Paul Martin on Gay Marriage - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

alansmithee · 03-14-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

My God, alansmithee, you really don't get it. At all. You really think that homosexuality is the act of engaging in gay sex.

Unbelievable.

Let me engage with your logic for a moment. If I understand you correctly, "gay = engages in sex with members of the same sex." I assume that, therefore, "straight = engages in sex with members of the opposite sex."

Now, what if you are a virgin? What does that make you? You aren't engaging in sex with men or women. When you were a virgin, did you consider yourself "straight?" If so, how could you? You weren't engaging in sex with someone of the opposite gender?

My guess, and obviously I don't know yet what you considered or consider yourself, but my guess is that you considered yourself straight. The thought of having sex with guys didn't really do anything for you. However, thinking about women...well, that got your libido going. I know it has for me.

So you probably labeled yourself straight, as I did. Even before you ever had sex with anyone.

Therefore, you might understand why I can't quite see how one's sexual orientation is entirely defined by who they are actively sleeping with.

Sexual orientation is something you are born with. My lesbian friends discovered, well before they slept with anyone, that the thought of men did nothing for their libidos, but the thought of sleeping with women did. Vice-versa for my gay friends. It wasn't a matter of who they were having sex with, but a biological factor that defined for them their sexual orientation.

So don't tell me that homosexuality can't be a biological determinate because nobody would ever "come out of the closet." Coming out of the closet is when a gay person reveals to others that they are not straight. Not because they recently made a choice to become gay, or because they just had sex with someone of the same gender. It is because often, a gay person faces discrimination and abuse for simply being themselves. That is why there is the proverbial closet. That is why, because society punishes them so simply for being gay, many make an attempt attempt to have sex with members of the opposite sex and even get married, despite their true feelings. It is assumed that is what Governor McCreevy did.

You are right that I cannot just decide - bam - I don't want to be white anymore. But neither can homosexuals decide - bam - I don't want to be gay anymore. It isn't a choice.

Let me ask you, alansmithee - when was it that you decided that you would rather be straight than gay (or gay than straight, I don't know)? What went into that decision? How long did you think it over? When were you sure?

My guess is that you just always knew, same as me, same as my homosexual friends.

And I'm not even getting into scales of sexual orientation, the mere concept of which may just blow your mind.

The only thing that matters about homosexuality and marriage is if offsping can be produced. You have put forth no argument whatsoever showing a reason why my argument is false or illogical in respect to the gay marriage issue. The government doesn't give a rat's ass who or what you may or may not be attracted to.

And by saying having sex was simplifying. To clarify, without taking some action, nobody will know your sexual orientation. If you are secretly attracted to men your whole life but never act on it, nobody will know you were "gay". Because as far as society is concerned, you weren't. Sexual orientation presupposes some act on your part. Race does not. Sexual orientation can be affected by your upbringing, social pressures, and other psychological aspects. Race can not.

And for those of us without the telepathy to determine other people's "true feelings", we have to rely on their actions. When someone come out who has been married for numerous years, it seems hard to believe they always felt that way. I certainly couldn't hide my race for years, then suddenly say "i'm black". Again, it's the whole action thing, and i'm not inclined to assume someone's actions to be genetically predetermined.

As for the concept of "scales of sexual orientation", i'm quite sure it would "blow my mind". I find many forms of ridiculousness to be mind-blowing.

guy44 · 03-14-2005, 08:49 PM

What do you want me to say? How can I argue with someone who believes that homosexuality is a choice? How can I argue with someone who turns their back on 50 years of scientific research, all the way back to Kinsey's first studies of human sexual behavior? How can I argue with someone who tells me that my gay friends simply chose to be gay? It's pointless.

All I can do is ask questions: why does "sexual orientation presuppose some act on your part?" What is a gay person who has not yet had sex?

alansmithee · 03-14-2005, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

What do you want me to say? How can I argue with someone who believes that homosexuality is a choice? How can I argue with someone who turns their back on 50 years of scientific research, all the way back to Kinsey's first studies of human sexual behavior?

Could you show any evidence of this "50 years of scientific research"? I have asked before for any evidence showing how sexual orientation is not choice, and nobody has ever given any evidence.

And even assuming you are right and it's not a choice, you still haven't shown how that has any relevance to marriage law. Gay people CAN marry. Gay people HAVE married. Where is the problem? As I stated above, marriage is something the government deems useful for the raising of children, not for people's enjoyment.

guy44 · 03-14-2005, 09:28 PM

Gay people can only marry in 3 states, New York, Massachusets, and now California I think. It should be everywhere in the United States.

Secondly, no, marriage is not just for children, and there is no reason why gay couples can't or don't raise children. They do. Sometimes, they are impregnated through invitro (sp?), like Melissa Etheridge, or sometimes a woman is impregnated the old fashioned way, or a gay couple adopts, or whatnot.

Thirdly, marriage comes with many benefits, such as special tax status, visiting rights, etc.

As for the research you asked for, here is a rundown of Kinsey's scale that he first created in 1948: http://members.tde.com/ben/kleingrid.html

Here is a recent article discussing some of the theories of the biological basis for homosexuality:

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/...rrelations.htm

Though there is no definite identification of a "gay gene," or any such thing, that does not mean that homosexuality isn't at least in part biological. However, what it emphatically is NOT is a choice.

And I ask you again: when was it that you made the choice not to be gay? What factors went into your decision? Have you regretted it? What does the thought of engaging in gay sex make you feel? If you wanted to, could you just become gay and go have sex with a man on a whim?

I don't really want your answers to these very personal questions. I'm just pointing out that the "choice" argument is inane.

Superbelt · 03-15-2005, 04:36 AM

If homosexuality is a choice, there is a hell of a lot of sadistic motherfuckers out there who enjoy being persecuted, screamed at, slurred and otherwise held down by society.

Ooh yeah, and beaten to death and dragged behind a pickup. That's always a fun time for people who pretend they're gay.

Kadath · 03-15-2005, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

If homosexuality is a choice, there is a hell of a lot of sadistic motherfuckers out there who enjoy being persecuted, screamed at, slurred and otherwise held down by society.

Ooh yeah, and beaten to death and dragged behind a pickup. That's always a fun time for people who pretend they're gay.

You mean masochistic.

Guys, while I appreciate all the fine work you are doing in carrying on this debate, you are wasting your time. There comes a point where you have to recognize that a person is beyond the reach of logic or reason on a certain issue and you simply have to throw up your hands. This is not a discussion any more. This is a skirmish, and soon it will turn into a war, and it would be better to just cut it short now and let everyone keep on thinking the way that they do, because nothing is going to change.

Superbelt · 03-15-2005, 06:05 AM

My bad, thanks for the correction.

I just hope people like this never end up with homosexual children.
I'd hate to think of the mental anguish they would be inflicted with.
Much like the un-Christ like way Pharisee Alan Keyes kicked out his daughter for faking the Gay Disease.

NCB · 03-15-2005, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

You mean masochistic.

Guys, while I appreciate all the fine work you are doing in carrying on this debate, you are wasting your time. There comes a point where you have to recognize that a person is beyond the reach of logic or reason on a certain issue and you simply have to throw up your hands. This is not a discussion any more. This is a skirmish, and soon it will turn into a war, and it would be better to just cut it short now and let everyone keep on thinking the way that they do, because nothing is going to change.

True, but I still hold out hope for some. This issue is bound to turn up again sometime soon.

Superbelt · 03-15-2005, 07:33 AM

I'm sure the anti-miscegenationists held out hope as well.

The cool thing about my position is, I am confident that the side of good will once again prevail over the ideological heirs of anti-miscegenation, anti-voting rights, anti-womens rights, slavery advocates etc. The ideology of holding people who are not like you down.

It's a matter of time, society will continue to move forward and good will win. Until then it is sad that peoples rights to live happily are being quashed. But it will all change. It's inevitable like the tide.

Just think of how much more acceptable homosexuality and homosexual rights are today compared to what they were 50 years ago. The difference between then and now is astounding compared to the distance we still need to cover to get full legal rights.

NCB · 03-15-2005, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I'm sure the anti-miscegenationists held out hope as well.

The cool thing about my position is, I am confident that the side of good will once again prevail over the ideological heirs of anti-miscegenation, anti-voting rights, anti-womens rights, slavery advocates etc. The ideology of holding people who are not like you down.

It's a matter of time, society will continue to move forward and good will win. Until then it is sad that peoples rights to live happily are being quashed. But it will all change. It's inevitable like the tide.

Just think of how much more acceptable homosexuality and homosexual rights are today compared to what they were 50 years ago. The difference between then and now is astounding compared to the distance we still need to cover to get full legal rights.

The more y'all compare this to black rights and women's rights, the more you will alienate the gen pub. Though it probably doesn't matter because the homosexual mafia won't try to persuade the public, but rather, they'll take it to some judge in the SF or South Beach and have that judge make the law for them.

Either way, until y'all get your Susan B anthony or your MLK, you will be doomed to fail. If history shows anything, Americans don't like to be pushed around and told what to accept. Persuade, build public opinion, and you'll win. Whine about equal rights and the depression in the gay community because Bill and Bob can't get married and you'll continue to lose.

Superbelt · 03-15-2005, 08:29 AM

No, the more we compare it, the more people will realize they are the same.

I believe it was Kent State where some black Students were ordered to be admitted by a judge... against state laws. There are some very famous pictures available from the event.

And, newsflash. America is being persuaded. Several years before miscegenation began to be legalized, america was polling about 90% against it.
We're not that far off now. A majority are in favor of civil unions and gay marriage polls in the 20-30% range.

And, I believe in the 60's, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Malcolm X were classified as 'whiners' by people like you. They 'whined' about how they were being depressed and had no equal rights under the law etc.

Anyone who doesn't see the parallel in progression and applicability under civil rights is blinded by their prejudices against homosexuals

Kadath · 03-15-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

True, but I still hold out hope for some. This issue is bound to turn up again sometime soon.

You'll notice I deliberately avoided taking any sides in my request that you all stop arguing. My statement did not attack either side. Nonetheless, I officially award you a one-up to your e-penis for such a clever quip.

alansmithee · 03-15-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Gay people can only marry in 3 states, New York, Massachusets, and now California I think. It should be everywhere in the United States.

AFAIK it's not legal in NY. However, vermont does allow civil unions.

Quote:

Secondly, no, marriage is not just for children, and there is no reason why gay couples can't or don't raise children. They do. Sometimes, they are impregnated through invitro (sp?), like Melissa Etheridge, or sometimes a woman is impregnated the old fashioned way, or a gay couple adopts, or whatnot.

Did you read the opinion of the presiding judge in Florida? It supported the government's position that states use marriage to promote the rearing of children by both biological parents. Gay couples are allowed to raise children, but it's a biological impossibility for a gay couple to be the biological parents of a child.

Quote:

Thirdly, marriage comes with many benefits, such as special tax status, visiting rights, etc.

And those aren't there to support coupling, it's to support child-rearing.

Quote:

As for the research you asked for, here is a rundown of Kinsey's scale that he first created in 1948: http://members.tde.com/ben/kleingrid.html

Here is a recent article discussing some of the theories of the biological basis for homosexuality:

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/...rrelations.htm

Though there is no definite identification of a "gay gene," or any such thing, that does not mean that homosexuality isn't at least in part biological. However, what it emphatically is NOT is a choice.

I didn't read the Kinsey piece yet (I have heard some valid criticism of his research), but the other seemed to support my position more than yours.

Quote:

And I ask you again: when was it that you made the choice not to be gay? What factors went into your decision? Have you regretted it? What does the thought of engaging in gay sex make you feel? If you wanted to, could you just become gay and go have sex with a man on a whim?

I don't really want your answers to these very personal questions. I'm just pointing out that the "choice" argument is inane.

The choice vs. biology argument is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage, as I have said repeatedly and have yet to be refuted. But the choice argument is NOT "inane". Even the evidence YOU provided doesn't rule it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

If homosexuality is a choice, there is a hell of a lot of sadistic motherfuckers out there who enjoy being persecuted, screamed at, slurred and otherwise held down by society.

Ooh yeah, and beaten to death and dragged behind a pickup. That's always a fun time for people who pretend they're gay.

Held down by society? Give me a break. How are gays held down? Nobody will realize if you are gay or not unless you publicize it, and at least in a workplace environment I don't see the purpose of publicizing your sex life, straight or gay. And I have yet to see how gays are discriminated against in colleges either.

And you only list negatives (which for some people might even be positives). If you are gay, you are now instantly special. You gain a minority status that you can turn on and off. Someone doesn't like you? It's cause they are a homophobe. Didn't get a job? Homophobia. And you even get ready made groups to tell you how great and special you are (GLAAD comes to mind).

Quote:

No, the more we compare it, the more people will realize they are the same.

I believe it was Kent State where some black Students were ordered to be admitted by a judge... against state laws. There are some very famous pictures available from the event.

And, newsflash. America is being persuaded. Several years before miscegenation began to be legalized, america was polling about 90% against it.
We're not that far off now. A majority are in favor of civil unions and gay marriage polls in the 20-30% range.

And, I believe in the 60's, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Malcolm X were classified as 'whiners' by people like you. They 'whined' about how they were being depressed and had no equal rights under the law etc.

Anyone who doesn't see the parallel in progression and applicability under civil rights is blinded by their prejudices against homosexuals

No, anyone who tries to parallel the struggle of women and blacks to that of gays is spitting on the legacy of the people who participated in those struggles. Sure, some people don't like homosexuals. Some people don't like swingers. Some people don't like athletes. Some people don't like gamers. That doesn't mean these people are discriminated against. Some people just don't like the looks of other people. But that doesn't mean any of those groups are discriminated against. Where are gays discriminated against? Are they having trouble getting employed? What about college admissions? Are a disproportionate number of them in poverty? Can they not vote? Can they not marry? Can they not hold public office? Can they not apply for government programs?

There is no valid comparison between "gay rights" and civil rights. Besides being the current humanitarian fad.

NCB · 03-15-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

You'll notice I deliberately avoided taking any sides in my request that you all stop arguing. My statement did not attack either side. Nonetheless, I officially award you a one-up to your e-penis for such a clever quip.

Thanks, I need all the help I can get.

Superbelt · 03-15-2005, 01:33 PM

Alan, I assume you will be signing my petition to restrict all impotent, menopausal, and naturally, surgically and chemically sterile people from getting married. Right?

Ace_O_Spades · 03-16-2005, 09:46 AM

What I find funny about this entire thread is how Manx laid out quite perfectly how NCB has been improperly conducting himself in debate, and not a single reply back as to explain.

I really and truly think this thread should be locked.

Every member who supports gay rights and still has enough sanity to try to engage in debate with people who do nothing but claim "your arguments are false, I am right, there is nothing you can say that could ever possibly change my mind or give a shred of credit to your argument" has much more patience then I could ever fathom.

I just hope someday we can live in a world that is more tolerant, and people of all sexual orientations can enjoy the same rights and benefits that us heterosexual people enjoy. After all, homosexuality isn't a choice (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm), and as long as you discriminate against something that is outside of human control entirely, that's no different then racism.

Peace

NCB · 03-16-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

What I find funny about this entire thread is how Manx laid out quite perfectly how NCB has been improperly conducting himself in debate, and not a single reply back as to explain.

I really and truly think this thread should be locked.

Every member who supports gay rights and still has enough sanity to try to engage in debate with people who do nothing but claim "your arguments are false, I am right, there is nothing you can say that could ever possibly change my mind or give a shred of credit to your argument" has much more patience then I could ever fathom.

I conducted improperly in this thread? Think again. In case you haven't noticed, I'm outnumbered in this thread. I've tried to reply to everyone, but sometimes I just can't. Also, Manx, et al (with the exception of filthertron) have never answered my question about where the magic in the #2 lies. It's easy to come in at the tail end of a discussion and pass judgement, but in doing so, you run the risk of making statements that are way off mark.

Quote:

I just hope someday we can live in a world that is more tolerant, and people of all sexual orientations can enjoy the same rights and benefits that us heterosexual people enjoy. After all, homosexuality isn't a choice (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm), and as long as you discriminate against something that is outside of human control entirely, that's no different then racism.

Intresting that you preach tolerance, yet you show little tolerance towards people with dissenting views. Perhaps you should rethink your definition of tolerance

guy44 · 03-16-2005, 10:58 AM

By the way, NCB, I was wondering if the "homosexual mafia" is the same as those damn nigger-lovers, the Freedom Riders. Wanting equal rights...how dare they!

(And because I know nobody on this board underreacts, no, I'm not accusing anyone of being racist.)

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 11:03 AM

Nice switchback on the tolerance thing. Trying to dilute tolerance by arguing tolerance for the intolerant.

Kinda like Jews in Auschwitz having tolerance for the Nazi's wish to cook them in furnaces.

NCB · 03-16-2005, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Nice switchback on the tolerance thing. Trying to dilute tolerance by arguing tolerance for the intolerant.

Kinda like Jews in Auschwitz having tolerance for the Nazi's wish to cook them in furnaces.

Yeah, that's the same thing as not allowing homosexuals to redefine marriage.

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 11:10 AM

A lot of mental anguish can be on an individual if they aren't allowed to get into the hospital to see their partner before they die.

Or if all their property and children reverts to the state or a partners relatives rather than being passed onto a survivor... leaving the survivor alone and destitute.

NCB · 03-16-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

A lot of mental anguish can be on an individual if they aren't allowed to get into the hospital to see their partner before they die.

So homosexual marriage is the only cure for that? What about straight life partners that don't get hitched? Imagine their mental anguish. So perhaps, there are other ways to work around this. And besides, when was the last time in this day and age that a homosexual partner was denied access to see thier dying partner?

Quote:

Or if all their property and children reverts to the state or a partners relatives rather than being passed onto a survivor... leaving the survivor alone and destitute.

One word: Will

Superbelt · 03-16-2005, 11:38 AM

Why do you protect that word so? 'Marriage' has been redefined repeatedly through history to fit to the cultures wants and needs.

Marriage as you know it, and want to limit it to has only been around for about 5 centuries.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4426.html

Quote:

Roundup: Media's Take on the News

Marriage a Malleable Institution Throughout History

Mike Anton, in the LAT (March 31, 2004):

Throughout most of human history, a man married a woman out of desire -- for her father's goats, perhaps.

Marriage was a business arrangement. The bride was a commodity, her dowry a deal sweetener. And the groom was likely to be an unwitting pawn in an economic alliance between two families.

A church may or may not have been involved. Government was out of the loop. There was no paperwork, no possibility of divorce, and -- more often than not -- no romance. But there was work to be done: procreation, the rearing of children and the enforcement of a contract that allowed for the orderly transfer of wealth and the cycle of arranged matrimony to continue.

In the debate over same-sex marriage, each side offers competing ideals that they claim hark back to the historical essence of matrimony.

In calling for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage, President Bush has described contemporary heterosexual marriage as "the most fundamental institution of civilization," forged during "millennia of human experience." Thousands of gays and lesbians who have married in defiance of state law in San Francisco and elsewhere maintain they possess what has always mattered most in a relationship: Love.

But marriage, it turns out, has never been that simple. For much of its history, matrimony has been a matter of cold economic calculation, a condition to be endured rather than celebrated. Notions of marriage taken for granted today -- its voluntary nature, the legal equality of partners, even the pursuit of happiness -- required centuries to evolve.

"We live in such a chaotic world, the idea of a relationship that is constant -- not only in our own lives but historically -- is something we want to invest in," said Hendrik Hartog, a Princeton University history professor who wrote a book on the legal evolution of marriage. "It's natural to romanticize the history of marriage, and advocates of gay marriage are as invested in this as conservatives are."

Marriage as Americans know it today didn't exist 2,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago. Rather than an unbending pillar of society, marriage has been an extraordinarily elastic institution, constantly adapting to religious, political and economic shifts and pliable in the face of sexual revolutions, civil rights movements and changing cultural norms.

"It's extremely malleable," said Thomas Laqueur, a history professor at UC Berkeley who has studied marriage and sexuality. "Historically, anthropologically, the word 'marriage' needs to be placed in quotation marks." One reason that marriage seems so unchanging is that it has evolved glacially, inching forward on many paths at once.

In Greek mythology, Zeus created Pandora, the first woman. Then he made her the first bride and gave her as a gift to the Titan Epimetheus. The union ended poorly when Pandora opened the wedding gift she came with, unleashing from the box all of the evils of mankind.

And some newlyweds today complain when they get a toaster.

Like Zeus, Greek fathers considered their daughters property and essentially bartered them for the purpose of cementing an economic or political alliance.

The Romans codified marriage, introducing the idea of consent and setting the minimum age of grooms at 14, brides at 12. There were three types of union, and which one you got depended on your social class. The rich got a confarreatio, which included a big celebration, a special cake, maybe an animal sacrifice. The masses simply shacked up, and after a time they were considered married. A woman in a coemptio was essentially sold to her husband and had the same status as a child.

Arranged marriages remained common in Western societies into the 19th century. It is still the rule in parts of central Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It's a practice replete with abuse, from female infanticide by parents fearful of having to pay for a marriage someday to "bride burnings" of women whose families provide an insufficient dowry.

The Romans promoted monogamy at a time when polygamy was common throughout the pre-Christian world. The ancient Chinese had their concubines, and from David to Abraham, the Hebrew scriptures read like Utah in the mid-19th century, full of men who had dozens, even hundreds, of wives.

"Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabite, Ammonite, E'domite, Sido'nian, and Hittite women ... ," reads 1 Kings 11:1, in the revised standard version of the Bible. "He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart." Add a pickup, and it's a country song.

In fact, polygamy has been more common than monogamy over the full sweep of human history. The Roman Catholic Church would take up the push for monogamy, and through the centuries it overtook polygamy as the standard worldwide.

But polygamy is stubborn. Though the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed it in 1879, polygamy survives in the shadows of the Mormon West. And, while waning, it is still practiced in the Muslim world and illegally in Israel by some ultra-orthodox Jews, among other places. Polyandry, marriages involving one woman and more than one man, have cropped up among Eskimos and, even today, in Tibet.

Even where there have been clear rules about marriage, there have been more loopholes than there are in the U.S. Tax Code.

King Henry VIII famously broke from Catholicism and started his own church largely so he could divorce and marry again -- and again. European commoners who couldn't legally divorce sold their wives.

The Muslim tradition of a temporary "pleasure" union, which dates to the days of Muhammad, is still used to legalize sex under Islamic law.

Its Western counterpart: the Vegas quickie wedding, sometimes sanctified at a drive-through chapel or presided over by an Elvis impersonator. Impassioned couples began to flock to Nevada in the 1920s, after California imposed a three-day waiting period in an attempt to keep drunken lovers from the altar.

What constitutes a marriage is so fluid that many anthropologists sidestep the word altogether, preferring "unions" or "alliances," said Roger Lancaster, a professor of anthropology and cultural studies at George Mason University in Virginia. Other scholars refer to same-sex unions throughout history -- in cultures as varied as ancient Greece, tribal Africa and native North America -- as marriages.

guy44 · 03-16-2005, 01:01 PM

NCB wrote:

Quote:

So homosexual marriage is the only cure for that? What about straight life partners that don't get hitched? Imagine their mental anguish. So perhaps, there are other ways to work around this. And besides, when was the last time in this day and age that a homosexual partner was denied access to see thier dying partner?

My question is, why deny them the right to marry? Maybe you are right - marriage won't fix every problem, right every wrong. But it can help.

And yes, homosexual partners often are denied basic rights like seeing their partner in a hospital:

Quote:

Kevin Chestnut and Curtis Crawford of Seattle: Kevin is an executive for a software company. Curtis is a photographer. They have been together 19 years. They were married in British Columbia in October 2003. When Kevin’s appendix burst a few years ago, the hospital would not let Curtis make emergency health care decisions for him without obtaining verification from Kevin’s mother on the East Coast. Kevin has recently been diagnosed with cancer, which made the couple even more aware of the impact of legal inequalities. Kevin and Curtis want Washington to recognize that they are married.

Pamela Coffey and Valerie Tibbett of Friday Harbor: Pamela is a photographer. Valerie is a retired administrative law judge. They have been in a committed, loving relationship for 31 years. When Pamela was recently airlifted to a hospital on the mainland, she and Valerie faced anxiety and uncertainty because they did not have copies of documents confirming their relationship. Pamela and Valerie want to be married in Washington.

Even if they eventually do get to see each other, it is rediculous to force them to jump through extra hoops during these emergencies.

Link.

NCB · 03-16-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Even if they eventually do get to see each other, it is rediculous to force them to jump through extra hoops during these emergencies.

I totally agree with you. But is homosexual "marriage" the only solution? If the homosexual lobby's only concern is health care issues and transfer of estate property, it seems to me that they could make moves to help streamline that process.

guy44 · 03-16-2005, 01:18 PM

But why not marriage? A civil union only covers some legal bits, albeit important ones. But marriage is also a statement of love, an emotionally significant act. Why are you so opposed to allowing everyone to enjoy that?

NCB · 03-16-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

But why not marriage? A civil union only covers some legal bits, albeit important ones. But marriage is also a statement of love, an emotionally significant act. Why are you so opposed to allowing everyone to enjoy that?

1. The burden is on the pro homosexual "marriage" crowd, not the other way around.

2. I'm against it for a number of reason, one being that the homosexual lobby will not want to stop there. Soon, they'll be teaching homosexual sex in elemantry sex ed classes. Frankly, that's not the kind of soceity I want my children to grow up in. And I'm not alone.

Manx · 03-16-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Soon, they'll be teaching homosexual sex in elemantry sex ed classes. Frankly, that's not the kind of soceity I want my children to grow up in. And I'm not alone.

Why is that not the society you want your children to grow up in?

filtherton · 03-16-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I'm against it for a number of reason, one being that the homosexual lobby will not want to stop there. Soon, they'll be teaching homosexual sex in elemantry sex ed classes. Frankly, that's not the kind of soceity I want my children to grow up in. And I'm not alone.

How can you pretend to know the agenda of the homosexual lobby? Do tell. Can you tell me what the curriculum will be? Even if that were the case, you'd have a hard time coming up with any kind of rational argument as to why that would be bad.

Do me a favor and tell me why you cling to the notion of one man one woman marriage?

skier · 03-16-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

2. I'm against it for a number of reason, one being that the homosexual lobby will not want to stop there. Soon, they'll be teaching homosexual sex in elemantry sex ed classes. Frankly, that's not the kind of soceity I want my children to grow up in. And I'm not alone.

This is the first progression i've seen by NCB in this thread on how he really feels about homosexuality.

NCB, you are a bigot. Just because you're uncomfortable with the idea (read: scared), does not mean it is wrong. Homosexuals deserve to be accorded the same rights and freedoms the rest of us do. Love is not bound by gender, color, or ideals. There is no reason a homosexual man can't love and care for another man, like a heterosexual man would care for a woman. I see now why you can't accept gay marriage. It would mean that a gay man's marriage would be just as valid and special as yours. You would be the same. Equal.

Being homosexual is not a choice, and you can't assume it is just because you can't see it on the outside, like the color of your skin. Black people couldn't "come out of the closet", because they had no way to hide their skin colour to avoid prejudice. They couldn't pretend to themselves they weren't black.

If homosexuality had primarily an environmental cause, we would see distribution patterns based on favorable environmental conditions for homosexuality. Similar family environments producing homosexuals. Something in the air, or water, or food. But there isn't. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the statistical distribution of homosexuals based on their birthplace.

Bailey and Pillard (1991) conducted a study on the occurrence of homosexuality among brothers.
52% of identical twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual. Your chance of being homosexual, based just on the fact that your twin brother shares your genes, is greater than 1/2. This clearly speaks of a genetic predisposition for homosexuality.

alansmithee · 03-16-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Alan, I assume you will be signing my petition to restrict all impotent, menopausal, and naturally, surgically and chemically sterile people from getting married. Right?

You start it, ill sign it in a second. Those couples shouldn't be subsidized any more than gay couples.

Quote:

Why do you protect that word so? 'Marriage' has been redefined repeatedly through history to fit to the cultures wants and needs.

Marriage as you know it, and want to limit it to has only been around for about 5 centuries.

If you are basing a redefinion on what people want, it's been clear through numerous polls and ballot initiatives that the people DON'T want gay marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

Just because you're uncomfortable with the idea (read: scared), does not mean it is wrong. Homosexuals deserve to be accorded the same rights and freedoms the rest of us do. Love is not bound by gender, color, or ideals. There is no reason a homosexual man can't love and care for another man, like a heterosexual man would care for a woman. I see now why you can't accept gay marriage. It would mean that a gay man's marriage would be just as valid and special as yours. You would be the same. Equal.

Just because you think it's the best thing since sliced bread doesn't make it right, either. And homosexuals HAVE the same rights and freedoms as the rest
of the population. Show one example where they don't. And what does love have to do with marriage? If gays are so shallow that they can only express love with government endorsement, maybe they should reexamine the culture.

Quote:

Being homosexual is not a choice, and you can't assume it is just because you can't see it on the outside, like the color of your skin. Black people couldn't "come out of the closet", because they had no way to hide their skin colour to avoid prejudice. They couldn't pretend to themselves they weren't black.

Again, where is the evidence it isn't partially a choice? It has nothing do do with seeing it on the outside. If i'm born deaf, I can't go years pretending to hear. And also, you can't just look at someone and say for certain if they are deaf.

OFKU0 · 03-16-2005, 11:22 PM

I think both hetero or homosexual ceromonies of sharing life together, commonly called marriage should exist for both regardless of any interference, mainly from church then state to a degree.

Then if you've been married once, you were in a marriage. Marry again, you're in a civil union. This should apply for both straight and gay. Since marriage has been so cheapened (by the 50% heterosexual divorce rate), the word 'marriage' really shouldn't even be an issue.

As for those so tender of heart that they feel their "marriage" is now meaningless cuz gay's might be able to be treated equally and fairly, well then they really need a hobby or to get out,or something.

skier · 03-17-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Again, where is the evidence it isn't partially a choice? It has nothing do do with seeing it on the outside. If i'm born deaf, I can't go years pretending to hear. And also, you can't just look at someone and say for certain if they are deaf.

The "choice" a homosexual has is whether to act on his attraction or not. They don't have a choice on the attraction itself. You don't need evidence to figure this out. It's obvious. I would agree that the environment of a person predisposed to homosexuality could influence the intensity of attraction they feel towards the same sex, but choice has nothing to do with it.

I believe homosexuality is on a spectrum- Almost everybody has bisexual tendancies, repressed or not. A person coined as a homosexual is just on the other end of the string; they have a strong attraction to the same sex and very little to the opposite sex. I also think if there was a choice involved, there would be a lot more homosexuals in the world. Or rather, bisexuals. People would get out a relationship, pissed off at the opposite sex, and choose to start a same sex relationship to see if it's better.

(again) If it's really a choice, how do you choose to be gay?

And the whole point of this thread is that since gay men and women cannot get married, and recieve the same benefits that this social contract gives to heterosexuals, they are being discriminated against. They do not have the right to get married. Why are we stopping them from being able to marry? Is the difference of sexual orientation so fundamentally different from what you think as "normal" humanity that they should not be accorded the same rights as you?

alansmithee · 03-17-2005, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

And the whole point of this thread is that since gay men and women cannot get married, and recieve the same benefits that this social contract gives to heterosexuals, they are being discriminated against. They do not have the right to get married. Why are we stopping them from being able to marry? Is the difference of sexual orientation so fundamentally different from what you think as "normal" humanity that they should not be accorded the same rights as you?

And that's where you are wrong. They CAN get married. No state says that homosexuals cannot get married. Many homosexuals are married. There is no discrimination.

Superbelt · 03-17-2005, 04:19 AM

So what you are against is the legal rights that are afforded with it.

NCB · 03-17-2005, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

This is the first progression i've seen by NCB in this thread on how he really feels about homosexuality.

NCB, you are a bigot. Just because you're uncomfortable with the idea (read: scared), does not mean it is wrong. Homosexuals deserve to be accorded the same rights and freedoms the rest of us do. Love is not bound by gender, color, or ideals. There is no reason a homosexual man can't love and care for another man, like a heterosexual man would care for a woman. I see now why you can't accept gay marriage. It would mean that a gay man's marriage would be just as valid and special as yours. You would be the same. Equal.

1. Here we go. "Bigot"; "Intolerant"; words that are commonly used when either the thinking gets too hard or a constructive argument cannot be formulated. Hell, I'm surprised you didn't throw in "redneck". That would be some funny shit, considering I'm a first generation Latino.

2. The reason I threw that example out is becasue it's already happening in Canada. Three months or so ago (barely 6 months after Canada redefined marriage), a school district in BC became the first to come up with a sex ed curriculm that would be taught side by side with the traditional sex ed curric.

Is that a good thing, considering that adolescents begin dealing with their ever changing bodies and raging hormones, to have the govt treat homosexuality as a norm? Afterall, the natural order of things is hetherosexuality. Think about it.

Quote:

Being homosexual is not a choice, and you can't assume it is just because you can't see it on the outside, like the color of your skin. Black people couldn't "come out of the closet", because they had no way to hide their skin colour to avoid prejudice. They couldn't pretend to themselves they weren't black.

If homosexuality had primarily an environmental cause, we would see distribution patterns based on favorable environmental conditions for homosexuality. Similar family environments producing homosexuals. Something in the air, or water, or food. But there isn't. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the statistical distribution of homosexuals based on their birthplace.

Slice it and dice it anyway you will, but the theory that it's not a choice is just that: a theory. There is no hard proof either way. In fact, the dark, dirty little secret is how many homosexuals first strayed into homosexuality through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.

Now you can refer to your "studies", but I'll pit my studies versus yours, and we'll see just who could out vague the other.

Superbelt · 03-17-2005, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Is that a good thing, considering that adolescents begin dealing with their ever changing bodies and raging hormones, to have the govt treat homosexuality as a norm? Afterall, the natural order of things is hetherosexuality. Think about it.

Yes it is a good thing. Why? Because it is normal. There are many animals who engage in homosexual sex. it's a norm. It's natural!
Monkeys, Rams, Bulls, gorillas, penguins, cats, dogs, guineapigs, whales, wharthogs, bats
There are over 450 different animals who we have repeated documentation of homosexual behavior.

For more information see:
Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D.
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

It's natural. So, yes we should be teaching about homosexual sex in the same way we discuss heterosexual sex in school. Why? Because it's natural and not wrong We don't want to leave the gay kids with the impression that what they feel is wrong.
They are about 11% of the population.

NCB · 03-17-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Yes it is a good thing. Why? Because it is normal. There are many animals who engage in homosexual sex. it's a norm. It's natural!
Monkeys, Rams, Bulls, gorillas, penguins, cats, dogs, guineapigs, whales, wharthogs, bats
There are over 450 different animals who we have repeated documentation of homosexual behavior.

For more information see:
Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D.
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

It's natural. So, yes we should be teaching about homosexual sex in the same way we discuss heterosexual sex in school. Why? Because it's natural and not wrong We don't want to leave the gay kids with the impression that what they feel is wrong.
They are about 11% of the population.

If homosesxuality is normal, why isn't that nature's default tendency? Why is it that nature prefers to biologically program us to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Superbelt · 03-17-2005, 06:44 AM

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be black or white?
Life is all shades of color.
There is no default.

NCB · 03-17-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be black or white?
Life is all shades of color.
There is no default.

That sounds real good and would make a great John Lennon song, but unfortunately it's inaccurate.

Life's sole purpose is to reproduce. Last I checked, two men or two women cannot procreate.

03-14-2005, 08:49 PM	#122 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	What do you want me to say? How can I argue with someone who believes that homosexuality is a choice? How can I argue with someone who turns their back on 50 years of scientific research, all the way back to Kinsey's first studies of human sexual behavior? How can I argue with someone who tells me that my gay friends simply chose to be gay? It's pointless. All I can do is ask questions: why does "sexual orientation presuppose some act on your part?" What is a gay person who has not yet had sex? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-14-2005, 09:28 PM	#124 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Gay people can only marry in 3 states, New York, Massachusets, and now California I think. It should be everywhere in the United States. Secondly, no, marriage is not just for children, and there is no reason why gay couples can't or don't raise children. They do. Sometimes, they are impregnated through invitro (sp?), like Melissa Etheridge, or sometimes a woman is impregnated the old fashioned way, or a gay couple adopts, or whatnot. Thirdly, marriage comes with many benefits, such as special tax status, visiting rights, etc. As for the research you asked for, here is a rundown of Kinsey's scale that he first created in 1948: http://members.tde.com/ben/kleingrid.html Here is a recent article discussing some of the theories of the biological basis for homosexuality: http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/...rrelations.htm Though there is no definite identification of a "gay gene," or any such thing, that does not mean that homosexuality isn't at least in part biological. However, what it emphatically is NOT is a choice. And I ask you again: when was it that you made the choice not to be gay? What factors went into your decision? Have you regretted it? What does the thought of engaging in gay sex make you feel? If you wanted to, could you just become gay and go have sex with a man on a whim? I don't really want your answers to these very personal questions. I'm just pointing out that the "choice" argument is inane. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-15-2005, 08:29 AM	#131 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, the more we compare it, the more people will realize they are the same. I believe it was Kent State where some black Students were ordered to be admitted by a judge... against state laws. There are some very famous pictures available from the event. And, newsflash. America is being persuaded. Several years before miscegenation began to be legalized, america was polling about 90% against it. We're not that far off now. A majority are in favor of civil unions and gay marriage polls in the 20-30% range. And, I believe in the 60's, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Malcolm X were classified as 'whiners' by people like you. They 'whined' about how they were being depressed and had no equal rights under the law etc. Anyone who doesn't see the parallel in progression and applicability under civil rights is blinded by their prejudices against homosexuals Last edited by Superbelt; 03-15-2005 at 09:09 AM..

03-16-2005, 09:46 AM	#136 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	What I find funny about this entire thread is how Manx laid out quite perfectly how NCB has been improperly conducting himself in debate, and not a single reply back as to explain. I really and truly think this thread should be locked. Every member who supports gay rights and still has enough sanity to try to engage in debate with people who do nothing but claim "your arguments are false, I am right, there is nothing you can say that could ever possibly change my mind or give a shred of credit to your argument" has much more patience then I could ever fathom. I just hope someday we can live in a world that is more tolerant, and people of all sexual orientations can enjoy the same rights and benefits that us heterosexual people enjoy. After all, homosexuality isn't a choice (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm), and as long as you discriminate against something that is outside of human control entirely, that's no different then racism. Peace __________________ Feh.

03-16-2005, 10:58 AM	#138 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	By the way, NCB, I was wondering if the "homosexual mafia" is the same as those damn nigger-lovers, the Freedom Riders. Wanting equal rights...how dare they! (And because I know nobody on this board underreacts, no, I'm not accusing anyone of being racist.) __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-15-2005, 04:36 AM	#125 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	If homosexuality is a choice, there is a hell of a lot of sadistic motherfuckers out there who enjoy being persecuted, screamed at, slurred and otherwise held down by society. Ooh yeah, and beaten to death and dragged behind a pickup. That's always a fun time for people who pretend they're gay.

03-15-2005, 06:05 AM	#127 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	My bad, thanks for the correction. I just hope people like this never end up with homosexual children. I'd hate to think of the mental anguish they would be inflicted with. Much like the un-Christ like way Pharisee Alan Keyes kicked out his daughter for faking the Gay Disease.

03-15-2005, 07:33 AM	#129 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'm sure the anti-miscegenationists held out hope as well. The cool thing about my position is, I am confident that the side of good will once again prevail over the ideological heirs of anti-miscegenation, anti-voting rights, anti-womens rights, slavery advocates etc. The ideology of holding people who are not like you down. It's a matter of time, society will continue to move forward and good will win. Until then it is sad that peoples rights to live happily are being quashed. But it will all change. It's inevitable like the tide. Just think of how much more acceptable homosexuality and homosexual rights are today compared to what they were 50 years ago. The difference between then and now is astounding compared to the distance we still need to cover to get full legal rights.

03-15-2005, 01:33 PM	#135 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Alan, I assume you will be signing my petition to restrict all impotent, menopausal, and naturally, surgically and chemically sterile people from getting married. Right?

03-16-2005, 11:03 AM	#139 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Nice switchback on the tolerance thing. Trying to dilute tolerance by arguing tolerance for the intolerant. Kinda like Jews in Auschwitz having tolerance for the Nazi's wish to cook them in furnaces.

03-16-2005, 11:10 AM	#141 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	A lot of mental anguish can be on an individual if they aren't allowed to get into the hospital to see their partner before they die. Or if all their property and children reverts to the state or a partners relatives rather than being passed onto a survivor... leaving the survivor alone and destitute.

03-16-2005, 01:18 PM	#146 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	But why not marriage? A civil union only covers some legal bits, albeit important ones. But marriage is also a statement of love, an emotionally significant act. Why are you so opposed to allowing everyone to enjoy that? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-16-2005, 11:22 PM	#152 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	I think both hetero or homosexual ceromonies of sharing life together, commonly called marriage should exist for both regardless of any interference, mainly from church then state to a degree. Then if you've been married once, you were in a marriage. Marry again, you're in a civil union. This should apply for both straight and gay. Since marriage has been so cheapened (by the 50% heterosexual divorce rate), the word 'marriage' really shouldn't even be an issue. As for those so tender of heart that they feel their "marriage" is now meaningless cuz gay's might be able to be treated equally and fairly, well then they really need a hobby or to get out,or something. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

03-17-2005, 04:19 AM	#155 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	So what you are against is the legal rights that are afforded with it.

03-17-2005, 06:44 AM	#159 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be black or white? Life is all shades of color. There is no default.