connyosis

Well, since inbreeding is not a good thing maybe?

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Paq

ok, personal story here that tells WWAAAYYYYY WWAAAYYYY too much about my extended family.

I believe he is a distant cousin twice removed, but everyone has someone like this in his/her family...

Basically, the guy had a hard childhood, abuse, etc, and ended up basically raising his sister, a lovely girl about 2-3 yrs younger than he was. He grew up, married at the age of 20 and stayed married until about 26-27 where he and his wife decided the marriage was not going to work out. After a not so drawn out divorce, he and his sister renewed their childhood closeness and decided to marry. I am not joking here. They were allowed to marry by basically telling the state that they would never have children. I think the guy had to have a vasectomy, but details in that area are sketchy at best. He and his sister/wife lived out their years in happiness before passing away in the early 1980's.
Basically, the state will allow you to marry a relative, but there is a hodgepodge of paperwork, etc, that you must complete and from what i can gather about their life, the state seemed to be most concerned with birth defects that may arise from a bro/sis having children. Then again, this is SC we are talking about....

i know it sounds like heresay but it is traceable in my family line...although that branch died off when the only 2 children married and did not procreate.....

not sure what relevance that adds to this discussion other than a response to 'why can't you marry a relative"

__________________
Live.

Chris

martinguerre

not doma, at least not yet. i'm talking about the start of the thread.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

JumpinJesus

My first reaction to this is: because they're brother and sister! That's why! beyond that, though, there really isn't a reason why not. I'm sure there are probably some very deep psychological issues involved in a case like this, but it still begs the question: why not?

Let's think about it: aside from the possible genetic effects of siblings reproducing, what's the issue? Who is harmed in this? Women over the age of 35 risk having children with defects, but we do not legally disallow this, so the genetic argument does not stand up to scrutiny. One could logically argue that the emotional harm to the family would be a reason, but if a brother and sister are even considering marriage, hasn't the emotional damage already been done for some time? If we were so concerned about emotional damage, we'd take a much more proactive role to prevent emotional abuse. So this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Another argument could be that the law disallows it. Okay, but why? On what grounds? What justification is there for disallowing marriage between 2 people who want to marry? Another argument can be the slippery slope argument - that by allowing this, then we'll be forced to allow adults to marry children or that we'll be forced to allow adults to marry microwave ovens. No we won't. There is nothing wrong with stating that 2 human adults may enjoy the institution of matrimony regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or voltage. Slippery slope arguments rarely stand up to scrutiny.

The fact of the matter is that segments of the population only wish to witness that with which they themselves are comfortable. I truly believe that this arises from one's own insecurities. A heterosexual man who enjoys lesbian pornography is violently repulsed by gay pornography. It's not the act of homosexuality with which they have a problem, it's the raging fear that they themselves may get aroused by the sight of two men engaged in romantic or sexual activity. The reasons behind this are meant for another thread so I won't go into them here, but I think it's quite plain to anyone who gives it serious thought.

Therefore, in order to avoid any discomfort or unpleasantness, it's easier to just hide or stigmatize that which makes us uncomfortable, even though aside from the icky feeling we get, it does us absolutely no harm whatsoever.

Why can't a brother and sister get married? I highly doubt that more than a miniscule percentage of the population would ever consider this for themselves, but allowing that there is nothing wrong with this forces us to re-examine what there is wrong with homosexual marriage or adoption. Some people are just not ready to undergo that kind of self-examination.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

roachboy

matthew: if you, as a conservative, are going to accept how your political machine chooses to frame this issue, then you have to accept the consequences. so given that the christian right has chosen to frame their side of this conflict in terms of mobilized bigotry directed at folk who happen to be gay BECAUSE they are gay, then it follows that the issue, for people like yourself, can be little other than restricting the right of others to love as they choose. and the question of marriage is but a pretext.

it's your position, friend.
i would attempt to swat it away with ad hominem attacks too, if i were in your place.
because the consequences of it are indeed ugly, and they smack of something well beyond the relatively benign problems of ignorance.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jonjon42

I am happy to see this. Personally I see no reason why homosexuals cannot marry, probably partly because of the enviroment I came from (an area with a strong gay community). This will not destroy marriage(the legal institution). this isn't giving any sort of "special protection" this is just making everything fair.

You know people claimed that interracial marriage would destroy the institute of marriage too....

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

FoolThemAll

I don't think that necessarily follows. In fact, I think it very often doesn't. If there existed a desire in all gay marriage foes to restrict the right of others to love as they choose, then why are many in favor of civil unions? I'd estimate that the primary worry is that the government will be endorsing homosexual behavior and, therefore, undermining the opposing positions.

Aside, to anyone: If civil unions were allowed and made sufficiently similar/identical to the legal aspects of marriage, would the issue bother you as much? I'd agree that it wouldn't be a perfectly ideal situation, but it could be a situation where it really is separate yet equal. Would it not be a much less important semantics argument at that point?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

roachboy

foolthemall:

all i'll say in response is to suggest that you look through this thread--or any number of others like it--and notice the gap that seperates the content of the (often venomous) posts directed at gay folk from the goal you (and others) assign them above. it does not take a rocket scientist to note the assymetry. but i do notice that conservatives tend to adopt a kind of crackhead legalism when it comes to reflecting on the matter.

again, this is basically an equal protection issue.
on those grounds, the right is powerless to stop the extension of the protections of the legal institution of marriage to folk who are gay.
so the idea is to switch the ground.
the right apparently thinks it ok to exploit, structure and unleash bigotry so long as they are able to pretend that it is focussed on a narrow objective.
what matters, it seems, is that it is agreed upon amongst christian right conservatives that this linkage is logical.
but it isnt.
the implications of the sentiments expressed run far beyond the stated objective.
i simply think that, at some point, it would be nice to see folk from the right recognize what their machine is doing.
but i also know that self-criticism is not a long suit in that world, so i expect very little.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

daswig

So where would the line recognizing marriages be drawn? Polygamy? Necrophelia? Pedophelia? Bestiality? Sock and hand puppets? Fark had a thread not too long ago about a woman who came home to find her husband having sex with the family canine. It was reported that what upset her the most was that her husband said he loved the dog more than he loved her. Should he be free to marry the dog?

It's one thing to say "live and let live" in the libertarian sense, but once you get into the government recognizing it, problems are presented.

FoolThemAll

And that 'crackpot legalism' is exactly what makes me think that your assertion in response to matthew is widely inaccurate.

Ability to consent. Dogs don't have it, corpses don't have it, inanimate objects don't have it, and it's generally agreed that children don't have sufficient maturity to take in fully what they'd be consenting to.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

Perhaps we should tackle this one equality at a time. This thread isn't about beastiality, polygomy, or incest. I can see why someone might say, "When will it go too far?", but those things are arguabally much farther away from the norm than homosexuality. Obviously beastiality, pedophilia (outside of parental permission), necrophilia, and sock puppets are out considering that both members cannot enter into a contract. Polgamy is another thread, but I suppose that that and this are not completly dissimilar, though they are far from the same.

This needs to be argued on it's own merrits, not by trying to associate it with socially unacceptable behavior like necrophilia or beastiality.

daswig

Ability to consent? What if the person leaves their mortal remains to the potential spouse for the purposes of necrophelial marriage? What if the child's guardian consents to it for them? What if the child's guardian is the person seeking to marry the child? What about cultures where the societal norm is for girls to wed in arranged marriages between the ages of 7 and 10 years old? You say inanimate objects can't give consent...does that mean that a person who uses a sex toy is raping it? Or that a person who has sex with an animal is raping the animal, despite the fact that legally the animal is property?

roachboy

foolthem: i am unclear what you are trying to argue.
what you write seems self-defeating..

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Like I said, yes there are special circumstances. A parent can sign a contract that is validated through the court system that allows a child to marry and have sex legally, so as to avoid stagitory charges. Those are the exception, not the rule. I'm not sure the court would allow someone to leave their remains to someone for sexual or marriage reasons, it really depends on how open minded the judge is. After a person dies, legally their body becomes property. Can you marry property? No. You cannot marry a dog or dead person or sock or loaf of bread because they do not have any legal standing as far as matrimony is concerned. Animals have limited rights, but that does include abuse (rape is a type of abuse). If you were to have sex with an animal, it is considered both illegal because of beastiality laws and illegal as animal abuse. Entering into a marriage with an animal would really do nothing as you already have visitation rights and such being their owner. As having children with a dog is impossible, childrens rights would not come up (that also applies to inatimate objects and dead people).

Gay people can reproduce if they so choose by adoption or a third party donator (sperm or egg, depending on the gender of the partners). A dog, dead person, or inatimate object cannot legally own property or be a parent to human children.

I hope that clears it up.

Edit: If a parent gives a last wish for a child (such as who the child will stay with, or wills, or what have you) that is to be respected by the court, it is considered that the parent was alive when the order was given, so it is not a wish or request from a dead person. Someone who is dead does not have legal rights to anything after the death that was not arranged while he or she was alive.

FoolThemAll

Why would someone who wishes to restrict the rights of homosexuals to 'love as they choose' be in favor of civil unions for homosexual couples?

I don't see a necessary contradiction in having contempt for homosexuality, yet approving of civil unions. Where you see asymmetry, I don't.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

daswig

Ah, but isn't homosexuality something which has only recently become relatively "normalized"? Don't the results on the recent State referendums strongly suggest that homosexual marriage is in fact NOT normalized? (Percentages voting in 2004 to ban homosexual marriage by state: AR: 75%, GA: 76%, KY: 75%, MI: 59%, MS: 86%!!!, MT:67%, ND: 73%, OH: 62%, OK: 76%, OR: 57%, UT: 66%, as reported at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...llot.measures/ ). In the 11 states where the question was asked on the ballot, the answer was not only "no", but "HELL NO!", even in Oregon, which is generally seen as a relatively "progressive" place. These numbers are hard numbers, not based upon a survey or poll, but upon actual votes cast. How long ago was it that homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by psychologists? So how "normalized" has homosexuality actually become in society as a whole? Those numbers suggest that while there may be some tolerance for homosexuality, but that homosexual marriage certainly is NOT "normalized" amongst a supermajority of American voters, at least in the 11 states that we have unassailable figures for. Even among the Democratic party hierarchy, homosexuality is not universally "normalized", as demonstrated by Sen. Robert Byrd's comments and the party's general very recent backtracking on "God, Guns, and Gays" (never before November 2004 did I think I would see Hillary quoting the Bible), which are seen even amongst the party faithful as having cost the Democrats the 2004 election.

As for members not being able to consent, why would there need to be consent or a contract at all? After all, in most of the cases we're talking about, the "second partner" is alienable PROPERTY, not a legally recognized individual. It's like the definition of murder...murder is generally defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought." If your dog shoots you, it's not murder, and yes, that has actually happened. And a corpse at one time could indeed enter into a contract for the disposition of their remains, yes?

daswig

Interesting....are you sure? Because I can think of several things off the top of my head that would contradict that statement...

daswig

And a married couple of a human and an animal could not reproduce in the same exact manner, through adoption or third party "donator"? After all, one of the partners is indeed human, and DNA is not required from both partners if there's a third party donor involved. As for owning property, have you ever heard of an "estate"? And does death render a parent no longer a parent? Legal causes of action routinely survive the death of a party, yes?

Halx

Complication. You add too much complication. My answer to everything, assuming the consequences have no direct adverse affects on others is, "Sure, why not?"

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

daswig

And why can't you marry property? Isn't the case that you can't marry property simply because the law states that you can't? Doesn't the law also state that marriage is between one man and one woman? So if you're changing the law on one part, why can't you change the law on the other part too? It seems like you're arguing the sanctity of the law (which states no marriage to property) on one part, and the non-sanctity of the law (which states no marriage between same-sex couples) on the other part. Isn't that a contradiction in your argument?

daswig

Halx, I love you in a heterosexual and entirely proper platonic manner, but trust me on this: don't go to Law School. Your love of uncomplicated things would not survive, and that's a precious thing in and of itself.

I don't create the complications. I'm not that old, and they far predate me. But the complications do indeed exist.

Willravel

Well I live in a homosexually progressive area. Not only do I live in california, but I live in an area that has many gay couples. Some of my wife and my friends are openly gay. Despite my religious upbringing, I could never say that these people deserve anything less than equal rights in every sense. We are in the beginnings of the movement to normalize homosexuality socially and legally. I happen to see those who voted against gay equality under the law as being bigoted. I see this as being very similar to racial bigotry.

Rubbish. Children do have some rights that animals and objects do not have. Children are not property unless we are talking about illegal slave trading. Does that apply to gay couples? Both members of a marriage are equal unless otherwise stipulated. My wife and I are 100% equal in our marriage, legally and otherwise. In a gay relationship no member is property. If the person is dead or it we are talking about an animal (non-human) or an object, then the other party is property. You cannot marry property.

The legal rights of the deceased are greatly limited (and can be compared to those of an animal actually). A dog cannot legally own a human, whether the ownership is total or partial. If a marriage of human and animal (illegal as of right now) were hypothetically legal, then the animal would be allowed many rights, but the animal could not have the cognitive abilities to raise a human child. The dog (using dog as an example) could not teach the child social skills or real world lessons besides that which a dog knows. What the dog knows is limited to what it is trained to do and what is inate. What the dog can be trained to do is at a maximum the ability to keep the child from immediate danger. An animal cannot legally own property. Our constitution and amendments are here for the rights of people.

Nope. I'm a moron! The nature and extent of an owner's rights with respect to land or other property is an estate. It has no bearing on this at all.

The dead person is not allowed to make any legal decisions after he or she dies (with the exception of recessitation). That's rather obvious. Consent is given before the death. If the person consents to necrophilia before death, that's up to a judge. If the person has dies and did not stipulate any such arrangement, then it is illegal.

Willravel

Like I said before, this is about homosexuality. I indulged your argument becuase it seemed like the right thing to do, but I still believe that the homosexual mariage issue should be argued of it's own merrits. You can marry your toaster if you want, but this is about homosexuality. The opposite of your argument can be just as interesting. If homosexuals cannot marry, why can Filipino people marry? Why can people under 25 marry? Why can anyone marry? It's too open ended and it eventually only serves to distract from the subjecxt at hand.

Halx

And the complications only exist because of people who tried to assert their will on others by creating exceptions. It's called control. Don't be controlled. Let free will reign.

Thank you, good night.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

FoolThemAll

I've argued it before, but I don't consider opponents to gay marriage automatically bigoted. I've met at least a few who seem to oppose it genuinely on the grounds that traditional marriage will be damaged, and I've seen studies cited. Ultimately, I deem it far-fetched and wholly unconvincing. But if I did believe that gay marriage was a threat to the stability of traditional marriage, I'd be hesistant in supporting it. Now, it's certainly possible that bigoted feelings lie below this visible explanation, but I'm not going to assume it. In some cases, in fact, I'm convinced that there isn't bigotry.

And then there's my belief that people against homosexual activity aren't necessarily bigots, but that's getting a bit too far off-topic.

Whoa. Which part of your wife? That's freaky.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

smooth

Why is it freaky?

Usually the top part of my wife and our friends starts out gay; then after a bit, I get involved and then the bottom parts of her and them are openly gay.

Then we switch back. Goes on for a few hours, few orgasms...nothing freaky about it; much fun actually, have you seen my wife


BTW, I'm not even supposed to be here. I blame this on you, tecoyah! lol, among others who asked that I not let my account lapse, see now? Here I am again posting away. Anyway, we're off to enjoy a good superbowl weekend away from the computer, have fun everyone

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Willravel

There have been studies that find that homosexual equality will damage traditional marriage? Somehow that sounds more like a study of opinion, as "damage" to traditional marriage is in the eye of the beholder. I, personally, would be interested in seeing the particulars of said studies, if it isn't a bother to you.

That's your call.

Arg. Grammar is a bitch. My wife and I have many friends who are openly gay. We sometimes go on double dates with them. To my wife and I, it seems no different than any other relationship. We don't believe this because we are trying not to be bigots, but because we just automatically believe it. No one ever had to teach me that all people are created equal. It makes sense.

tecoyah

Ding........and here lies the answer.

Tell him what he won

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

daswig

Then they're going about it in a piss-poor manner. The end result is most likely going to be a Constitutional Amendment which will bar what you see as full equality, and the vast majority of the country sees as special privilege. FYI: Constitutional Amendments are AUTOMATICALLY Constitutional upon ratification, and therefore are not subject to being overturned by the Courts.

But you keep seeming to miss the point of WHY you can't marry property. Marriage, as we're talking about in this case, is a statutorily defined artifice. Under current law, it's illegal for a same sex couple to marry, correct? At the same time, under current law, it's illegal for a human to marry a dog, right? These are both things which are EXPLICITLY spelled out in the code. The ONLY thing preventing ANY form of marriage which is currently illegal is the fact that the specific type of marriage IS ILLEGAL. Remove the statutory barrier, and it become legal. You say "Remove this barrier, but leave that barrier intact." WHY?

So you're saying that what makes a marriage is the ability to RAISE a child? Really? Are you SURE you want to stick with that?

...

Sorry, it's illegal almost everywhere REGARDLESS of if consent is given while the person is alive.

Lebell

Wow.

You guys are...prolific.

The thread is relatively polite, so carry on.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

I'm not doing anything about it really besides talking to people about it. When and if the time comes for me to vote for the person that agrees with sexual prefrence equality or what have you, I'll vote for it. I'm a little ashamed to say I've done nothing more than talk. Honestly, I'm politically exhausted after the election.

Becuase of my specific ethics. Somehow I don't see keeping gay people from marriage as being ethical. This ultimately boils down to your individual, personal view of what is or isn't socially acceptable. I'm not sure if the norm will ever side with me on this, but I hope they do. They are hurting a lot of good, honest people out there who's only crime who they fell in love with. That bothers me.

No, a dog cannot be a parent. You asked about adoption. As far as procreation, biologically it won't work. A dog can't be a parent, so adoption is out. As far as marriage:
Whatever you think seperate marriage from any other kind of relationship can be used to explain why dogs can't be brides or grooms. If you think a marriage deals with soul mates, the bible asys animals don't have souls. If you think it's about procreation...well that won't work. If you think it's financial, dogs cannot own property or have a job where the dog makes money. Any money made by the dog is the owners by right. You get the idea.

We were speaking hypothetically. If, hypothetically, it was not illegal...etc. (reread the response with that in mind)

daswig

The strongest possible argument that I can give you that your position is out of touch with the mainstream in the US is the results of the 2004 election. The people had their say, and they were heard, loud and clear. Now who LISTENS to what they said....well, that's another matter entirely.

So, your specific ethics say that homosexual marriage is OK, and that the law should be changed. OK, you certainly have the right to think that, without having to offer ANY justification to back it up. But the evidence keeps piling up to indicate that the vast majority of American people (well, ok, people who actually voted in those 11 states on the various referendums) do NOT feel that way.

I've known dogs who would be much better parents for children above the age of, say, 5 years old than their actual biological parents made. Of course, I've seen some pretty good examples of so-called "parents" who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere NEAR a child, and had a small part in depriving them of their liberty for the rest of their natural lives (with due process of law, of course)

Ummm...I'm pretty sure that, biologically speaking, same-sex couples have exactly the same odds of naturally producing a child from their union as a human and an animal have of naturally producing a child from their union, which is exactly zero. That's not bigotry, that's biological fact. Until cloning/DNA technology advances, this will remain the case. Of course, once molecular biology advances to that point, I'm thinking that it will shortly be possible to create a hybrid being from a human and another species, provided that we're not talking porcine and elephant donors, since we all know that pig and elephant DNA "just don't splice."


Marriage in the sense we're talking here is quite literally a legal construct. Is a relationship any different because there's a piece of paper from the State involved? In my book, it isn't. My wife and I were together for seven years before we legally married. Honestly, the actual marriage part was a huge pain in the ass...we had to have a big party, everybody got frazzled, there was the whole prenup thing, et cetera. The WORST fight my wife and I EVER had was on the way to the rehearsal dinner the night before the ceremony over where it was located. No other fight before or since even came close. Once the "festivities" were over, our lives returned to normal.

Is it the State's business to determine that the partners both have souls? PETA people probably DO think animals have souls.

But it IS illegal, in a completely non-hypothetical sense, even in California (which just passed the law banning it, since apparently it had never come up, and then did). The law may not explicitly state "it is illegal to marry a corpse and have sex with it with the consent of the corpse before it became a corpse", but there are various other statutes that cover it, such as "abuse of a corpse". That's a real code section, which tells you how twisted our society is becoming.

Now here's an interesting (if somewhat silly) scenario (I know it's a complication, Halx, but that's what the training does to you). What if, say, a person had their arm severed. What happens if the potential spouse wants to marry JUST the severed arm? Now technically, the person is not dead, right? The person that the arm was a part of could consent to the marriage, right? (I'm picturing the ceremony, when the priest or official asks "who gives this arm to be legally wed?") It's a human-human match, so the animals/soul thing wouldn't apply, right? Procreation as a requirement is out the window, right? What result?

/sings "Twiddle-de-de, one two three, Eric, the Half a Bee!"

Willravel

Well, the mainstream posotion here in California is different. Watch to see what blue states vote one way and what red states vote the other. This has a lot to do with the President trying to convince people that being a Christian means refusing to understand and allow homosexualism (not sure that's a word, but whatever). Those people don't speak for me, and their voting won't change my mind. I'll live to fight another day if we lose this round.

My ethics follow a combination of morality and logic (logic in the senser that it makes sense to me). My ethics tell me that these people don't deserve to be treated as any less than other people. Why should they be punished (and this does seem like a punishment)?

Well, we have to speak in averages in this situation, as case-by-case would make this very much more tedius (and some of the exceptions are so small that they become irrelevant in the scale we'ree talking aout, i.e. nationwide legislation). The average human adult makes a better parent for a human child than the average dog.

Well I was just mentioning to biological thing to cover all bases. The important point was the adoption (or insemination involving a third party). If the couple gets a child from with outside help, they are still just as responsible to raise that child as those who had a child without a third party.

We aren't just arguing on a strictly legal basis here. The movement behind the law is based on beliefs and social rules. You can't disregard that because of the ultimate decision will be in law. Law is based in (ta dah) ethics (logic and morality).

Well the religious right seems to be heading this, so I'd say that if they believe the bible so completly, they'd have to stick with the animals-sans-souls belief.

You also can't have sex with public property. Yikes as far as that having to be a law. Yikes.

The arm doesn't have a soul. Usually the part of the body connected with the brain and heart is considered the person. I still stand by what I said before: this (marrige rights for dead people, animals, inatimate objects, arms, puppets, etc.) is distracting from the real argument.

Willravel

Hell freezing over yet? I guess we both just got tired of yelling at each other. I'm actually coming to respect daswig to a certian extent. Go fig.

daswig

California. Kal-I-For-Nie-Ayyyy. Nuff said. Oregon is a Blue state, isn't it? It voted to ban same sex marriages by 57%. THAT fact in and of itself speaks volumes.

Homosexuals can legally marry just like the rest of the population. How many times have you heard of gay people marrying a member of the opposite sex, having kids, et cetera? If you've ever hung out in a gay bar, you know what I'm talking about.

Well, the average dog is far less likely to sexually abuse a child than a parent or other close relative is, yes? Familial child sexual abuse is far more rampant than most people are willing to come to terms with. I'm not talking about gays specifically here, I'm talking about across the board.

And they're still just as incapable of having a child as the man/dog arrangement, or a single parent.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Dude, Dudette, whatever your gender/sexual orientation/political outlook is, I now KNOW, beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, that you've never, EVER attended Law School. That's not meant as an insult. Your statement is the equivalent of claiming to read "Swank" and "BiggJuggs" "for the articles".

That doesn't work with me, since I'm pretty much Anti-Christian, a Heathen, and have, on occasion, been accused of being the Anti-Christ himself. I support freedom of religion, but exercise freedom FROM recognized religions, at the point of a gun if necessary. But you REALLY don't want to get me started on religion, ESPECIALLY my religious beliefs.


From my perspective, the human body doesn't have a soul, so hey. I'm a longtime subscriber in the "meatsock" philosophy.

daswig

DON'T DO IT!!!!

I really was both pissed off and amused by the "you're a bigot!" thing earlier. If you had ANY idea about my background, ties to the homosexual community, et cetera, you'd understand why.

BTW, in my book, calling somebody or an entire class of somebodys a pervert/s is not what I'd consider to be an insult. I generally define a "pervert" as somebody who engages in illegal sex acts of one form or another. Considering what sex acts are illegal where I am, active homosexuals are, by definition, perverts in my book, just as I'm a pervert, ALMOST all of my friends of perverts (I know one couple that used to be perverts, but then got fundie religion, and now obey the law, meaning they have sex only for procreation, in an unlit room, on a bed, wearing 80% body coverage with nightclothes, in the missionary position, and they don't enjoy it, but for some unknown reason, we've "grown distant"...These are the same people who begged my wife and I to go to church with them, and then introduced us to their pastor as "our Heathen Friends"... ) my wife is a pervert, hell, my MOM is presumably a pervert. The ONLY person I know FOR SURE isn't a pervert in my book that I really, really "dig" is my daughter, who is under 7 months old. A homosexual could potentially NOT be a pervert, but ONLY if they were celibate. If you were to come up to me and a group of my friends and ask "which one of yall are perverts!", we'd all gleefully raise our hands. I s'pose it's kind of like the people who write "Yes, please!" in the "sex" box on a job application.


As another "BTW", I oppose same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean I couldn't come up with a potentially agreeable solution to the problem for most of the people on this board that I would agree with. It would involve removing the State from the marriage business alltogether.

Willravel

Some of us try out hardest to see the glass as being half full. Laws are supposed to be based in ethics (the combination of logic and morality). Whether they are or not (not) is up to you. If I was pushing for a law to get passed or not to get passed, I would argue the law's ethical effects. I, as you so eloquently pointed out, am anything but a lawyer.

I was not saying you are religious. I was saying "the religious right seems to be heading this", so I poked a hole in them, thustly *pop*. As for you....hmmm...well some people in this thread have accused you of being bigoted towards homosexuals. I haven't decided for sure myself - as some of the time you push peoples buttons for fun (don't think I don't notice that). I *think* we can all agree that being a bigot is wrong. If your case is based in the fact that you don't want homosexuals ruining what you consider to be marriage, then it's a weak one. What is traditional marriage? Haven't gay people been around, and a lot of the time socially accepted, for generations? Rome, Greece, and several other civilizations make a multitude of references to homosexuality even in high ranking governmental officials and heroes. That awful Alexander movie was actually right in that Alexander the Great may have been openly bisexual. Was he dethroned? Was he shunned because of his love of other men? Somehow I doubt it. What we are seeing now is leftovers from our puritanical days. Had the "right" been left unchecked, we might have seen David Copperfield burned at the stake next to David Blane for witchcraft. There is still this tug of war between the puritanical roots and our let-freedom-reign side (I know, this sounds like a load of crap, but maybe someone out there agrees with me). The homosexuality conundrum comes down to a simple "play it safe" against "why not". I'm starting to babble.

I hope I had some good points in there somewhere.

Willravel

Care to indluge us? Insight into your backround may serve to answer some questions, though it could potentially bring up more. Your call.

You think gay people are perverts (by your definition) when they have sex. You are a self proclaimed pervert (again, by your own definition). Why would you not want to let fellow perverts have their day? Somehow it seems...not contradictory...but it seems to go against the idea that if you do something, you accept it in others. I'm not calling you a hypocrate, because this is a simplfied version of what's going on, but doesn't it strike you odd that one of the reasons that you don't want them to have rights happens to be something you enjoy?

Our daughters are about the same age. Mutuality's a bitch. Jk.

Hahahaha. We are in agreement yet again. The state should have very little to do with marriage. You should get the license, and the basic rights, and then they should leave us to our liberties.

daswig

Well, let's see. I first met people who were openly homosexual at the Rocky Horror Picture Show in the early 1980's, when I was a "castmember". If you know how the RHPS used to work, the movie played onscreen, the "cast" acted out what was on the screen, while people screamed retorts and threw things. I generally played Eddie and/or Dr. Scott and worked "security", which meant beating the shit out of drunk rednecks and sailors who misbehaved (it took a LOT to qualify as "misbehaving"...normally it involved REALLY anti-social behavior, such as physically attacking a castmember over their sexuality). And yes, when playing Dr. Scott, I wore fishnets and high heels in my wheelchair. I'd say prolly half the cast were openly gay. Afterwards, there were GREAT "castparties", which were generally debauched enough to rival anything out there in the modern era. These generally started out at after-hour gay clubs, and then moved to a castmember's house. I did that for over 15 years (I started when I was 14, and by the time I was 17 was one of the two "go-to" people when fights broke out), on average once a weekend for the entire time. My wife, BTW, played "Columbia" with one of the casts, that's where I met her. During my time at RHPS with various casts, I got into literally hundreds of fights protecting castmembers, many of whom were attacked for no other reason than their open homosexuality (there was a Navy base close-by). In the early 1990's, I marched in DC at the national gay rights march as part of PFLAG. I spent some time as a firearms instructor at the local Pink Pistols chapter when I lived close to one. Outside of the Pink Pistols, I sold a LOT of guns to gays (mostly by word-of-mouth, and YES, I had the appropriate licenses, it was 100% legal), and taught them to use them. (a LOT of the gun culture refuse to have anything to do with openly homosexual people, and I lost some "straight" customers by doing what I did, but fuck'em if they didn't like it, I wouldn't want to sell guns to the people who were offended by it anyway.) I volunteered at a free health clinic that was used by a mostly homosexual clientele back in the late 80's and early 90's, doing staff-work, cleaning up, and other sundry things that other people were not equipped to deal with based upon size/health. That led me to being a female reproductive services clinic "escort" (for some reason, the two groups intermingled a LOT, and when they needed a big beefy guy who didn't mind being spat upon and cracking the odd skull in accordance with the laws of self-defense, I tended to "get the call") when Operation Rescue was at their height of activity. I helped bury more gay friends who died of HIV/AIDS than most people have friends, period. There are a fair number of other ties, but those should be enough to establish my bona fides, and if they aren't for some people, well, nothing I could say would establish them for those people.


You don't see me out there lobbying to remove oral sex from the code, do you? Our statutes are neutral. They apply regardless of the orientation of the parties involved. It's just as technically illegal for me and my wife to engage in consentual oral sex as it is for a same-sex couple to consentually do it. Of course, the laws are almost never enforced, and when they are, it's generally because the conduct was SO outrageous in ways other than the sex act itself that it is the reason that there is a prosecution to begin with. By far the most common example of this involves forcible rape. If a person rapes another person, they're charged with rape, plus whatever other sex crimes were involved. So a person who forcibly rapes somebody else is charged with the rape, but if they do other things, they can be charged not only with rape but also with sodomy in the case of oral sex, or buggery in the case of anal sex, or whatever. I don't WANT the sex laws to go away, because they serve a very real purpose in punishing people who commit "mala in se" (like rape) crimes rather than "malum prohibitorum" (like consentual sex) crimes. I sometimes jokingly say that "you know you're doing it right by the number of laws you break doing it". As long as it's consentual, it's virtually NEVER prosecuted here, but if it isn't consentual, the laws are there so that the offender may be punished more in-line with their actions.


If it's a right, you shouldn't have to get a license to exercise it.

boatin

Aw geez, now i'm offended too. This is one of the most hurtful opinions out there about adoption. "far less optimal"??

Taking a child into your heart and home, from an orphanage or birth mother that chooses to not raise the child, is LESS optimal? Not adding another child to an already crowded world is LESS optimal??

I would encourage you to look at the sentence you wrote. "viewed as" by whom? Clearly by you. Sure not viewed that way by me, and many others. I think there is a word for those that view equivalent situations as "different". That word may have been thrown around on this thread already...


As an aside, I'd be curious to know your view on abortion. So many anti-all-abortion people are so quick to say "adoption is the answer!". But some then turn around and suggest that adoption is "less optimal".

I'm not saying I'm sure that's you, daswig. But that's how I'd bet my money.


sorry to tangent