False.

There is "heterosexual marriage". Heterosexual being a man and a woman. It's in DOMA.

Therefore, "homosexual marriage" is not an elevation above "marriage", because "marriage" is presently defined as heterosexual.

Now I understand what you were trying to say. "Gay marriage" seems to elevate homosexuals above the heterosexual marriages. The only reason we are mentioning marriages - specificly civil unions - between those of the same gender is becuase they are currently not allowed in 49 states, and some (including yours truely) interprit that as unfair and unequal treatment. As I see it, I am triyng to make sure no marriage is elevated above any other marriage. Are we fighting the same fight from different sides? I dunno.

God is very clear on how to and not to treat your fellow humans. It is in the interpretation that people get lost. I could be wrong, but I think God wanted us to treat all people equally. LAOS, it is accepted by most that you should not force your beliefs on someone. If gay people are allowed civil unions, they are not forcing anything on you or me. If we prevent homosexual civil unions, we are directly forcing our beliefs on them.

[QUOTE=alansmithee]Except in one or two states, there are no civil unions allowed for anyone. It's those states that are denying everyone not homosexual the right to have civil unions.

That's neither here nor there.

No. There is wrong then, and there is wrong now. Some of the wrongs are no longer wrong now, as they were then, and likewise some of the wrongs now, were not wrongs then. You have to take into account relative morality, as morality (like most things) evolves a bit with society. Who would have fought for gay rights at the time of the civil war?

It's all wrong. All bashings are wrong, including gay bashings. No elevation or decention about it. Inclusion and specification is not = to elevation.

So, instead of focusing on one form of bashing and trying to eliminate it, we should do nothing because no one form of bashing is worse than any others? That makes no sense. Should we stop trying to "Save the Whales," because cheetahs are endangered too?
This topic was about gay people, I assume that's why gay bashing was brought up. It didn't sound like he was saying it was worse than any other bashing, just that it was a symptom the bias' of society.

That is, in fact, how i define minority, however I would like to add that it is a socially defined group that is not in the majority. Farmers are not socially defined, and so aren't minorities.
Gay people can not get married, they can not visit their significant others in the hospital (because they're not officially family), they are less likely to be allowed to adopt a child than a heterosexual couple, they do not inherit their SOs estate unless there's a specific statement in the will, they can't make decisions about medical care of thier SO in case of an emergency. I'm sure there are more...These are based merely on their choice of sexual partner, and not on any reasonable criteria, this is why it's comparable to the Jim Crow era.
And, the Nazi's were leading gay people to the gas chamber, and I find it VERY offensive that you would joke about that.

Oh, and Gilda, I didn't ignore your request for more info on that study, I'm working on finding it right now. I found some really cool stuff about experiments with rats (related to homosexuality and even bisexuality).

I would like to point out that the Constitution was created to protect the minority, and that is one of its key functions in our society.

If we fail to protect the minorities of this country because of our individual prejudices, we as a nation have failed our forefathers and their intentions for our great nation.

Marriage, and the benefits that come with it, are (as far as the government is concerned) for ensuring that a child can be raised in as stable environment as possible by the child's biological parents. This was the argument (and judgement) in a recent case in Florida. I posted the link in another of my posts. Homosexual couples cannot produce children, that's not "bigotry" or me enforcing moralism on others, it's biological fact. That's why a man cannot marry a man, or a woman a women (at least in most states). Most of the things that come with marriage ARE allowed to gay couples, just not in the form of marriage. The ones that aren't are those that benefit a family, and help support the raising of children. I don't really care if some guy gets to see his dying boyfriend in a hospital. I'm not going to advocate it, but I'm not going to oppose laws that would enable (force?) hospitals to allow this either. Where I DO oppose the efforts is in granting benefits or tax benefits. Those are (ideally) reserved for couples that can produce children. Society (represented by the government [or an organization in the case of benefits]) is paying for those things, and society had better get something for their investment. Society has no care about paying for people to be marginally happier, but they do care about children being raised in the most effective, stable homes possible. That is why allowing those of the same sex to marry is wrong-I (as a taxpayer) am forced to subsidize something that doesn't benefit me or society as a whole.


It could be debated about the clarity of GOD (at least through biblical interpretation). Also, you can hate the sin, and not the sinner. I explained before how civil unions for homosexuals forces a burden on society. There are no beliefs being forced anywhere by not allowing them.

Besides, the whole "forcing beliefs" thing is useless to argue about anyways. Society constantly forces beliefs on people. That's what the whole legal code is about-forcing beliefs on people.


You tried to explain contradiction to me earlier. Maybe I can show my new grasp of the term. Here we have one statement:

Followed by this:

How can wrong be absolute and relative? How can you determine which of the current (or past) wrongs are (were) relative or absolute?

If they are all wrong, you shouldn't be arguing for "gay rights" you should be arguing for an end of violence period. And my point was that just showing a group is picked on doesn't mean it should get special treatment or labeled a minority. Just because people might dislike them doesn't mean their lifestyle needs government subsidization or special government protection. Unless you are willing to expand the same protections and benefits to the other groups I mentioned.


But (as is the case with a lot of things) I don't see any agreement possible. You will either see the triumph of civil rights over bigotry, or a setback in the continuation of past civil rights struggles. I will see either immorality further diverting energy away from true civil rights struggles, or society making a stand for morality. Neither is absolute right or wrong.

What does "socially defined" mean? And even if you exclude farmers, what about the others I mentioned? Many have no definition outside of a social context.
Wrong. They CAN get married.

Correct, and that should be changed.

Correct. However, single individuals are also less likely adoption candidates, as well as less financially capable hetero couples. There's a link between all of those-they are assumed to be less than optimal for raising of children. The debate over the capability of homosexual couples to raise children as well as heterosexual couples is one that is still ongoing. And it isn't just limited to "bigots", there are many studies that tend to show it being more harmful, or the same.

So instead of filing for a marriage license, change your will.


Living will will take care of that. And recent events are showing why EVERYONE who's over 18 should have one of these.

Age of consent, incest, polygamy, and beastiality laws are also based on your choice of sexual partner. Resonable criteria is vague, and can be redefined. I'm sure many pedophiles feel that age isn't reasonable criteria for discrimination. Are the above laws also similar to Jim Crow laws? No, becase Jim Crow laws are based on something you have no control of. That's why it's both ridiculous and offensive to compare the two.

The Nazi's were leading almost everyone to the gas chamber. And nobody seems to care how offensive it is to link "gay rights" to the true civil rights struggles, why should I care about offending anyone either?

It's obvious how much the forefathers cared about minorities. How many were slaveholders again? :rolleyes:

And if gays need special protection, what about all the other manufactured minorities? I demand that anyone seen harrassing someone for being a "nerd" be immediately jailed for commiting a hate crime. And if you talk about a "dumb jock" you are commiting hate speech. Nudists also shoudn't be confined to colonies, they should have the same rights to go where they choose as anyone else. It's also about time that people stopped their bigoted persecution of polygamists, if someone chooses to have 10 SO's, it's their business. I also saw a uniquely arroma'd person get some nasty looks before, I think he should sue for harrasement. I also find my dress code at work to be too restrictive to my lifestyle choice, i'm more of a polo shirt-khaki type of person. My people have been oppressed by bigots for too long, it's time to recognize my right (and other's like me) to live how I choose. My employer had the nerve to write me up once for how I was dressed, I better get the ACLU here quick! My rights as a khaki'ed-American are being threatened!

Civil unions for homosexuals force a burden on society. That's interesting. I'll have to read up on that.

"Society"is not supposed to force beliefs on people, it is more of a buffer between those of differing beliefs. It is wrong for one group to assume their code of morals is more or less valid than another group in taking action. You are welcome to think that homosexuality is wrong. You are free to say that it is wrong. It is in the action that the morality is foreced. You wanna know something strange? I believe that homosexuality is totally morally wrong. My morals tell me that it is unnatural and that God, my creator, condems the act. But do I go out and try to force my belief on homosexuals? Absolutely not. They have as much of a right to have beliefs as I do. Nothing really makes my beliefs any better than theirs, so it would be wrong for me to take action based on my beliefs that teamples on theirs.

My point is that morality is relative. I never said it was absolute (at least I never meant to, if I did, than I totally apologize for the confusion). It can't be absolute because different people have different moral codes. Universal morality is the stuff of dreams or nightmares, it has no place in reality.

Okay. There should be an end to the violence period. No one should be picked on or be hurt because of who they are. This big group happens to include homosexuals. No elevation, just specification.

Makes sense. There is no solution without one group forcing something on the other. So what can be done? Compromise. We can go from there.

Homosexual couples cannot produce children that are the biological offspring of both parents, true, but the same is true of many heterosexual couples. Children are, however, often born into or adopted into families headed by a homosexual couple, just as children are born into or adopted by infertile couples. If the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, denying homosexual parents the right to marry is antithetical to that purpose, and is harming the children of homosexuals for the purpose of punishing their parents. Marriage laws either are in place to protect children or they aren't. If they are, homosexual couples deserve the same protections as heterosexual couples.

However, that isn't the sole purpose of marriage laws. One of the primary purposes, sure, but if it were the sole purpose, there would be no need for any person not intending to have children to get married. Should CFBC couples, inferile couples, and couples beyond child-bearing age be denied the right to get married? Should AIS women, single X women, transsexuals, and cervical or testicular cancers survivors be denied the right to get married?

Heck, by that logic, there should be no marriage in the first place in the absense of minor children who are the biological offspring of both partners.

According to the government's position in their case in Florida (which was affirmed), the purpose of marriage laws IS to enable the raising of children by their BIOLOGICAL (and that was the term used in the decision) parents. And I personally would deny all those you named the right to get married (I assume all are unable to have children naturally [I don't know what CFBC couples are, nor AIS women]). But it would be hard to screen for all of those things; it's very easy to see that homosexual couples can't have children. And as I said above, it's still debatable that it's good for children to be raised by homosexuals.

I hope I'm not out of line asking for clairification on something. Above you said "And I personally would deny all those you named the right to get married", "all those" being people unable to have biological children. I take this to mean that you do not believe that people who have some type of sexual or reproductive complication (unable to conceive/produce sperm/etc.) should be allowed to marry. Welll, I want to make sure I'm right about that first off, before what I ask next.

Where does this belief come from? Is it evolutionist? Is it religious? Is it based in experience? I'm honestly just curious, as an opinion like that is rare in my experience.

No, it would be easy. In fact, you could very easily screen for every thing that prevents any couple from having children - even the lack of intention (I have quite a few married friends who strongly intend to never have children). All you have to do is require pregnancy as a prerequisite to marriage.

And then after the child is born, it can be DNA tested against the now married father. If it does not match, the marriage is declared void. Even if we want to avoid the cost of DNA testing, the pregnancy prerequisite would still prevent the vast majority of non-reproduction-centric marriages.

If the sole purpose of government defined marriage is to promote reproduction, marriage laws would be defined precisely according to the system I just outlined. It wouldn't even be difficult. Since those are not the laws and the laws have never been anything even remotely similar to that, it demonstrates that even if reproduction is a portion of government defined marriage, it is certainly not the sole factor. And considering just how unlike the laws of marriage are to the simple method illustrated above, it is doubtful that even a significant portion of government sanctioned marriage is based on reproduction.

Therefore, in order to hold onto your opinion that gov't should not sanction gay marriage, you must describe what you believe are the other purposes of government sanctioned marriage and then explain how those other purposes justify the prevention of gay marriage.

CFBC: Child Free By Choice. It refers to fertile couples of child bearing age who choose not to have children. They actively oppose laws giving preferential treatment to families, including tax breaks, child-care subsidies, etc., on the basis that it requires those who choose not to have children to subsidize the children of those who do.

AIS: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. A genetic defect in some children conceived with XY chromosomes causes their body to be unable to process androgens (male hormones). Without the altering effects of androgens, the human body develops into its default mode, which is female. These people are identified as female at birth, grow up as girls, and develop normal female sexual characteristics, including breasts and and female genitals. They're usually not diagnosed until puberty, when they fail to begin menstruation due to not having ovaries and a uterus. Other than needing to take hormones, they are normal, infertile women, indistiguishable from XX women by any means other than an internal examination or chromosome test.

I include these women, as well as single X women, and survivors of cervical, ovarian, and testicular cancer in my argument for a reason. These are indisputably biological conditions, and not lifestyle choices. You've stated before that that's the difference between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on orientation--the first is a biological condition, but, you claim, the second isn't. Here is a whole slew of biological conditions that prevent conception, and now you're saying you'd advocate discriminating against them based on those biological conditions.

As to the purpose of marriage laws being for parents of biological offspring, the Florida court is just plain wrong, and disingenuous to boot. It's tortuous reasoning designed to obfuscate the true purpose of the ruling, which is to deny same sex marriage on the basis of perceived morality. Marriage laws provide a large variety of protections to the partners that have absolutely nothing to do with child rearing, indeed, most of them have nothign whatsoever to do with children, and adopted children are provided the same legal protections as biological children.

If the purpose of marriage laws is to provide a stable environment for rearing children, then it would be foolish to deny that protection to adopted or artificially inseminated children on the basis of their parents status.

That IS what I'm saying. To clarify more, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business all together. If I love someone, and I want to profess that love before GOD, I don't think I need government approval for that. But I shouldn't get special benefits just because I choose to share my life with someone, either. But that's where children come into the equation-it's felt that children are better off being raised by a stable household, and that it's best when one parent can stay home to attend to them. Because those children are future members of society, society has an intrest in them being raised in the best environment possible, therefore tax benefits for married couples and benefits for married couples, the better to help one be able to financially stay at home and take care of children.

That's why I don't personally see so-called civil unions as a compromise. I don't see anything mystical about the word "marriage" that would inherently exclude anyone from using it. However, I do see that the benefits that come along with what the government defines marriage as being something that would be best limited to couples that can produce children. If it were possible, I would use the term civil union for the government endorsement and leave the term marriage out of law, and for use by people.

As for where that belief came from, when the gay marriage issue first started being raised, I thought that the whole concept of marriage should be re-examined. Filings for divorce make up a large portion of legal suits. More marriages now end in failure (if you determine failure to be divorce) than not. I started thinking what the purpose was for government to be involved at all anymore. Why should someone gain special status just because they choose to "shack up" with someone else? "Til death do us part" is a joke. Marriage used to be more of a necessity, a woman's best economic plan was often to get married. That's no longer the case. Therefore, society no longer has a need to subsidise aany marriage as a way to help fix economic inequality between the sexes. If people want to get married, fine, but the government doesn't need to be involved. If a married woman without children now decides she doen't want to work and wants her husband to support her, fine. Just don't expect anyone outside of your husband to have to foot part of the bill. But it's assumed that children benefit from having one parent stay at home, so society has a stake in making sure that children are raised in the best environment possible.

That's also why I don't see the gay marriage debate as a rights issue, I see it as a purpose of government in marriage issue.

I would find a couple like this hypocritical if they chose to accept marriage benefits. They feel it's wrong to subsidise children, but don't mind subsidising relationships? Society has no stake in how a relationship turns out, but there is a large interest in children being raised in stable environments.

Again, I don't see it as discrimination. They are excluded by biology, sure. But no more than men are excluded by biology from getting abortions, or I am excluded by biology from playing in the NBA. As I said above, government sponsored/endorsed marriage benefits should be (and according to Florida, are) for the use of providing stable environments the biological offspring of a couple.

And I could just as easily say that the Mass. court is just plain wrong, and disingenuous to boot. And I could back it up by saying that sexual orientation is not mentioned in the constitution, is a choice, and that the ruling judge(s) were making their private beliefs law.

Arguing the correctness of court rulings gets people nowhere. I was mildly suprized when I found out the basis of the court's ruling (and the government's argument). It was a belief I held before, and was impressed to see it successfully argued. I had assumed that all challenges would be based more on states rights.

If you could find a way to separate out the financial benefits of marriage from those benefits that could be accomplished with legal contracts, bundle them all up and call it "gay marriage" I wouldnt' oppose it. I wouldn't support it, but I definately wouldn't oppose it. But that hardly seems necessary, everything non-financial I have seen desired by gay marriage advocates CAN be accomplished with legal documents.

It's not just for the rearing of any children, but the rearing of biological children. Key difference. That helps make sure that there is both a mother and father involved with the child (in theory).

Civilization relies on the social contract of marriage. Why? Because it offers the most effective way for society to produce and riase children. If the contrictions of marriage were to be taken off, then every red blooded would be trying to have as much sex with as many females as possible. And females would be trying to mate with only the strongest or most dominant male. In a situation liuke that, society will not be able to produce the optimum number of children required for society to grow. Though the outcome does indeed produce weaker links (ie..liberals......... :p ;)), it's still guarentees a growing population. Homosexual marriage thus counters all of this.