for equal rights, marriages, benefits, etc. Are we to make the same exception for them? Hey, if three people are committed to each other, why not? The old-school Mormons were all about it, and after all it should be between people and their church, right? Or, what if NAMBLA really takes off, and now Man-boy or Woman-girl "unions" want equal treatment?

Where should this end? I believe it should end with one man and one woman.

Man-boy or woman-girl unions can't count. The latter in each isn't old enough to give proper consent. Same goes for man-goat; consent isn't possible.

For those who actually seek a three-person marriage, what's our reason for denying them that eternal misery?

Johnny Mysto, why not just channel Rick Santorum a little bit more and bring up Man on Dog unions? I mean, why not right?

The "slippery slope" argument is one of those things that shows you don't have a good argument against it.
"a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn"

It's done to distract from the real issue.

Now, for you Johnnymysto, can you give me any good reasons to deny marriage/civil union to a gay couple without bringing up a slippery slope again?

The whole gay marriage became an issue when they wanted the same rights and perks that straight married couples had (death benefits, insurance, etc.). There is nothing wrong with that. Let them. More power to them.

People, NO MATTER WHO SAYS THEY CAN, cannot control emotions and the release of such. If a man falls in love with another man, who is to say that is wrong? Are they hurting anyone????? Are they out to destroy the moral fiber of the people? Not any of the ones I know, if anything, I have found most of my gay friends (both male and female) to be not only extremely loyal to ourfriendship but less judgemental, less holier than thou and far more supportive than many of my straight friends. Do they hit on me or try to shove thier lifestyle choice down my throat? NO, not in any way, shape or form.... just the opposite they respect me and most of my choices.

Then there's this government issue. Do we really need the government to be in our lives anymore than it is?

Let's say they pass this amendment, that now gives the government access and the right to dictate what we do in our bedroom. In doing so, anything other than the missionary position is illegal as sodomy would then be illegal (anything other than missionary position is defined as sodomy, that is in the MILITARY CODE OF JUSTICE) .

Now, with the Patriot Act and police rules, as lax as they are, this amendment would allow them a reason (like they need one) to come into your house at anytime.

The only people in my opinion not wanting gays to marry are those that are either homophobic because they question thier own sexual orientation, OR they want more control of OUR lives. Either way it is wrong and it will eventually destroy what freedoms we have, because just as the right say taxes never end so do the laws passed. They pass how and who you can marry, they'll push it as far as they can and NOONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT I DO IN MY BEDROOM WITH ANOTHER LEGAL AGED ADULT.

I have to laugh at people so stupid and ignorant as to believe the allowance for gay marriage will open the gates to animal, family or children marriages.

It is either sheer ignorance on thier part, or total self righteous bullshit, or an excuse because they can't think of any other reason to prohibit gay marriages.

If you discount what I said about man-boy and woman-girl unions, you still have the polygamy issue to deal with. Why not allow that while we're changing the laws?

This is an aside, but "ain't nobody's business if you do" is a pretty good book, mostly touting libertarian ideas or just for the Government to keep out of private lives, what you do is your business.

Anyway, this book had one of the most striking points i've ever heard. Basically, it said something like: Currently, there is only 1 type of personal partnership recognized by the government, that of a man and a woman who are married/common law married. Imagine if all businesses were restricted to a singular type of partnership. Would there be an uproar by businesses wanting to combine, grow, etc...yes. Simply put, the government realized this and made provisions allowing several different business partnerships to form.
Essentially, the government needs to realize that people really do not want to be restricted in what type of partnership they can engage in. If 7 guys want to live together and receive whatever benefits, then fine, let them. It's their own business. If 3 guys and 4 girls do, fine, 2 guys, fine. whatever. as long as they understand what they are getting into and are willing to be legally bound together, then fine. What business is it of the government?

The other argument made is to simply remove the government's involvement totally. As in, a marriage would be simply between whomever and their respective religious institution. Anything not falling within the religious bounds could be decided upon by legal contracts instead. So if your church doesn't allow gay marriage, you can be legally bound to another person, etc, for purposes of insurance, debt, tax, child-parenting, whatever. Essentially, the government would only view marriages and other interpersonal relationships as binding contracts. Nothing more, nothing less.

I really don't see the need for the gov't to be involved in interpersonal relationships. But hey, that's just me

Why not, indeed? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, why not allow them to organize their legal and romantic affairs as they see fit?

The issue is that "marriage" as it stands automatically conveys certain benefits: inclusion in insurance policies, property rights, powers of attorney, etc.

I would propose that "marriage" as a religious institution should be separated from government oversight. If you want to get married, great. Talk to your clergyperson.

All the rest of it can be handled through the legal system. Allow people to put whomever they want on their insurance benefits as long as they pay for it. Make everyone who wants to be committed fill out power of attorney forms giving their partner(s) legal, financial, and medical rights if they're incapacitated. Allow non-biological same-sex parents to adopt their partner's children. There are ways to make things fair by separating the legal from the religious aspects of wedlock.

Come on man, let's keep it mature and respectable. Anybody can throw out names.

Imagine a world with no morality laws. No laws on what a person or persons (of legal age) can or cannot do in the privacy of thier own house. One where companies could make up thier own homes. It would be a world where people would be happier, more relaxed and more productive.

NO MAN OR ENTITY HAS THE RIGHT TO DICTATE TO ANOTHER WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT DO TO THIER BODIES, SOULS OR MINDS SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFER WITH OR HURT ANOTHER.

Now before some of you argue that what about DUI's or drugs on the workforce or whatever your self righteous minds can come up with. READ ALL OF WHAT I SAID, especially the part that gets overlooked the most THE PRIVACY OF ONE'S HOME.

If I want to have an orgy and smoke weed all weekend and trip on acid and shoot up heroin and snort coke as long as my neighbors are in no way in danger then it is MY AND MY GUESTS OF LEGAL AGE'S BUSINESS AND OUR BUSINESS ONLY. Noone has the right to come in and bust us for possession, intoxication, sodomy whatever. We're all legal age, noone is in danger, the government has no right to interfer.

I know that is an extreme and it would be beyond ignorant but those that want to pass morality laws are drawn to extremism to prove thier points.