Willravel

You know you're not a bigot?
Were you trying to be ironic on purpous in your last post? The post in which you were intolderant by suggesting that liberal people can only keep busy by calling people bigots...I really hope you see the irony. Please tell me you see the irony.

host

Manx, apparently VARIETY is posting from a point of view that is misguided, and
misinformed, but unfortunately is much more widespread than I would have thought it could be in 2005. Maybe the enlightening influence of the sexual liberation movement that came into prominence in the 70's did not provide an educating effect on the majority of Americans.
On the positive side, public opinion is shifting in a more tolerant direction:

VARIETY

Certainly. You do understand that many teenagers have their first sexual experience around the age of 14, yes?

If you want to believe that sex between partners with a 20-year difference in ages doesn't occur, or that teenagers aren't interested in sex before the age of consent, it's not a problem for me.

guy44

This discussion...I'm reminded of the Jim Crow era. I'm reminded of when white people said that black men were inherently lustful. So lustful that they couldn't control themselves.

Anyone who believes that a minority group has uncontrollable, inappropriate sexual desires as a function of that feature which makes them a minority is no better than, and in is fact quite similar to, Jim Crow racists.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

guy44

The ACLU's mission is not to abstractly defend the Bill of Rights. The ACLU takes a position on civil liberties issues and then defends them, whether or not those issues are outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Tarl, you are acting awfully smug for someone who apparantly believes that the American Civil Liberties Union should spend its time on a non-civil liberties-focused amendment like the Tenth.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

Willravel

Wow. I'd never looked at it that way. You're a smart cookie, guy44. While I had thought to compare this to racial bigotry, this direct comparison seems to stand up quite well. Admittedly, I had forgotten about the "all black men are inheratly lustful" opinions that were used to try and keep black men segregated and controled.

alansmithee

I had decided to leave this thread alone, but I had to respond to this. Homosexuals are a minority group, if you define a minority group as a group that is not in the majority. This would also make athletes, ivy league school students, athiests, vegetarians, farmers, and any other group defined by their actions into minorities. It is odious and disturbing to me that people compare the race struggles to the supposed gay rights issues. Where are gays being persecuted? What rights don't they have that everyone else has? Not everyone loves the idea of homosexual sex. And now people are trying to equate that to the Jim Crow era south? This comparison is one of the most asinine things I have seen. What next? Comparing people who don't like homosexuality to Nazi's? Yeah, just the other day I was leading a group of gays to a gas chamber .

I can't believe people now have so little respect for the trials of blacks and other minorities in America that they would try to compare those struggles to "gay rights". The ability of many liberals to now trivialize the work of early civil rights pioneers is disgusting.

Willravel

I'm pretty sure gay marriage is only legal in Vermont, which makes gay marriage illegal in 49 states. Also, many major churches have made it their mission to "educate" the public about how immoral and evil homosexuality is in God's eyes. Have you ever seen a gay couple walking down the street holding hands and acting even a little bit like a couple? They get dirty looks from a lot of people, and are treated with disrespect.

The fact is that we live in a different world that existed durring the time of slavery. There have been advances. Thankfully, most people understand that racial bigotry is wrong, or at least they are exposed to such morals. In the currrent social climate, there are people who are regarded as less than equal. Those people just happen to be homosexual. When guy44 made his apt comparison, he mentioned white people said that black men were inherently lustful. So lustful that they couldn't control themselves. Then he compared it directly to claims from sexual bigots that homosexuals are so lustful they can't control themselves. The comparison deals with groups that are being activly worked against by lwas and society, and the comparison can't be coincedence. It doesn't trivialize civil rights, it celebrates their one success, and predicts the success of those same civil rights groups over this newer form of bigotry against homosexuals.

Tarl Cabot

I never said there was anything abstract about it. The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union studiously avoids the second, ninth, and tenth amendments.

I'd also like further clarification in regard to why you feel that the following has little to do with civil liberties:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

By the way, this does not mean rights are "granted" to the people. Research proves that, according to the framers of the Constitution, the people have always had rights; this just ensures that the people retain those rights.

It's been a few years, but a group of us had quite a running discussion with a local ACLU head a few years back. I'm sure they're around here somewhere.

(Sound of rummaging through desk.) Aaah.... here they are.

I'm just not sure I want to go through typing anything else. History would indicate that everyone's mind is made up by now.

roachboy

i was not going to participate at all in this thread because i found the way in which it was framed from the ouset to be thoroughly repellent.

then i read through it.

frankly, i cannot believe that it devolved into a question of whether bigotry directed at people who happen to be gay can be justified or not, and whether therefore the boy scouts are in turn justified in their policies of excluding people who happen to be gay from their ranks.
every single conservative cliche about gay people has turned up here.
every single ridiculous trope that serves in conservativeland to counter critiques of conservative bigtory has been dutifully trotted out, defended etc.
worse still, from the beginning of the thread, the aclu has been characterized by these same people as "anti-american" because they, in this case, work to oppose the extension of this type of bigotry into law on the one hand (restricting the protections afforded gay people by the legal institution of marriage) and organizational policy (the bsa) on the other.

these arguments are repulsive.
they really are mirror images of earllier forms of bigotry.
every racist has felt racism justified.
every bigot here feels his bigotry justified.
every bigot seems worried that he or she will be called a bigot, so the same type of justifications for bigotry get recycled.
what the conservative arguments here come down to is simple--the slogan "god hates fags"--and nothing else.



as for the question of the bsa--in order to make this move, to discriminate against gay people, they fundamentally altered their social position, fundamentally undercut whatever good the organization might have ever accomplished (i was a boy scout as a lad--it was kinda goofy fun, in a strange, sometimes paramilitary kinda way--i liked dressing up in uniforms as many adolescents do--i liked trees--i liked being in uniforms while surrounded by trees)...at this point, i figure the organization has committed a kind of political hara kiri, made itself into a relic, emphasized its worst aspects, destroyed any illusion that its paramilitary aspects are not ideologically motivated, and that this ideological motivation is linked to the far right.

maybe this was always the case--but it seems to me that the bsa was understandable as other than that, at least by me and everyone i knew who had a useful experience passing through the organization.


obviously the problem is the aclu.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

There's no such thing as "gay marriage". Gays can get married just like other people.

And for your second point, are you denying the right of a church to preach their religion? There's a lot worse being done in the name of religion than trying to alter someone's behavior.

As for the whole "dirty looks and disrespect", I've seen people with mowhawks and piercings get the same treatment? Where's the outcry for their rights? Or what about the dirty look you would get for picking your nose? The nosepickers have had their rights trampled for too long, we must defend their right to pick! Some hetero couples get dirty looks for acting like a couple-we must free the unattractive from the tyranny of inpulchritudiphobes! Give me a break .



It does trivialize the entirety of the civil rights movement. There is no apt comparison. One group is defined by their actions, another by innate biological differences which they can neither control nor mitigate. There are no laws working against homosexuals. If society has anything against homosexuals, it's because they do not approve of homosexual behavior. They are treated as less than equal by people who disapprove of their behavior. Many other forms of behavior cause people to treat them as less than equal, yet only homosexuals seem to want their behavior elevated. I have no problem with homosexuals trying to make their behavior more accepted; likewise I have no problem with groups trying to make homosexual behavior less accepted. It's up to the efforts of each of these groups to contribute to the debate and determine the social acceptance of homosexual behavior. I'm just showing that one of the tools of the homosexual propaganda side is not only false, but insulting. The difference between the "gay rights" struggle and the civil rights struggle is the difference between being shot with a water pistol and being shot with a 9mm. For anyone to think otherwise just shows how far civil rights really have to go in America.

Manx

Oh. Then we should make sure all schools throughout the country provide straight women teachers to female students over the age of 13, straight male teachers to male students over the age of 13. The potential for teacher-student sexual relations at those ages is just far, far too great.

Unless you're suggesting that this inclination by an adult to have sex with 14 year olds is inherently stronger in homosexual men. Which somehow in your mind, isn't pedophilia anyway because as you said, you "understand" that homosexuals are not even remotely related to pedophiles.

Willravel

If you intentionally said that as a joke: Hahahaha.

If you're serious: Do you know what the word "contradiction" means? Something that contains contradictory elements. A See synonym of opposite. You said "There is no such thing as gay marriage", then you followed with the statemet "gay can get married all the time". I sincerly hope you see the contradiction. I hope you also see that statements like these in opening your response will result in people either skipping over your post, or already having an opinion of you before they get to read what you get to say that's really important.

I'm condeming the church for acting in a bigotous manner, which does not accuratly represent the God that they worship. Just like I don't agree with the crusades and the inquisition.

People with mohawks arn't being denied the eight to a civil union last I heard, so this is different.

What a wonderful opinion that I completly disagree with because of my set of morals. The difference between you're treatment of gays and past treatment of african-americans is negligable when taking into account what is socially acceptable in both different time frames. BTW, how many gay bashings are there every year?

Manx

will -

Beyond the aspect of morals, the point alansmithee is trying to make, that biology defines black people and decision defines gay people is false. He bases this distinction on the ability to recognize a black person visually and not recognize a gay person visually. To which the obvious response is: put a black person in a closet (literally) and other than the possibility of distinguishing speech patterns borne from environment, you would never be able to determine the black persons race. The facts remain: black people are distinguished by chemical differences in their skin, gay people are distinguished by chemical differences in their brain (as has been pointed out in this thread). We can see the chemical differences in skin when we walk down the street. We can see the chemical differences in the brain when we analyze MRIs. As Gilda also pointed out, there are no actions performed by homosexuals that are unique to homosexuals, as alansmithee would like to believe. So although alansmithee would like to claim that the civil rights movement is being subverted by homosexuals and their defenders, his basis for this opinion is illogical. In actuality, it is his desire to see a difference where there is none that is the subversion of the civil rights movement.

Willravel

The point I was trying to make was on his ground. Even if homosexuality was social and not biological, it is STILL wrong to treat them with intolerance. It's doubly wrong when you admit to the FACT that they are biochelically homosexual. I was shutting him down based in his reality. I know homosexuals are chemically different.

Manx

Yes of course. As soon as I wrote that, I realized that even if his statements had logic, his conclusion was still discrimination.

Good point.

VARIETY

I see I need to find a more intellectually honest discussion, since I keep receiving so many twisted/false "interpretations" of what I said.

Manx

There is an obvious way to intrepret those statements of yours. Put a homosexual in charge of a group of children and the homosexual will be extraodinarily tempted to induldge in them.

Maybe you meant your statements to be unobvious.

alansmithee

I didn't notice it at first, but I can see where it looks odd. My point was that there is only "marriage". Not "gay marriage" "student marriage" "athlete marriage" or any other way you want to categorize it. If you argue for "gay marriage", you argue for some special status for those who practice homosexuality. You elevate their behavior above that of others.



I'm glad you know how GOD thinks, you should let everyone else know cause there's been some confusion about that.

And if condemning the actions of people is bigoted, then every jury that returns a verdict of "guilty" is bigoted.



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.



If what you say is true, we cannot condemn any past actions that were legal. We can't condemn slavery, because it was socially acceptable. We can't condemn Jim Crow laws, because they were socially acceptable. And extending that logic, today many in society feel that homosexual sex is immoral/disgusting. So you can't condemn them either, because it's socially acceptable.

And as for gay bashings, i'm not sure how many there are. But how many nerd bashings, fatty bashings, poor bashings, sex offender bashings, christian bashings, muslim bashings, that-guy-has-better-shoes-than-me bashings, gang bashings, or any other segment of society bashings are there each year? If you want to get rid of "X" bashing, that's one thing. But you can't single out one of those forms of behavior and start trying to elevate its status above the others.

Willravel

Perhapse you should explain your point instead of just retreating. If you specify enough so that people can't shut you down then you may have proven a valid point. Also, when you say twisted/false, you don't need to put interpretations in quotations as it is no longer taken out of context.

Manx

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.

Willravel

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.

lindseylatch

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.

__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-Voltaire

lindseylatch

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).

__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-Voltaire

snowy

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.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

alansmithee

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.

alansmithee

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?

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!

Willravel

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.

Gilda

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.

alansmithee

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.

Willravel

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.

Manx

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.

Gilda

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.

alansmithee

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.

alansmithee

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).

NCB

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......... ), it's still guarentees a growing population. Homosexual marriage thus counters all of this.

__________________