Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Gay marriage legal under NY constitution

By aphrael in News
Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:14:22 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

The Supreme Court of the State of New York of New York County1 ruled yesterday that

under the New York state constitution, [same-sex couples] are entitled to treatment equal to that of opposite-sex couples with regard to the issuance of marriage licenses and access to civil marriage.


The case involved a challenge to the decision by the office of the City Clerk to not issue marriage licenses to five same-sex couples, who subsequently sued, claiming that the City Clerk had been incorrect in his interpretation of state law (eg, that state law already authorized same sex marriages) and that, if he had not been incorrect, state law was an unconstitutional violation of the state's due process clause and the state's equal protection clause.

The court accepted that the City Clerk was correct in his interpretation of state statute, noting that the state's family law was riddled with implicit assumptions about marriage being between a man and a woman. It then determined that the law was in violation of the due process clause of the state constitution.2

The New York state Constitution - echoing the federal constitution - specifies that:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

If the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by substantive due process, then this provision makes denial of that right questionable. But is it a fundamental right? The Court, referring at length to a variety of cases which clearly place the right of marriage within the right of privacy3, held that "[Marriage] is a fundamental right of free men."It then proceeded to skewer the claim that gay couples are not denied marriage rights because they can marry members of the opposite sex if they so choose. It relied specifically on a decision handed down by the Court of Appeals, which held:

Thus, clearly falling within [the right to privacy]'s scope are matters relating to the decision of whom one will marry.

and a different decision, in which the Court of Appeals held:

The government is prevented from interfering with an individual's decision about whom to marry.

Having established that marriage was a fundamental right which was denied4 to gay couples, the court then proceeded to consider whether or not the denial of the right constituted a denial of due process, under the theory which holds that the due process clause requires courts to "balance the individual's liberty interest against the State's asserted compelling need". It enquired as to whether or not the state had a compelling interest in denying gay couples the right to marry.

The attorneys for the City Clerk had offered up two arguments:

  • That such a law fosters the traditional institution of marriage;
  • That such a law is necessary to avoid problems which might arise if other states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages.

The Court skewered the first argument by noting:

Both the New York Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have made clear that the State may not deny rights to a group of people based on no more than traditional attitudes or disapproval5 ... Furthermore, that prejudice against gay people may still prevail elsewhere cannot be a legitimate justification for maintaining it in the marriage laws of this State.

The second argument, according to the court, was also problematic:

At its root, defendant's second argument is that the State may excuse its own deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights on the basis of discrimination countenanced by other States and the Federal government. But this simply cannot be a legitimate ground for denying a liberty interest as important as marriage.6

Thus:

Marriage, as it is understood today, is both a partnership of two loving eqauls who choose to commit themselves to each other and a State institution designed to promote stability for the couple and their children. The relationships of plaintifs fit within this definition of marriage. Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing.

----------------------------------

1New York's judiciary has some seriously weird nomenclature. The Supreme Court is New York's lowest-level court, equivalent to what we would call Superior Court in California. This decision is therefore appealable, and I would expect the Bloomberg administration to appeal it.

2It declined to address the equal protection claim, seeing no point in doing so after it had already found the law unconstitutional.

3A bizarre place to find it.

4The decision made it quite clear what the cost of denying such licenses is (formatting added):

It is not disputed, for example, that among many other disadvantages, plaintiff couples may not
  • own property by the entireties;
  • file joint state income tax returns;
  • obtain health insurance through a partner's coverage;
  • obtain joint liability or homeowner's insurance;
  • collect from a partner's pension benefits;
  • have one partner of the two-women couples be the legal parent of the other partner's artificially inseminated child, without the expense of an adoption proceeding;
  • invoke the spousal evidentiary privilige;
  • recover damages for an injury to, or the wrongful death of, a partner;
  • have the right to make important medical decisions for a partner in emergencies;
  • inherit from a deceased partner's intestate estate;
  • or determine a partner's funeral and burial arrangements.

5Opponents of Lawrence will be gleeful to note that Lawrence is one of the cases cited in defense of this proposition.

6Not to mention that it's a bizarre argument in the first place: "we can't recognize marriages [n] because if we do and other people don't it might cause a hardship to the people in those marriages." But isn't that less of a hardship than would be imposed if you didn't recognize them?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Did the Court get it right?
o Yes 87%
o No 12%

Votes: 65
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o ruled
o Lawrence
o Also by aphrael


Display: Sort:
Gay marriage legal under NY constitution | 296 comments (273 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden)
there are only 4 sexual no-nos (2.28 / 14) (#1)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:39:50 PM EST

pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and scat

everything else under the sun is ok

if two men or two women want to proclaim their love for each other and go into permanent union, there is no coherent reason why the government should deny them the same recognition as that afforded straight couples

i repeat: there exists no reason whatsoever as to why gay couples cannot legally marry


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

except in places where the law bars it. (none / 1) (#2)
by aphrael on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:42:59 PM EST

I think you mean "should not be allowed to legally marry". :)

[ Parent ]
well yes (none / 1) (#4)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:48:03 PM EST

we're only having this discussion because some dimwits can't reason themselves out of a paper bag about the true nature of the "horrid threat" gay couples pose to the american family and american heterosexuality

none whatsoever


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What about incest? (2.40 / 5) (#5)
by CanSpice on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 05:57:17 PM EST

Incest doesn't count as a sexual no-no? I would have put it up there with pedophilia.

[ Parent ]
ok, you got me, i forgot incest, thanks ;-) (nt) (none / 0) (#6)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:00:32 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
If we are talking about recreational sex (2.00 / 2) (#115)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:42:48 AM EST

ignoring any risk of birth defects, if they are both "of age" then what's the hang up with incest? Is it really worse than homosexuality?

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
Oh what basis? (none / 0) (#148)
by generaltao on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:08:34 PM EST

You betray your own hangups.

[ Parent ]
or snuff. (2.50 / 2) (#7)
by aphrael on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:00:36 PM EST



[ Parent ]
well, rape too (none / 1) (#8)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:01:48 PM EST

my little list is exploding

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Incest? (3.00 / 3) (#24)
by thejeff on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:53:22 PM EST

Nah. It either falls under pedophilia or I don't care. It doesn't appeal to me and reproduction should be avoided, but I don't see anything morally wrong with it.
What consenting adults do to each other is not my concern. Rape is covered by consenting, pedophilia by adults, animals can't consent in a legal sense. Necrophilia might be ok if the dead person had given consent before death,

Some of these things (scat, necrophilia, etc) gross me out, but that's not a reason to ban them.


[ Parent ]

The genes (none / 0) (#110)
by lbruno on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:14:52 AM EST

You need unrelated genes to have an healthy child; look up incest in wikipedia for the gory details.

[ Parent ]
that's pretty much a myth. (none / 0) (#114)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:38:26 AM EST

Basically, yes, there's a slight increase in birth defects but not as much as Americans think - especially when your only talking about cousins.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
As I said. (none / 0) (#117)
by thejeff on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:24:39 AM EST

Reproduction should be avoided.

You'd agree then that as long as they don't have kids, incest is ok?

[ Parent ]

Point taken [nt] (none / 0) (#226)
by lbruno on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:31:30 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Heh.. that argument won't last long now (none / 1) (#147)
by generaltao on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:07:48 PM EST

The obvious come back: is it only incestuous relationships which are bad because they can cause birth defects, or can we ban all couples with an increased chance of producing unhealthy children from consorting with each other?

[ Parent ]
LOL I must've missed the section (2.87 / 8) (#11)
by NP Complete on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:49:30 PM EST

of the Constitution that barred people from shitting on each other and getting off on it.

[ Parent ]
refluxophlia is the one that makes me laugh (none / 0) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:11:57 PM EST

ah the joy of reaching orgasm after someone vomits on you

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The historical record shows (3.00 / 5) (#57)
by GenerationY on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:21:01 PM EST

that it was Benjamin Franklin who had that article removed on the instructions of his wife.
This fact is neatly immortilised in his expression on the 100 dollar bill.

[ Parent ]
And what exactly is wrong with (3.00 / 5) (#16)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:27:50 PM EST

fucking dead people? They're not gonna get harmed by it, for fuckssake.

Also, I couldn't care less if other people like to poop on each others' faces or whatnot, and I certainly don't see it as the right of the state (or anyone) to say it's a no-no.

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


[ Parent ]
bacteria party zones (2.50 / 2) (#18)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:33:30 PM EST

they both spread disease and one has no respect for the dead

i think respecting the dead is important

and dead bodies and feces are bacteria party zones

so if i am to castigated for my lack of openness, based on me drawing the line at scat and necrophilia, i can live with that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude, grab a fucking clue (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:55:24 PM EST

Are you so dense as to think sperm, spit and pussy juice are sterile?

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


[ Parent ]
we've EVOLVED to handle those (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:13:48 PM EST

we haven't evolved to deal with the bacterial loads in dead bodies and fecal matter

follow your nose dude, why do things smell BAD, your brain, from since before we were humans, heck from since before we were simians, has learned that dead bodies and fecal matter just aren't good for us

durrr...

but like i said, if you are going to call me a close minded prick because i don't condone scat and necrophilia, i can live with that

i feel so close minded ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ehmm (none / 0) (#47)
by ill decide later on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:20:57 PM EST

Last I checked, nobody was evolving against STDs very well. Compare to the diseases resulting from a decaying corpse of someone who was healthy and then died suddenly. These diseases are likely to be much more short-term and non-communicable. Especially for someone who is only interested in making love to a freshly dead corpse, I can't see how there would be any serious medical problem.

[ Parent ]
as well reasoned as you think you sound (none / 1) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:30:56 PM EST

you're talking about fucking a corpse

ergo, i win ;-P

LOL


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well, yeah, it's still probably wrong (2.33 / 3) (#50)
by ill decide later on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:15:59 PM EST

Even though it can be medically safe (like raping little girls), there are still reasons why necro is bad. We demand respect for the dead, so doing anything abnormal with a corpse is a violation, whether it's sexual or not.

It's probably better to respect people while they're still alive.

[ Parent ]

understatement of the millenium ;-) nt (none / 0) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:31:49 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
canines (3.00 / 2) (#101)
by Flippant Chicken on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:51:35 PM EST

heck from since before we were simians, has learned that dead bodies and fecal matter just aren't good for us

But try explaining that to a dog!

And really, if you look at the bacterial loads in the mouths of dogs compared to humans, whose to say they are not better off for it. It is probably not that we haven't evolved the ability to deal with that bacteria, as that we have lost the ability along the way. Perhaps our sense of smell isn't powerful enough to detect the subtle message dogs get. Good Eats!

[ Parent ]
Dead bodies; (none / 0) (#217)
by katie on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:47:57 AM EST

While I agree decaying flesh doesn't smell that good, it transpires bodies aren't that strong a source of contagion.

The bugs tend to flourish in them because the immune system isn't working. If you have a working immune system you're used to killing those very same bugs all the time. There's nothing special about the bugs on a body, they're just the same as the ones you have on you and in you at the moment, they're just not engaged in a perpetual battle with an immune system.

The UN recommends not rushing off and burying the dead in disaster areas, because it's better in the long term to identify them and give the relatives closure. Burying them apparently doesn't do anything except increase the chance of groundwater bacterial contamination.


[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 0) (#274)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 07:53:38 AM EST

we're talking about extended direct contact with a dead body

so as you say, the immune system is already designed to protect you from the nasties that would be in a dead body already

but your immune system is also designed to protect you from a certain low bacterial load: background noise exposure

NOT the massive bacteria party going on in a corpse

in other words, give you a hundred staphylococci, and i'm sure your immune system can quash it no problem

but give you one hundred billion staphylococci, such as with contact with a dead body, and i'm sure the little buggers will breach your unprimed immune system at one point or another and send it into white blood cell red alert to deal with the massive influx

that's why you have lymph nodes: these are the sentry points at which the immune system watches for systemic invasion

when your lymph nodes are inflamed, you have a hull breach and your immune system is churning out white blood cells like crazy to deal with the failure of the front line defenders to keep the nasties out

so just because you have antigens to a given bacterium, so what: if you introduce enough of that bacterium into your system, you can still die from it... sepsis, which can kill anyone no matter how healthy, is not caused by a handful of bacteria your body has never seen before, it's caused by everyday bacteria your body already knows about, but in a sudden massive load your immune system is pushed hard to deal with

think of a dead body as one big giant sepsis reservoir


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

d00d! (3.00 / 2) (#33)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:15:04 AM EST

Are you so dense as to think that a decaying corpse and fecial matter contain the same type of and level of bacteria as sperm, spit, and pussy juice? Have you ever been to a party before?

[ Parent ]
what the fuck? (3.00 / 5) (#34)
by j1mmy on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:24:03 AM EST

what parties are you going to that involve decaying corpses and fecal matter?


[ Parent ]
Then you've never been to a real party. [nt] (3.00 / 7) (#35)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:30:45 AM EST



[ Parent ]
hehe (3.00 / 2) (#99)
by HKDD on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:20:25 PM EST

Well, if this is that kind of party, I'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes!
You can't escape the danger!
[ Parent ]
I can live with that too (none / 0) (#149)
by generaltao on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:17:02 PM EST

"if i am to castigated for my lack of openness, based on me drawing the line at scat and necrophilia, i can live with that" You forgot incest again. Me I draw the line at a point that includes homosexual sex, for reasons that are arguably every bit as arbitrary as your own.

[ Parent ]
which means (3.00 / 2) (#159)
by aphrael on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:02:55 PM EST

which means that you would have those of us who are only sexually attracted to other men unable to enjoy any form of sexual fulfillment, or enjoy the emotional fulfillment of forming a long-term loving bond with another human.

Your disgust at my sex life shouldn't outweigh my right to enjoy my life, as long as i'm not harming anyone.

[ Parent ]

Actually.. (3.00 / 2) (#218)
by generaltao on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:47:06 PM EST

Well, for one thing my objection is not based on disgust.  I mean, I have friends who are married to very ugly women.  So what?

But truly, although I can't speak for all the "anti gay marriage" people out there, if I had my way, you would not be denied any of these things.  You'd be denied enjoying these things openly.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think people's sexual relationships ought to be anybody's business, whether homo or hetero.  So that's not what I'm talking about necessarily.

But if I had my way, homosexual relationships would never be accepted in the social "norm". ie: although I don't presume the right to dictate whether or not you have a relationship, I will try to prevent the demarginalization of your style of relationship if I can.

Let me draw a parallel.  Note, I'm not equating.  I just want to transfer my reasoning to a less contentious issue ok?

I am a lazy person.  I've always been a lazy person.  One of the things I enjoy most is to sit around and do absolutely nothing.  OK, maybe watch some TV if I'm feeling ambitious.

If someone comes to my home and tries to force me to get off the couch and do something because "laziness is one of the deadly sins", I'll be very pissed off.  They have no right to come into my home and tell me how to live my life unless my choices are having a real negative impact on them.

I think we agree on this.

But what if I took it further and demanded that society make allowances for my lifestyle preferences, letting me feel fulfilled in my job by requiring less work from me than my "hard working" co-workers?  Why do they get to work at their own pace and I don't?

Or what if I complained that parents all over the country teach their kids that they should not be lazy like me?  That somehow, being lazy makes me a bad person?

We're talking about going from one person being allowed to be him or herself to that same person trying to get everyone else to readjust their perceptions to include "laziness" as a perfectly acceptable alternative to "business".

THIS is where you and I butt heads.  I'll march right along with you if anyone tries to take away your right to live your private life privately.  But we're on opposite sides of the fence when and if you try to demarginalize a behaviour which, to the core, I object to.

I may lose.  In fact, I think I am losing.  My children will probably grow up thinking that it's perfectly fine to "enjoy the emotional fulfillment of forming a long-term loving bond with ..." well, with "whatever".

And I think that's tragic.

I hope I've clarified my position somewhat and I certainly hope I haven't used inflamatory language with you.

I strongly object to your lifestyle on moral grounds. (ie: I believe God told us that this behaviour is wrong.)  Yours is not the only kind of lifestyle to which I object.  My objection does not prevent me from dealing with you on a footing of equity and mutual respect.

However you must agree that the current "gay movement" is a movement for social revolution.  It's a movement which aims to redefine certain paradigms.  And while you and I may disagree on whether this redefinition is for better or worse, you have to admit that such a redefinition DOES directly impact everyone in society.

Peace


[ Parent ]

Redefinition (none / 0) (#231)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:54:32 PM EST

You'd be denied enjoying these things openly

Ah. So you think I should only be allowed to have a life that makes me happy if I hide it? What kind of life is that, and what kind of man would I be if I chose to pretend to be something i'm not and to cower in fear of admitting who I am?

However you must agree that the current "gay movement" is a movement for social revolution. It's a movement which aims to redefine certain paradigms.

I'm not sure I do; I think that the paradigm has already been redefined. I grew up in a world in which the important thing about marriage was the formation of a long-term loving bond. As far as I see it, those of you who object to that redefinition are trying to undo something which has already happened, rather than prevent something which is about to happen.

[ Parent ]

At least we understand each other (none / 0) (#234)
by generaltao on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:33:31 PM EST

"So you think I should only be allowed to have a life that makes me happy if I hide it?"

If in order to be happy you feel you have to live a life that violates God's Law, then yes, I believe you should keep it secret.

"I grew up in a world in which the important thing about marriage was the formation of a long-term loving bond."

In that world, people don't in fact need to be married at all.  The long-term loving bond theory is what lead to children being born out of wedlock among other things.

You're right though.  There are several (more than two) very distinct schools of thought on what marriage is/should be.  These schools of thought are currently competing for dominance.

However, I just want to make one last point if you  don't mind.

Personally, I am not opposed to "gay marriage" because it "violates the sanctity blah blah blah".  It's not about the definition of marriage to me.  It's about the mainstreaming of wrongful behaviour.  Gay marriage is but the latest in a series of steps undertaken by the gay advocacy movement to remove the social stigma attached to homosexual behaviour.

How can I not oppose the institutionalization of wrongful behaviour?  I hope you understand my position even if you disagree with it.

Peace

[ Parent ]

pong (none / 1) (#236)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:51:25 PM EST

If in order to be happy you feel you have to live a life that violates God's Law, then yes, I believe you should keep it secret.

Why? I live in a community in which the majority of people are not christian (most of my friends are either jewish, agnostic or some form of buddhist/taoist; those that are christian are almost all universalists). Why should I be required to hide in order to conform to a religious belief that almost nobody I know shares? And, in a state in which freedom of religion is guaranteed, why should I be required to publically comport myself to the rules of some other religion?

The long-term loving bond theory is what lead to children being born out of wedlock among other things.

Yes and no. A lot of children born out of wedlock are born to parents who have no intention of creating such a bond, or of adhering to their commitments to one another. I think there is far more social ill caused by peoples inability or unwillingness to make such commitments than by people who make such commitments outside the formalization of marriage - and yet, at the same time, marriage is a useful way of codifying and reinforcing the bond. Swearing an oath to maintain a commitment and a partnership is a definitive act, after which breaking the commitment is much more difficult (if you enter into the oath in earnest).

It's about the mainstreaming of wrongful behaviour

The "wrongful behavior" bit is the part I can't accept. :)

[ Parent ]

tat (none / 0) (#238)
by generaltao on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 10:03:22 PM EST

" Why should I be required to hide in order to conform to a religious belief that almost nobody I know shares?"

I'm getting confused.  I told you what I believe, and why I believe it.  Whether or not my beliefs reflect the reality with which we are both confronted is strictly a numbers game.

If you're asking me why I think you should be required to hide, the answer is that I have a responsibility to speak out against wrongful acts when I am witness to them.  What you do in public is between you, God and everyone else.  What you do in private, so long as you are not directly harming someone, is between you and God alone.

"The "wrongful behavior" bit is the part I can't accept. :)"

I know this.  And I do understand that my point of view on this is no more acceptable to you than yours is to me.  But as we say in my religion: "To you be your way, and to me be my way."

Lord knows I am no saint.  May He guide and forgive us both our trespasses.

[ Parent ]

Necrophilia. . . (3.00 / 4) (#22)
by thankyougustad on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 08:06:29 PM EST

isn't necessarily fucking dead corpses. I know a guy who got fired from a morgue for being creepy with the bodies. . . but he didn't fuck them.

For instance, lets say he was working on a corpse and some corpse juice sprayed back on his pant leg. Instead of throwing the pants in the wash as soon as he got home, he'd wear them while fucking his very alive girlfriend.

Though I'm not saying people don't fuck dead people. Don't bother me, either.



No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
That's bigger than my list (3.00 / 8) (#31)
by godix on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:16:48 AM EST

Non-consentual sex is the big sexual no-no. Other than that, if person A gets off on something and can find Person B to do it then go for it. The trolls at /. need something new to link to anyway.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]
Just to annoy you (none / 1) (#37)
by LilDebbie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:18:46 PM EST

There is no law in this great land of ours (at least not one that's still enforced) that states that homosexual sex between two consenting adults is illegal.

Sex and marriage are different, but a lot of people seem to forget that nowadays.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
well duh, of course they are different (none / 0) (#45)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:06:17 PM EST

what's your point?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
my point (1.00 / 2) (#70)
by LilDebbie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:06:46 PM EST

gays already have fought for and won the right to have gay sex. now they are trying to establish a new institution that goes against modern american culture, which puts the burden of proof upon them.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
how does respect and tolerance (2.00 / 2) (#73)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:48:35 PM EST

go against modern american culture?

what is the judgment we can use to find gay marriage problematic?

who does it hurt?

show me how fred and jack or shelly and lisa getting married hurts me in any way whatsoever, and you will be correct

but just because a bunch of narrowminded nits are uncomfortable with the idea?

isn't their discomfort hurting the gays who want to marry?

so to you the discomfort of narrowminded people is a larger consideration than the right to proclaim your love to someone else, just because they are the same sex?

i honestly don't understand that way of thinking


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yes, it does (2.00 / 2) (#75)
by LilDebbie on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 03:15:35 AM EST

I believe I remember you making a profound rant upon the necessity of accepting democratic decisions, despite how absurd you may find them.

The vast majority of Americans see the institution of marriage defined as the eternal bonding between a man and a woman. The prospect of state approved "marriages" adding to the definition "man and a man" or "woman and a woman" threatens the sanctity of that institution.

Remember, from a liberal standpoint, the institution of marriage shouldn't even be a matter of the state. Marriage is a cultural institution; it became a state institution out of convenience. As far as most Americans are concerned, letting gays marry is akin to letting Satanists preach in Catholic churches. This may sound absurd to you, and I would agree enshrining a cultural institution in law is absurd.

However, the damage was done a long time ago. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it say that government is required to recognize any agreement between citizens beyond those laid out by law? Now ask yourself, who makes law? That's right, the legislature.

The equal rights argument simply does not work; any homosexual can get married if he/she wants to, they simply have to do it within the context of marriage as is laid down by law, that is, to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are certainly welcome to lobby the government to change this law, but the judiciary has no legal basis to argue discrimination and thereby surpass the legislature.

In short, the judicial arguments are fundamentally flawed. They are legislating from the bench, and that is an affront to every democratic principal this country stands for.

As to my personal opinion as to whether or not gays should marry, well, that's entirely out of the point, but if you're curious (and I hope you guessed it by now), I don't believe anyone should be able to marry in the context of a special state contract, but that is neither here nor there.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
red herrings (1.66 / 3) (#80)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:15:43 AM EST

answer me the simple question: how does jack and fred getting married effect anyone else except jack and fred

therefore, on what basis should anyone not allow them to marry with full equal rights uner the law as john and stacy?

again, very simple: if 300% of americans are against fred and jack getting married, if they aren't effected by them getting married, why should they fucking get a say in the matter?

if we were asking whether or not americans are for/ against getting national id cards, that MATTERS, it EFFECTS THEM

how the FUCK do two fags getting married have anything to do with anyone except the two fags?????????????????


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

it erodes the sanctity of marriage lol (none / 1) (#82)
by LilDebbie on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:57:22 AM EST

seriously, why can't I do drugs in the comfort and safety of my own home? why is it illegal for me to tell (to their faces) fags I hope they die from AIDS?

what effect does to gay men wearing wedding rings on other people? frankly, I don't know and neither do I care. however, what I care very deeply about is some judge establishing new institutions by decree, justified by a bullshit equality argument.

gay marriage isn't eroding marriage; it's eroding democracy, and that's why I have a problem with it.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
you can't do drugs in your own home (none / 1) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:25:05 PM EST

because that DOES effect other people: you give up your ability to be a responsible human being, and start breaking into your neighbors house to get cash to feed a habit

meanwhile, there is absolutely NOTHING 2 gay guys can do with wedding rings on that impacts you whatsoever

eroding democracy?

establishing new institutions?

LAUGH

you see a fucking mouse, and you are cowed with fear

is two people who love each other a new institution?

do you think that gay men and gay women haven't been living in union with each other in the same spirit as heterosexual marriage since the dawn of time?

nothing changes, excep thtat society recognizes what already goes on

is there any value in saying "we won't fight drug addiction, we'll just deny it happens"

as for democracy, what the FUCK does this issue have to do with democracy???????????


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

re: you can't do drugs in your own home (none / 0) (#103)
by interstel on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:19:10 PM EST

What? Where do you derive the conclusion that doing drugs in your home logical leads to breaking into you're neighbors house to get more drug money.

Frankly that sounds like NIDA bullshit propoganda. It is obvious to any sane individual that their will always be people who overdue something. Too much food, too many prescription medications, too much alcohol, etc. etc. That does not mean that the vast majority of people cannot use drugs without becoming criminals or being rendered homeless and wiped out financially.

I frankly HATE the anti-drug pro-prohibitionistic mindset. I NEVER lost anyone I know to an illegal drug death. I have lost friends and family to alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs/medical malpractice. And I know some SERIOUS drug users. Illegal drugs are illegal because it would cut into the profit margins of the alcohol, tobacco and prescription drug industries. And because they are convenient "moralist" attack point for politicians. According to the last polls 40% of all americans have done pot. That means their are ALOT of hypocrits in the system. There isn't a day go buy that somewhere some DEA, FBI or regular state or local police isn't going corrupt in the war on drugs.

I suggest you start reading http://www.drcnet.org/ and see how bogus the whole system is.

Interstel

[ Parent ]
i am pro-marijuana legalization (none / 0) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:14:44 AM EST

but heroin, meth, cocaine... these must stay illegal, forever

unless you are pro-zombification of society?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I didn't realize (none / 0) (#142)
by Maurkov on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:34:19 PM EST

you were against TV and religion.

Seriously, though, there are plenty of functional addicts out there.  If drugs were legal, people wouldn't have to steal to afford them, wouldn't have to hang out with criminals to buy them, and wouldn't have to guess about their potency or composition.  More addicts could be functional.

[ Parent ]

i AM against tv and religion and drugs (none / 1) (#152)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:31:23 PM EST

i don't need any of these things in my life and i recognize each of these things turn me into a zombie

conversely, if you accept the idea that there are lucid rational people who are members of organized religion, i must accept the idea that there are heroin addicts who are highly functional

however, then you must in turn accept my idea that even though some members of organized religions are lucid and rational, that doesn't mean the idea of a theocracy is a good one, right?

so, just because some people are highly functional addicts of seriously addicting drugs, doesn't mean those evil fucking drugs should be made legal... capisce?

look, there will always be drugs in human society, now and forever, their appeal is central to the simple human fallacy of human ego thinking it can defeat basic scientific facts of pharmopsychology, just like organized religion will always be with us, creating religious fucktwits... it's a simple logical consequence of respecting free will and some asshole snot using their free will appropriately

but the existence of drug sniffing and bible thumping assholes in society doesn't mean you must stop the fight against organized religion from trying to take over politics, or stop the fight from highly addictive drugs turning our communities into zombie factories

some problems, like pedophilia, hard drug use, religious whack jobs, terrorism, etc: we will be at war with these concepts... FOREVER

these issues will always be created anew and afresh in every human generation, and they must always be fought, forever, lest they destroy our societies

such is simply the wages of civilization if you respect the idea of human free will

you must ALWAYS fight the elements in every human society, past, present, and future, who would take the free will that society respects, and use that respect of their free will to seek to destroy free will in others: drug addicts, religious fundamentalists, pedophiles, terrorists, etc.

you will never completely eradictate drug addiction

you will never eradicate organized religion

but you should always head these cancers off at the pass, before they consume society and deny you and me of free will


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

capisce? (none / 0) (#160)
by Maurkov on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:31:44 PM EST

Centurion:  What's this, then? 'capisce?' 'People called Romanes they go the house'?

"[H]owever, then you must in turn accept my idea that even though some members of organized religions are lucid and rational, that doesn't mean the idea of a theocracy is a good one, right?"

Sure.  Theocracy is a terrible idea. However, while religious belief is bad, banning it is worse.  Likewise, compulsory drug use is a terrible idea, and while drugs are bad, banning them is worse.

What is the mechanism whereby drug addicts destroy the free will of others?  The only one here denying free will is you, denying that people should have control of their own bodies and minds.

[ Parent ]

do you know what addicition is? (none / 1) (#162)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:51:30 PM EST

i'm not removing people's free will by denying them the right to use hard drugs (alcohol and tetrahydrocannibinol are soft drugs- not really addictive)

the addictive hard drugs is what is removing people's free will

understand?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hard vs. soft - who decides? (none / 0) (#163)
by smithmc on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:15:29 PM EST


i'm not removing people's free will by denying them the right to use hard drugs (alcohol and tetrahydrocannibinol are soft drugs- not really addictive)

Alcohol is "not really addictive"? Yeah, I guess all those AA members are just faking it. And who gets to decide this "hard" vs. "soft" demarcation, and why?

[ Parent ]

simple basic remedial pharmacology for you (none / 1) (#165)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:28:28 PM EST

drugs really can be measured along 2 axes in terms of their effects that are important t owhat we're talking about: inebriation and addiction (toxicity might be another axis, but let's keep it simple here)

something like nicotine is very addictive but hardly inebriating

something like psilocybin (magic mushrooms) is very inebriating but hardly addictive

alcohol is hardly addictive and hardly inebriating (you need to take massive volumes to get drunk, and addiction only happens over a long period of time of hard use)

heroin is highly addictive and highly inebriating

understand what we're talking about now?

you think the legality for a highly addictive highly inebirating drug should be the same as for one that is barely either?

drugs should be classed in one of the four categories, and legalized thataways

that's why i'm for the legalization of marijuana (it's inebriation/ addiction profile is like that of alcohol)

and come to think about it, lyseric acid diethylamide and magic mushrooms should be legal too: very inebriating, but hardly addicting

ADDICTION, my friend, ADDICTION is the deciding issue here

it turns normal men into zombies, it makes them destroy themselves and everyone around them in the pursuit of their fix, it is the enemy of anyone who respects human beings and their free will their right to dignity

it would be ok if you could you use a hard drug and remove your own free will and your own dignity and all of that happened in a vacuum that effects no one else around you

it doesn't


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Take your condescension and shove it... (none / 1) (#178)
by smithmc on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:07:14 PM EST


understand what we're talking about now?

Go take your superior attitude somewhere else. You still didn't answer my question: where (where exactly - this is law we're talking about here) does the line get drawn, and who decides?

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#180)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:18:39 PM EST

"take your lesson on responsibility and drug use and shove it"

and then

"would you mind giving me some guidance on where responsibility should lie on drug use?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Congratulations... (none / 0) (#198)
by smithmc on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 12:03:16 PM EST

...you have totally managed to miss my point. I'm not asking how an individual should decide what is or is not good for him; I'm asking you how think we, as a society, can define an objective, enforceable set of criteria by which to determine which drugs are OK and which ought to be illegal. So far, you have failed to do this, all your pontificating and arrogant condescension notwithstanding. Simply spouting off terms like "highly inebriating" or "not very addictive" doesn't help much; how inebriating? How addictive? What, are we supposed to come asking your opinion for each drug under consideration?

[ Parent ]
nice obfuscation asshole (none / 1) (#244)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:25:48 PM EST

maybe just maybe you fucking prick that the chemical morphine which is THE FUCKING CHEMICAL SIGNAL FOR PLEASURE IN THE BRAIN might be oh gee, i dunno, just a WHOLE HELL OF LOT MORE addictive than say alcohol, which requires years of heavy abuse and social reinforcement before addiction is established?

am i smug arrogant prick?

or are you JUST FUCKING DUMB?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

from condescending to rude and abusive... (none / 0) (#267)
by smithmc on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:09:35 PM EST

...you sure do cover the gamut of dysfunctional negative emotions, dontcha?

Yes, it is obvious that morphine is much more addictive than alcohol. Now, if those were the only two drugs among which we had to distinguish, there would be no problem. However, in reality, there are a whole gamut of drugs out there, some of which are more or less addictive than others. Some are more addictive than alcohol, and some are less addictive than morphine. So, one more time - what is the basis for determining an objective, reasonable, enforceable place at which to draw the line? Exactly how addicitive is too addictive? And why is one answer better than any other answer?

[ Parent ]
i'm not here to wetnurse you fucktwit (none / 1) (#270)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 04:59:27 PM EST

when you act stupid, i'll call you STUPID

got it?

don't like my attitude? WHO GIVES A FUCK

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/2/4/173313/6819/165#165

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Repetition != answer (none / 0) (#271)
by smithmc on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 01:04:42 AM EST


http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/2/4/173313/6819/165#165

This didn't answer the question the first time, and repeating it doesn't change anything. You have taken a continuous variable (degree of addictiveness) and arbitarily divided it into two categories (high and low), without defining where the dividing line lies (in your opinion, of course). You have repeatedly refused (or failed) to grasp that error, and have become more and more belligerent about your refusal (or failure). If one of us is stupid here... it ain't me.

[ Parent ]

that you can't spot the dividing line (none / 1) (#273)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 02:17:51 PM EST

or won't, out of loral cowardice, does not mean a dividing line doesn't exist

welcome to the real world: making a moral stand hurts innocent people, but not taking a moral stand hurts even more innocents

your cowardice in not being able to decide for yourself means more suffer than if you did, even though you know that some might suffer by you taking such a stand

welcome to the real world: it's ugly, you can't argue yourself around this fact unless you are a naive fool who is really only arguing for your own ireelevancy to the problem at hand

if a man robs some bread to feed his family, he is not a criminal

but if he begins to like it, and steals even when his family is well fed for financial gain that he doesn't really need, he has become a criminal

my point?

you can argue about WHERE the fucking line exists until your blue in the face, but you cannot deny that a line, somewhere,  has been passed

likewise, you can argue about where the line exists between good and bad drugs (and current us law places it above alcohol, but below marijauna... i think it should be above marijuana), but that argument does not change the fact THAT SUCH A LINE EXISTS

if you don't agree that something like heroin is the very definition of free-will-stealing evil, you fail to have any discernible sense of morality in my eyes... no, actually, you fail to matter on the subject by any measure of relevancy that anyone involved with the problem can make

you have to take a stand in this world

no amount of sitting around and thinking removes you from that necessity


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're dancing faster and faster... (none / 0) (#276)
by smithmc on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 06:18:48 PM EST

You insist that there's a dividing line. I've never disagreed with you; I have simply asked you, numerous times, where that line falls. All I've received in reply is invective and childish rudeness.

In a free society, based on objective law, you can't use phrases like "highly addictive" or "not very addictive"; you have to draw the line in clear, measurable, objectively defined terms. You're the one who brought up "degree of addictiveness" as the basis for separating "okay" drugs from "bad" ones. So I'm asking you how we, as a society, can apply your criterion to help clear up the mess and murk that is "The War On Drugs".

Are you going to give us an answer, or are you going to keep yelling and screaming and hopping up and down like a little brat who's not getting his way? (Another option would be to simply admit that you don't have any better of an answer than anyone else on this subject.)

[ Parent ]
re: simple basic remedial pharmacology for you (none / 0) (#184)
by interstel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:37:19 PM EST

ADDICTION, my friend, ADDICTION is the deciding issue here

Ah, but not everyone is susceptible to the addiction process them same way. I know people are practically esctastic during coke. But for me it doesnt reward me the same way so I can literally pass up on lines being offered to me because its just not that great. The same is true of many other drugs because I have a super high tolerance to everything I've ever tried. I am also intelligent enough not to go crazy and keep taking and taking stuff till it fucks me up. Some people are wiped out by one glass of alcohol others can stomach a case of beer or 2 fifths. You're addiction yardstick is a a yardstick that changes size and shape according to race, sex, mental ability, any psychoses, etc, etc. Since you cannot enact a fair standard that applies to everyone equally the only thing to do is let access be available to all adults over the age of 21 and let them make their own mistakes. Isnt that what Free Will is all about?

Interstel

[ Parent ]
you're a fucking moron (none / 1) (#187)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 12:37:43 AM EST

what you just said is like "you know some people can drive blindfolded down the street and hit nobody and some can make it to downtown and i knew one guy who drove blindfolded all the way from los angeles to san francisco! so don't be a controlling asshole and tell me people driving blindfolded is wrong"

IF YOU THREATEN MY WELFARE BY PLAYING WITH FIRE, I WILL TAKE STEPS TO TAKE THE FUCKING MATCH FROM YOUR HANDS

if someone plays with hard drugs, they are asking for their free will to be taken away from them

...not by me you stupid fucktwit, but from the drug!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Is k5 a game of pokemon now? (none / 0) (#223)
by mettaur on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:10:44 PM EST

Gotta catch em all!
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
gotta catch em all! (none / 0) (#242)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:18:06 PM EST

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_040070325.html

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Alcohol not addictive? (none / 0) (#164)
by Maurkov on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:26:00 PM EST

I'm speechless.

No, I don't understand you.


[ Parent ]

alcohol addiction (none / 0) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:32:12 PM EST

takes a long time of heavy use to create

you can get addicted to anything really that touches the pleasure center for one reason or another: there are social factors involved in alcohol addiction that have nothing to do with the chemical itself

i mean you can get addicted to videogames... but videogames don't destroy the liver, just your social life

meanwhile, something like heroin is the very chemical signal of pleasure in the brain itself

what does that mean to you?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It means you are a propaganda victim (none / 0) (#169)
by Maurkov on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:02:27 PM EST

You seem to think that heroin, crack and meth are qualitatively different from other potential sources of addiction.  Please learn more about heroin.

[ Parent ]
jesus fucking christ (none / 1) (#173)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:03:08 PM EST

the fucking chemical for PLEASURE in the brain is basically heroin

so i'm the propaganda victim?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

re: do you know what addicition is? (none / 0) (#182)
by interstel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:26:18 PM EST

i'm not removing people's free will by denying them the right to use hard drugs (alcohol and tetrahydrocannibinol are soft drugs- not really addictive) the addictive hard drugs is what is removing people's free will

I dispute that. Again you're making an assumption that the group of drugs you call hard will automatically zombify users. I dont see any info on that. During the 19th century it is estimated 20 million americans were using opium regularly. From what I recall that was one hell of a productive industrial century. Coke has been used heavily since the 70's. I dont see society collapsing.

On the otherhand the soft drugs of tobacco and alcohol kill more than 500,000 people a year and do billions in societal damage.

methinks there is a flaw in you're logic.

Interstel

[ Parent ]
heroin (none / 0) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:32:36 PM EST

is the same chemical as the language of pleasure in the brain

what does that mean to you in terms of addiction?

what does addiction have to do with the removal of free will and zombification?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Congratulations (none / 0) (#222)
by mettaur on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:06:08 PM EST

Read one sentence of information, misinterpret it, and suddenly you're an expert on biochemistry and physiology.


--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
oh great swami (none / 1) (#243)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:21:21 PM EST

please oh great wise one, oh please, school me on my biochemistry and physiology ignorance when it comes to heroin

when i say the chemical morphine is the language of pleasure in the brain, i am obviously so, so wrong

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ITYM analogue (none / 0) (#249)
by mettaur on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:15:23 PM EST

when i say the chemical morphine is the language of pleasure in the brain, i am obviously so, so wrong

"Language of Pleasure"? What sort of fucked up textbooks have you been reading? That's the second worst chemistry analogy I've ever heard.

You are throwing heroin, morphine and endogenous morphine - of which there are several types - together. They are not the same chemicals. Some are analogues; they have the same functional groups and so act in a similar fashion but they are not identical. Functional groups are, of course, the most important property in binding; however there are many other factors. You might want to consider the "triangle of sweetness" as a good example of this.


--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
coca cola, pepsi, rc cola... (1.33 / 3) (#257)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:20:04 PM EST

are all soda

i'm certain that a pepsi ad man would find a spirited defense of exactly how different pepsi is from coca cola to be a worthy undertaking

but it's the same damn thing: sogar water with carbon dioxide

someone with an agenda to sell or a desire to have their propaganda blinders left intact, such as yourself, would find pointing out the existence of various morphine derivatives to be an interesting exercise in spitting hairs... a methyl group here, a hydroxyl group there, and you have hydrocodone, or oxycodone, etc.

as if i DIDN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT?

they are all OPIATES you stupid fuck

they are all HIGHLY ADDICTIVE

they have different properties: absorption rates, halflife in the body, etc.

and therefore their effects range

but the point is that their range of effects still clusters around the fact that we are FUCKING DEALING WITH AN OPIATE

do you fucking understand?

it's not like one opiate or another is a completely different chemical, all of their actions is the same primary chemical pathway of pleasure in the brain!

you think that by nitpicking minor points of chemistry you've somehow successfully neutralized the larger truth?

that the color periwinkle is different from the color azure is an important distinction? that these distinctions you are making somehow counteracts my observation that we're STILL FUCKING TALKING ABOUT VARIATIONS ON THE COLOR BLUE?

no, all you've demonstrated is that YOU think dancing around and splitting hairs somehow neutralizes my larger point

you're wrong

fucktwit: you're still dealing with a highly addictive class of compounds because these compounds are THE FUCKING LANGUAGE OF ADDICTION IN THE BRAIN

it's still morphine fool

you haven't proved anything except that you nitpick for the sake of dodging the more important point:

MORPHINE

IS

THE

LANGUAGE

OF

PLEASURE

IN

THE

BRAIN

don't like my poetic chemistry?

fine, you know very well what i fucking mean by that statement, and your effort at splitting hairs only proves that you DON'T FUCKING GET IT and you think that nitpicking somehow counteracts larger truths!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, you don't fucking get it (none / 0) (#295)
by ChefSalad on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 04:05:20 AM EST

Morphine is NOT the "lanuguage of pleasure" in the brain, no matter how poetic you think it sounds. You're probably thinking of dopamine, one of the several neurotransmitters concerned with pleasure in the brain. It also happens to be the one that morphine imitates (and codeine (All other opiates break down as codeine or morphine in the body before acting on the brain.)). But that isn't the only effect you feel, nor the only thing that morphine does.

Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that heroin is so active that merely smelling it will result in a life-long struggle with death. In real life, heroin takes about a month to two months of daily or semi-daily use before a user is addicted. This is very similar to addiction patterns for alcohol (a substance you seem to think (quite errorneously) is not addictive. You should speak to an alcoholic who admits he has a problem or a doctor.).

Contrast that addiction pattern to the one for cigarettes, cocaine freebase (crack) and methamphetamines. It's been shown that addictions to these substances take full effect after only THREE to six uses. So stop harping on herion and start harping on crystal meth and cigs. (Note that other forms or similar drugs may not have the same rates of addiction. For example, cigars are known to not be addictive in people who smoke fewer than 1.5-2 cigars per day. Cocaine HCl in a traditional infusion (tea) has been found to be less addictive than coffee.)

I was anonymized for submitting rusty fanfic to the queue in poor taste involving gay sex, aids, and a rusty nail. Let me serve as lesson for all.
[ Parent ]
re: i AM against tv and religion and drugs (none / 0) (#179)
by interstel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:13:46 PM EST

And I respect you're right to be against those things. I also expect you to respect my right to get high/drunk/whatever as long I dont hurt anyone but myself.

I'm all for SUPER heavy penalties for hurting people while under the influence of anything.

But again you seem to think every person who does drugs becomes an addict. Where do you get that data from? I know 2 addicts. Both are reasonably functional. Neither steals for a living to support their habits. The rest of the people I know who do drugs do them reasonably responsibly. More so than the people I know who drink and drive.

Removing illegal drugs to the status of legal removes the ENTIRE criminal underground that supports them. Does away with all the crime associated with it. And removes the chance of being killed because some asshole mixed a bad bathroom batch..

Interstel

[ Parent ]
it's very, very, very simple (none / 1) (#181)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:25:50 PM EST

highly addictive drugs remove more free will from human beings than any draconian drug law about higly addictive drugs ever could

that's the entire subject matter in a nutshell

further:

the question becomes then a question of the use of free will

if someone uses their free will to REMOVE their free will, what do we do about that?

using highly addictive drugs DOES NOT HAPPEN IN VACCUUM!

you said it yourself: "I know 2 addicts. Both are reasonably functional."

what the fuck is your definition of "reasonably"?

why should i trust your determination of their harmlessness over my determination of their harmfulness?

why do you consider me the one who destroys free will when it is those who are addicted to hard drugs who remove their own free will to a higher degree that i or any law ever could?

do you care about the rights of your friends to exercise their free will to the fullest extent?

you would be the first to demand they stop using drugs

otherwise, you're full of shit

if you have a friend you love, and they tell you about their desire to commit suicide (and we're NOT talking about euthanasia here, which i support) YOU WOULD BE TELLING THEM NOT TO KILL THEMSELVES

hard drugs use is exactly the same suicide: killing their free will

why aren't you telling them to stop and agreeing with me on a hard line?

or do you really care?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, but it also removes any blocks (none / 1) (#256)
by cdguru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:15:47 PM EST

Today, how many people run out on their 21st birthday and get incredibly drunk?

If crack was legal at age 21, how many people would run out and have to get some, only to discover that their life changed because they were now addicted?

About the only thing keeping a majority of people from falling into this kind of trap with (currently) illegal drugs is that they aren't readily available to the suburban high schooler. Oh sure, they can be had if you have enough money and motivation. But you can't just borrow the car and run down to the 7-11 and pick some up.

You should think how many people you know would absolutely run to the 7-11 if they could get crack, meth, LSD or other substances like that. My high school (in the city of Chicago) was utterly soaked in Quaaludes - we had at least one person taken out in an ambulance every week. In a school of 1,000 or so. The only thing keeping everyone from being drugged out was high cost and lack of availability - you had to know someone and they only had a few. You open up the floodgates and good 'ole American marketing is going to take over. Think cigarette manufacturers selling heroin and vying for market share.

[ Parent ]

re: i am pro-marijuana legalization (none / 0) (#177)
by interstel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:06:49 PM EST

but heroin, meth, cocaine... these must stay illegal, forever

Well I would rather see alcohol made illegal forever then those. The abuse of those types of drugs quickly eliminates the abuser. Alcohol abuse typical goes on for decades and eventually leads to someone elses life ending. Like I said in my original post I've lost people to alcohol.

And again. Frankly. I believe more than 80% of people can safely handle their drugs.

Interstel

[ Parent ]
alcohol isn't very chemically addictive (none / 0) (#185)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:22:06 PM EST

it's the social reinforcers that amp up the addiction

alcohol is a social disease as well as a drug

you can be addicted to videogames because of positive reinforcement, and that isn't even chemical (and a computer won't kill your liver! even then, that takes years of heavy heavy use)

there is more going on with alcohol addiction than just the chemical itself

but heroin is the chemical language of addiction and pleasure itself in the brain

meth fries brains

cocaine fries hearts

these drugs are WAY more serious than alcohol

if you hate alcohol, you should hate these harder drugs even more


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

People keep telling you... (none / 0) (#278)
by DavidTC on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 02:48:11 AM EST

...but you simply do not grasp it. Heroin is not a bad drug to be addicted to. People have had heroin addictions for decades and lived with it. Hell, morphine addiction was called 'the soldier's disease' or something, because they'd use too much heroin and become addicted, and they were completely fine.

The problem with heroin is the problem with alcohol...people crawl into the bottle (needle) to avoid facing life and don't come back out. Exactly the same problem.

Now, heroin addiction is easier to get than alcohol, but heroin addiction doesn't automatically lead to heroin abuse like alcohol addiction does.

But you've read some random proproganda and think you know everything. Here's a question for you: What about all those people in the hospital who've been on morphine? (Which you hopefully know is what heroin breaks down to.) Why don't any of them go out and get addicted for the rush?

The answer is, heroin is not that psychologically addictive, unless you're in constant pain or something, and thus it doesn't lead itself to abuse, unless said abuse is the reason you're taking it in the first place. Your 'pleasure center' talk is gibberish. As someone who's been on morphine for a day, I can tell you, it's not pleasurable at all, it's just pointless. Nothing matters.

Don't assume that because many heroin addicts are living crappy lifestyles that their addiction cause it, because that's exactly backwards. Their lifestyle caused them to use drugs to forgot, and they chose one that was physically addicted. That is not the cause of their problems.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

If America was a true democracy (3.00 / 2) (#89)
by Levi on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:42:54 PM EST

The morgues would be filled to the brim with muslims executed by the government.

[ Parent ]
oh shut the fuck up you moron (none / 0) (#138)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:17:40 AM EST

that is completely untrue, and to have such little faith in your fellow human beings having any modicum of tolerance and respect simply means YOU are the one who is on the shallow end of tolerance and respect giving


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Oh, they are. (none / 1) (#143)
by Maurkov on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:38:34 PM EST

It's just that the morgues are in other countries.

[ Parent ]
ah yes (none / 1) (#168)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:34:37 PM EST

let us look at the other countries in the world that are models of respect and tolerance

you hold the usa responsible for something every country in the world is guilty of, and which the usa is less guilty of than most


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

and homosexuality (2.85 / 7) (#49)
by ill decide later on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:09:06 PM EST

You forgot to add homosexuality to your list of arbitrary taboos. But seriously. If you grew up in the culture of 80 years ago, your list would have a few more things programmed into it.

Get ready for a rough ride the rest of your life, as the goddamn furries start petitioning for freedom to have interspecies relationships. It's all Disney's fault, you know. He's the one who made them think animals are fuzzy angels and not dumb sacks of shit.

As for pedophilia. Fact: Many 14-year-olds are having sex. Why is it only okay with other 14-year-olds?

Incest - what can possibly be wrong with consensual incest, if there is no conception? If you're concerned about the accidental pregnancy, then does that mean gay incest is okay?

Bah, I hate the whole attitude towards sex-love-nudity-privacy. What a lame tradition. Why does it have to be so goddamn sacred and tangled?

Rape is legally and morally wrong simply because it's a form of assault.
Scat is gross because doing anything with poop except eliminating it is gross. Seriously, ewww!
Necrophilia is wrong because playing with corpses is wrong. It's also really gross if the corpse is decaying.
Bestiality is wrong when it's rape.
Pedophilia is wrong when it's rape.
Incest is wrong when it's rape.


[ Parent ]

Hah. (1.50 / 2) (#196)
by Harvey Anderson on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:52:20 AM EST

Here's the thing.

Homosexuality in men: If it indeed comes out that this is caused by womb conditions, will we hear an uproar from the gay community about parents who want to correct it?  Sort of like that lesbian couple who specifically selected a deaf male sperm donor to ensure their child would be deaf?

Homosexuality in women: Pretty obviously caused by environmental factors most of the time.  Sometimes there are hormone fuckups, but usually it's either "I was traumatized" or "I can't stand the heat so I got out of the kitchen."

The point of the above in regards to marriage is that pretty much no one hopes for a gay child.  Multiply that thought by millions of people and you can see why you get such a reaction to gay marriage.  I know they don't procreate but most people don't want to 'encourage' behavior that is, in some way, evidence of a problem somewhere along the line.

Pedophilia: I agree some of the laws are out of whack (if a 19 year old goes to prison for having sex with a 16 year old, for example), but c'mon.  Very few people want to live in a world where it is common for 40-50 year old men to be 'seducing' 14 year old girls.

Incest: You can argue that it's morally wrong because the vast, vast majority of the population thinks it is (I guess this is a genetic trait).  You could also ask why it could possibly be wrong to clone babies without conscious thought and eat their brains.  Now perhaps it could legally be made 'ok' if you could somehow guarantee that a child would never be produced by Brother Dad and Sister Mom, but that still wouldn't change peoples' ideas.

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where furries sought out psychological treatment instead of being met with an "It's wonderful to be a furry!" message from society at large?

[ Parent ]

Common behaviour means genetic trait? (none / 0) (#205)
by ill decide later on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:47:36 AM EST

Parents controlling kids: We allow parents to indoctrinate their kids with almost whatever they want - both lies and truths. Why is it such a big deal, then, if we also let them direct their kid's personality traits?

As for societal attitudes against homosexual proliferation, pedophilia, incest, and furries:

It is true that these attitudes were once necessary for a flourishing society. I think this is no longer the case.

Ask yourself one question: Why do I care so much about the way other people have sex? Of all the possible activities, why does their sexing stand out? The answer is quite simple: Sex is commonly an absolutely private matter and our human curiosity drives us to desire involvement.

I believe that in a society where people are open about sex, it would not be nearly such a big deal. Rape becomes just another kind of assault. Raped women would face no more psychological trauma than mugged women.

Sex is not sacred, magical, perfect, or heavenly. But if you believe it is, you are much more likely to develop emotional problems about sexual matters.

[ Parent ]

"Why do I care so much about the way other (none / 0) (#215)
by Harvey Anderson on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:30:04 AM EST

people have sex?"

It's a vague question and depends on exactly what sort of sex we're talking about and what 'care' means.  I don't advocate outlawing furries while I care about them as human beings enough to encourage them to correct this fucked up thing.  But I also do not wish to see the age of consent lowered to a flat 14 and any person who is say more than 5-6 years older than that who has sex with that person should go to jail.

How can I justify that opinion?  A completely consensual encounter between a 14 year old and a 50 year old?  I guess if I think about it it comes down to that the 50 year old can manipulate the feelings of a 14 year old to a far greater degree than someone who is say, 20.  Very generally speaking, manipulation is bad.  Why do I want to move society into more of a bad way?

There are other reasons but in the aggregate it boils down to trade: The older party has a way to extract value from the younger party (sex) with minimal risk (emotional); the younger party can see the reward but does not have any way of evaluating the risk due to a lack of experience.  

Maybe someday there can be some sort of training course and young adolescent sex licensing to get around that deficiency but I doubt you would support that amount of government intrusion. :)

[ Parent ]

so we should socially isolate 50s from 14s (none / 0) (#219)
by ill decide later on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:53:26 PM EST

If that is the true reason, then we should make it a crime for the elderly to even speak to children. If manipulation is so bad.

Is it wrong for a 50 year old and a 14 year old to go on a fishing trip, or pretend wrestle? What makes sex so special?

[ Parent ]

Dur? (none / 0) (#220)
by Harvey Anderson on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 01:37:01 PM EST

Obviously the consequences (to the 14 year old) of being manipulated into sex are higher than being spoken to by a 50 year old.

[ Parent ]
Obviously? (none / 0) (#240)
by ill decide later on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 10:11:22 PM EST

What if the 14 year old realises that sex is just the rubbing together of body parts, and not really anything special?

The consequences of sex are not high.

[ Parent ]

not high? (none / 1) (#248)
by Harvey Anderson on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:22:46 AM EST

For varying definitions of high..

You argued earlier that in a sexually open society rape would be just another form of assault.  Speaking for myself, I think I would much rather be brutally attacked than raped in the ass.  I mean, come on now.  To say those feelings are the result of societal bias is ridiculous.

It's been documented that most people go through a 'homosexual phase' (if you want to call it that) in early adolescence.  Say a 14-y/o boy is seduced by some 50-y/o man.  We can see how well that worked out and how unaffected those kids are.  Many of them 'consented' (if you want to call it that); as in, they were not physically forced to do it, yet obviously it meant more to them than just the rubbing together of some body parts.

[ Parent ]

some good perspective on gay marriage (3.00 / 8) (#12)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:51:00 PM EST

the judge who made the decision compared the current anti-gay marriage environment in the usa with the anti-interracial marriage environment in previous decades

http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_035143417.html

In her decision, Ling-Cohan cited and relied on rulings from the last century that barred, and then, permitted interracial marriages.

The judge noted that one plaintiff, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 to marry. California then was the only state whose courts had ruled that interracial marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional.

Some courts, Ling-Cohan wrote, "rejected the rights of adults to choose their marital partners based on outmoded prejudices that are now recognized as illegitimate grounds for government action."

that's incredible: the son of a couple who was on the cutting edge of anti-interracial marriage laws in times past is now on the cutting edge of anti-gay marriage laws

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Slippery Slope of the Electro-Future (2.66 / 6) (#19)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:34:38 PM EST

that's incredible: the son of a couple who was on the cutting edge of anti-interracial marriage laws in times past is now on the cutting edge of anti-gay marriage laws

Tune in next week when his grandson fights for the right to marry a sexbot.


_____
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weeke
[
Parent ]
and look at the judge's last name: ling-cohan (2.33 / 3) (#20)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 07:39:28 PM EST

the judge is, i'm making an assumption here, chinese and jewish

i think she has some insight into discrimination in marriage if her parents raised her in the era of racist marriage laws in the usa

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Unwhite Unmale Bias! (3.00 / 2) (#61)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:56:11 PM EST

When the lesbian armies start burning the churches, then you'll all know how right I was to vote three times for GWB.


_____
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weeke
[
Parent ]
you voted for gwb in canada? (none / 0) (#63)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:19:16 PM EST

wow, that takes some balls

however, that does pose a nice alternative scenario for our canadian invasion plans

just put gwb on the ballot in canada!

brilliant!

the canadians will vote for gwb in droves!

;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The Take-Over Has Already Happened (none / 1) (#65)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:40:11 PM EST

It's just not being framed that way to the Americans because the news didn't play well in test marketing of the target spending demographic.

The State Deparment paid each Canadian to keep it mum. Shit -- there goes my free two-four!


_____
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weeke
[
Parent ]
excellent! (none / 1) (#67)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:51:44 PM EST

heretowithforth saskatchewan shall be known as fuckingcoldistan, ontario shall be renamed alsocoldistan and quebec shall be renamed stan, or fred


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Sexbots next week? (none / 0) (#53)
by APL on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:47:51 PM EST

Can we reserve one now? Or do we have to wait outside the sexbot store on Monday morning?

[ Parent ]
Apple Will Sue Me. (none / 0) (#60)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:54:08 PM EST

Apple will sue me -- I dare say no more!

But let me say this: in the shining electro-future your girlfriend will hold up to 256,000 TeraBytes of CD-quality pop music, available at a thumb-press.


_____
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weeke
[
Parent ]
I have to ask (3.00 / 2) (#95)
by ZorbaTHut on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:08:14 PM EST

Where do you press your thumb?

[ Parent ]
Well, there's two front mounted pushbuttons... (none / 0) (#121)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:49:39 AM EST



Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Actually there are three (none / 0) (#272)
by GenerationY on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 05:26:04 AM EST

but the factory reset is hidden where no nerd would ever think to look for it.

[ Parent ]
/me quietly registers iHo (nt) (3.00 / 4) (#97)
by ucblockhead on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:02:16 PM EST


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Heard on Futurama (none / 0) (#98)
by Skywise on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:52:24 PM EST

this morning...

Does that make him a Robosexual?

[ Parent ]

A minor court decision (3.00 / 4) (#29)
by mikepence on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:59:10 AM EST

This is all well and good, but it is a minor court decision that, as you note, is sure to be challenged and very possibly overturned.

Glimmers of hope tend to shine so briefly in the dark America of 2005.

??what?? (none / 0) (#140)
by jubal3 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:51:03 AM EST

"This is all well and good, but it is a minor court decision that, as you note, is sure to be challenged and very possibly overturned."
Who will overturn it? This is a ruling on the New York constitution by the state's Supreme Court.

There is no higher court with authority to rule on this issue.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

Footnote (none / 0) (#145)
by mikepence on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:41:21 PM EST

See footnote 1. The writer should have been clearer about this, but he failed to listen to much of anything I had to say in the editing queue. :-P

[ Parent ]
yep, missed that, thanks n/t (none / 0) (#170)
by jubal3 on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:11:51 PM EST




***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]
They're just begging for an Amendment (1.58 / 12) (#38)
by LilDebbie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:23:27 PM EST

More fuel to the fire.

I know it's not a judge's place to be political, but 80% of America is against gay marriage you twats!

Anyway, this should get a warm reception in Congress.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

blame that on the plaintiffs, not the judge. (none / 1) (#39)
by aphrael on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:28:24 PM EST

The judge is just doing his job, interpreting the law. I would have ignored due process and gone the equal protection route, because i think substantive due process is a problematic legal theory. But the equality argument is sound.

[ Parent ]
I'm sure there are prior cases (none / 0) (#40)
by LilDebbie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:43:22 PM EST

similar to which the judge could have pointed and said, "sorry, but fuck you, take it up with the legislature."

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Judges have wide discretionary powers. (none / 0) (#264)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:15:40 AM EST

They may also consider "Legislative Intent" when making a ruling. Had the judge in question felt that the legislature never intended for the statue to apply to people of the same gender, he could have ruled with that in mind.

LK

[ Parent ]

That's reasonable. (2.71 / 7) (#42)
by gr3y on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM EST

Also reasonable: The consequences of extending your argument in other areas, such as race.

Only 13 percent of America is black. Thirteen percent! Why have any law making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race? 87 percent of America is not black!

Here, I'm using hyperbole to make a point. Your argument is flawed. Some American law exists only to protect the minority from the majority, which is as it should be. In this way, the law is a shield.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

I'm aware (none / 0) (#43)
by LilDebbie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:11:09 PM EST

but sometimes judicial reform doesn't work, and then you get backlash from an angry populace, and that's what worries me.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
It's too late for that... (none / 1) (#69)
by gr3y on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 09:28:38 PM EST

A constitutional amendment has already been proposed to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If that's not backlash, I don't know what is.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

All sorts of amendments have been proposed (none / 0) (#123)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:57:10 AM EST

Only 27 have been made, and one of them (the 27th, regarding Congressional pay) took 200 years to get approved.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
That's not the point. (none / 0) (#186)
by gr3y on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:45:41 PM EST

This is the point: there has been a backlash to gay marriage.

Whether an actual amendment is signed into law is irrelevant to the discussion. For God's sake, my state approved a "Traditional Marriage" license plate.

But it is disappointing that the electorate has lost its will. It's almost as if we've misplaced our balls.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

Maybe the majority of the electorate (none / 1) (#193)
by wiredog on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:59:01 AM EST

supports Traditional Marriage.

Some things take time. It hasn't been all that long since the Stonewall riots. Or, for that matter, since Little rock.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]

Except that (2.83 / 6) (#44)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:58:49 PM EST

the vast majority of Americans think racism is wrong, which is the very reason the civil-rights movement succeeded: It forced Americans to face the fact that they were condoning the mistreatment of people solely on the basis of skin color.

Yes, the constitution is designed to protect minorities from majorities - but if the majority is large enough, and pissed off enough, they can ram anything they want down a minority's throat.

Or have you forgotten the interments during WWII?

Personally, I think the only way gays will get America to tolerate gay marriage is to drop the judicial brute force and switch to a 3-hankie-tear-jerker of a public relations campaign. Instead of showing us footage of minorities attacked by cops with dogs, show us footage of gays being denied the chance to visit their lover in the hospital, being thrown out of their homes when a loved one dies, excluded from couples-only square dances, that sort of thing.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Civil rights (3.00 / 4) (#54)
by rusty on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:57:35 PM EST

the vast majority of Americans think racism is wrong, which is the very reason the civil-rights movement succeeded: It forced Americans to face the fact that they were condoning the mistreatment of people solely on the basis of skin color.

Sure, they do now. They didn't then.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I disagree. (3.00 / 4) (#58)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:50:20 PM EST

I mean, yes, people were more racist now than they were then - but being willing to rationalize the mistreatment of "them" is different from being willing to endorse that mistreatment when your face is rubbed in it.

Verify few Americans were willing to take the side of the big, bad, klan members against little kids and grandmothers. I think it was for good reason that the press minimized incidents like black men arming themselves and joining the NRA to help defend their families. You don't feel nearly as much sympathy for armed men as you do for little kids.

And that's the sort of marketing I referred to above - rather than "I'm gay and I'm going to force you to accept me!" I think "look at how people are ruining my life because of who I am" works much better.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Marketing (3.00 / 2) (#62)
by rusty on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:13:32 PM EST

I don't disagree with the rest of your comment. The beginning just struck me as a little rosy-glasses. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
DOH! (none / 1) (#59)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:52:18 PM EST

I mean, yes, people were more racist now than they were then

Holy hell. Let's try

"I mean, yes, people were more racist then than they are now."

that's what I get for typing while I'm baking.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 1) (#78)
by isaac r on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:57:59 AM EST

the vast majority of Americans think racism is wrong,

Correction: Americans think racism against certain groups (blacks and Jews) is wrong, but against other groups (Muslims) it's fine and dandy.

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISABLED
[ Parent ]

Muslims aren't a race (none / 0) (#119)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:42:20 AM EST

They're followers of a religion, Islam, which has people of many races as members.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
No shit (none / 1) (#125)
by isaac r on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:00:55 AM EST

But racism isn't about biological race, it's about perceived or ascribed race. For example, discrimination against Jews is still racism even though Judaism is a religion and people of many races are Jews.

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISABLED
[ Parent ]

racism isn't about biological race? (none / 1) (#126)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:19:50 AM EST

Ummm. What you're talking about is religious discrimination. Not racism. Two different things. Which is why the anti-discrimination laws mention both, as separate things. There may be the same sort of mental processes in the discriminators against races and religions, but legally (and semantically) they are two different things.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
So, (none / 0) (#128)
by isaac r on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:29:51 AM EST

in your opinion, Adolf Hitler's views about Jews weren't racist?

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISABLED
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0) (#130)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:47:06 AM EST

Although you can make the argument that, at the time, the European Jews were a race. Well, as much as black or asian is a race.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
It's a floor wax, it's a dessert topping! (none / 0) (#135)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:51:02 AM EST

Hitler went after anyone with "jewish blood" not just the guys wearing the little black hats. I think that brings it under the heading of racism.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0) (#139)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:28:54 AM EST

Defining 'Jewish Blood', these days, would be difficult. Was easier then, as there was little marriage between jew and gentile. At least in Europe. The US has had that sort of mixing for years. LaGuardia had a jewish grandparent.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Jewish is a race not a religion. (none / 0) (#134)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:49:49 AM EST

Are you saying Hitler didn't persecute Jews who converted to Christianity? What about atheist jews? Oh, and people who were born christian but had jewish blood in their ancestry? Did he accept them?

Here's a hint: Atheists who were born to Jewish parents still consider themselves Jewish. I know quite a few of them personally.


I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Down in Australia (none / 0) (#225)
by mettaur on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:25:14 PM EST

Atheist children of Catholic parents call themselves "Christian" for some bizarre reason I am unable to fathom.
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
There's a difference there. (none / 0) (#157)
by aphrael on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:58:33 PM EST

There is, however, a serious difference. Most jewish people in the United States, and all jewish people in Europe, are descended from the same ethnic/racial stock. Judaism has historically frowned on marrying outside of the group, and - in Europe at least - the state authorities have historically restricted the rights of jews, forcing them to live in ghettos, etc. This resulted in them forming a culture which was quite distinct from the surrounding society in every European state where they were allowed to live at all.

[ Parent ]
80%? (3.00 / 3) (#56)
by rusty on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:07:17 PM EST

What's your source for that? Most reputable nationwide polls hover around 60% opposed, with very great differences by geographical area. This page has an interesting historical roundup of polls. USA Today/Gallup did a poll in March last year showing 54% support for civil unions.

As soon as most mainstream religious Americans figure out that no one's going to force their church to perform gay marriages, opposition will drop. We will have gay civil unions nationwide before the end of the next decade. And before the end of 20 years after that, those opposed to them in this time will be seen with the same blend of horror and embarassment that we now view segregationists from the 60's.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

civil unions != marriage (none / 0) (#71)
by LilDebbie on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:08:43 PM EST

and that's really what this whole debate is about. if the only thing the GLBT faction wanted were civil unions, they'd probably already have them. I know it seems like a lame semantic argument, but the fact that they want to call it marriage is the real debate here.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Yes and no. (none / 1) (#120)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:44:01 AM EST

There are tow types of marriage, secular and religious. A civil union is (or should be) a secular marriage. One governed by contract law.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#255)
by cdguru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:00:19 PM EST

Where do you get the idea that there is any recognition of something called a "religious marriage"? Maybe there used to be, but today a marriage is the same whether it is performed by a Catholic priest, a ship's captain or a judge.

There are no differences. Period.

[ Parent ]

There is a difference. (none / 0) (#288)
by Deven on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:53:48 AM EST

If the marriage is performed by a Catholic priest, it implies sanction by the Catholic church. If the marriage is performed by a judge, it might be legally equivalent, but the Catholic church is free to refuse to recognize the marriage within the church. Therein lies the key difference.

There's no justification for forbidding gay marriage, but neither is there justification to force churches to accept such marriages. Some may choose to, but it has to be according to the free will of each church to decide.

Deven

"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
[ Parent ]

The tyranny of the majority (2.40 / 5) (#64)
by benna on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:38:16 PM EST

This is precicly why we have a strong contitution. It is to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. If the majority doesn't like gay people, to bad for them, as the constitution must protect the minority.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
Amendments to the Constitution handle that. (2.00 / 2) (#122)
by wiredog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:54:33 AM EST

It is, however and thankfully, bloody difficult to amend the Constitution.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
civil union == marriage (none / 1) (#72)
by Blarney on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:25:16 PM EST

If you had been married to a woman of a different religion, a few generations ago, you would have probably had to be married by a judge rather than a religious functionary. There are a few religious groups that could have handled it - the Unitarian Church is probably the most well-known - but most likely you wouldn't have gone through the hassle.

This would have been called a "civil union" at the time. Even today, people will refer to such a wedding as a "civil ceremony".

But now, we don't really distinguish a heterosexual marriage performed in a religious setting from one done by a secular judge. Still, this is where the "civil union" terminology comes from. It's not different at all.

[ Parent ]

i'm 100% against getting myself married to a man (2.16 / 6) (#74)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:14:55 AM EST

but i respect the right of jack and fred next door to get married if they want to

of course 80% of the usa population is against gay marriage

if you asked them if they were for or against spinal taps, i think 90% of them would say they were against spinal taps

but you're asking the people who don't have meningitis, so what the fuck does that fucking number mean?

it means nothing

it's like asking "are you for or against president bush killing innocent iraqi children?"

durrr... i think the answer is against? it's a question posed in such a way that it is to supposed to mean something, but it doesn't mean shit except mindless propaganda, because it has nothing to do with the deeper truth of the issue it professes to ask a question about

a more honest question, without snarky statistical twisting of the truth: how does gay marriage hurt those 80% who say they are against gay marriage?

if 80% of the us population were against a national id card, that means something: the card effects them

how does gay marriage effect anyone else except the gay guys involved?

it's one thing to be against something that constrains your rights

it's another thing to be against something that only effects someone else's rights

seriously: what THE FUCK can jack and fred getting married have to do with ANYONE ELSE except jack and fred?

i don't understand the problem

to me it's braindead obvious, i can't fathom for the life of me why people have an issue with something that doesn't effect them, or anyone else, except the two people involved

1=1=2: yeah sure, let gays marry, how the fuck can that hurt me? how can it help me? what the fuck does it have to do me? how can it hurt someone else? what does it have to do with anyone else except the 2 gays getting married? so why would i fucking oppose it? in fact, why would i even fucking care?

what the hell is wrong with the narrowminded twits in this world?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Your arguments can be used (none / 0) (#77)
by gizzlon on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:53:31 AM EST

for about everything ..

I mean, I dont want to get married to a hampster, but i respect the right of Fred to get married to his ..

Or, if Sandra, Fred, Jeff, 2 dogs (fifo & fido), Bush, a bush and a my Ford escort wants to get married, I respect their right to do so ..
or ..

(no, this has nothing to do with gay marriage, just the arguments, sorry for wandering off topic :)
g
[ Parent ]

completely wrong (none / 0) (#79)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:11:13 AM EST

we're talking about what 2 sane, competent willing adult humans decide to do with each other

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
well the argument ends right there (none / 1) (#83)
by LilDebbie on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 11:07:34 AM EST

didn't you know that faggotry is a mental illness?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
you know, that would be funny (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by circletimessquare on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 01:19:56 PM EST

between you and me

unfortunately, there are a lot of people walking around right now who actually believe that

so i can't laugh at that


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

why is what (none / 0) (#96)
by gizzlon on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 04:17:41 PM EST

3 sane, competent willing adult humans decide to do with each other .. (or 10) different?

g
[ Parent ]
you just changed the subject, duh (nt) (none / 0) (#137)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:15:59 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
How? (none / 0) (#141)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:09:46 PM EST

The numbers involved changed, everything else remained the same.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

ok, i'll tell you what (none / 0) (#151)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:18:48 PM EST

the rest of will keep talking about gay marriage, and you talk about polygamy and insist it's the same thing

sound good to you?

you go on with your bad self, please, don't let something like the idea of a coherent subject matter stand in your way


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And I'll tell YOU what else... (none / 0) (#286)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:09:22 AM EST

gizzlon admitted from the start that it was wandering off topic. So the idea of polygamy was already in the air, even before you came in protesting about a subject change that the rest of us were aware of about four posts ago.

So you keep on with your bad posts, ignoring what's relevant and resorting to comments that substitute snideness for substance. I mean, I know you're a troll (I've been on k5 for a while, although I took a longish sabbatical), but you're usually better than this and I'm disappointed in you.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I dont think (none / 0) (#154)
by Altus on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:52:01 PM EST

 
he was arguing against polygamous marriages... thats something that will almost certainly come up after the gay marriage issue is dealt with (assuming gay marriage it is not outlawed by the feds).

But I think it is very disingenuous to start talking about people marrying animals... the animal cannot enter into the contract of marriage... or any contract for that matter... pets are property under our current legal system... all be it property that has limits on how you can treat it.

bringing polygamous marriages into the discussion is reasonable... and I for one would not argue against them, but animals is a very different matter... even from a legal perspective.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

How? (none / 0) (#254)
by cdguru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:57:37 PM EST

Let's see - if Jack and Fred get married and then Fred runs off to Alabama (which doesn't recognize their marriage), do you want your tax dollars spent to send a posse down to Alabama to drag Fred back to NY so he can pay spousal support to Jack? If a divorce is as simple as crossing state lines, then the marriage means nothing.

How about another example. Jack and Fred get married and then Fred is injured. If Jack was female he would get SSI (federal) benefits, but by being male the entire federal system has to change over to recognizing gay marrage for this to happen. Do you think this is likely? Again, it comes down to spending your tax dollars for the benefit of gay marriage and the defense of it. It is a government benefit and there are significant laws that "defend" the "rights" of married people today.

The argument of "getting the government out of it" doesn't hold up to much inspection - the government is so completely wrapped up in marriage as it is it would be impossible to separate. And, removing government benefits to married people would virtually cut off the support of large numbers of women today. Do you want to throw them out on the street because of gay marriage?

[ Parent ]

Slavery? September 11? (none / 0) (#91)
by Roman on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:19:12 PM EST

And most americans were pro-slavery (why, we treat our slaves almost as well as actual people.)

And most americans believe that Iraq had something (anything at all) to do with 9/11.

So what does that say about the rule of 'most americans'?

[ Parent ]

Errr. Read history much? (none / 1) (#94)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:55:19 PM EST

Most Americans were against slavery by the 1860s - that's why the southern states seceded from the union, to keep the north from forcing them to free their slaves.


I never said that.
[ Parent ]
Will of the people (none / 0) (#263)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:07:21 AM EST

And most americans were pro-slavery (why, we treat our slaves almost as well as actual people.)

At what point were "most americans" pro-slavery? If that's the case, there wouldn't have been such a thing as a "free state".

Also notice that when there became a clear consensus about it, slavery was outlawed.

LK

[ Parent ]

actually... (none / 0) (#289)
by admdrew on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 02:43:28 AM EST

...most Americans were pro-slavery (or apathetic, at the very least); the 'free states' just weren't so stridently supportive to feel the need to constitutionally protect it as a right. Slavery was as much an excuse for argument between the north and south as it was a real issue.

From the politicians' points of view, anyway.



[ Parent ]
So what? (none / 0) (#92)
by delmoi on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:23:06 PM EST

a) You can't ask judges to make decisions based on popular support. That's so antithical to the idea of rule of law as to be rediculous. Why not just replace the entire judicial system with 'american idol' style phone in votes. b) 80% may be opposed to gay marrage, but most americans do not want to see the constitution amended. In other words, enough people feel that while gay marage is wrong, they would rather see gay marrage then a constitutional amendment. In today's society, it's just not going to happen.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
re: They're just begging for an Amendment (none / 0) (#102)
by interstel on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:57:52 PM EST

And that arguement means what? The constitution is generally framed to prevent the will of the majority from extorting itself against the minority. Slavery was a majority "legal" opinion too. Didn't mean it was right. If I want to marry a stone no one should care but me. A majority of people in this country believe in angels. Do I want to be forced to accept their opinion via legal fiat? No. I make my own assumptions about the supernatural thank you very much. In end everyone has forgotten one thing.

The right of free will.

Interstel

[ Parent ]
What? (none / 0) (#104)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:29:36 PM EST

What part of "amending the constitution" evades your understanding?

If the constitution is amended to ban gay marriage, that's it. End of story. It doesn't matter what the rest of the document might say - the constitution is the ultimate source of law in the united states and it can be changed if two thirds of the states agree to change it. If two thirds of the states vote requiring the death penalty for jay walking, it's a done deal - there is no appeal.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Semantic Quibble (none / 0) (#107)
by Skywise on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:19:46 AM EST

Actually you could appeal on the grounds that the amendment violates a previous amendment.  But I'm not sure how far you'd get... It's probably been tried but I don't remember ever hearing about any attempts...

And you could ALWAYS appeal the judgement that you were, indeed, jaywalking.  (Your honor, I was stapled to the chicken!)


[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure the new amendment would take (none / 1) (#113)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:06:51 AM EST

priority. Otherwise, as Hulver mentions, Prohibition would still be in effect.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
No. (none / 0) (#156)
by aphrael on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:56:13 PM EST

The new amendment takes effect. Amendments to the US Constitution are never appealable.

[ Parent ]
Why? (nt) (none / 0) (#172)
by Skywise on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:50:56 PM EST



[ Parent ]
who would have the authority to hear the appeal? (2.33 / 3) (#174)
by aphrael on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:09:46 PM EST

Whoever you take the appeal to has become the highest authority in the land, by virtue of having that power ... and we believe firmly that there should not be such an authority - for if there were, the constitution would be meaningless.

The constitution is the highest authority for government in the United States. It provides rules for its own amendment, and those rules can be followed; but absent that, there is nothing which has the authority to overrule it. And we believe that is a good thing - because, if it makes it into the constitution, we can be certain an overwhelming majority supports it; and, if nobody has the authority to override it, then the will of the people will to some extent be followed.

[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0) (#111)
by hulver on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:24:15 AM EST

And that's why Alcohol is still banned in the USA.

--
HuSi!
[ Parent ]
Don't make me get pedantic on your british behind (none / 0) (#112)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:06:03 AM EST

It's not like the Supreme Court overturned prohibition, is it?

I never said that.
[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 0) (#118)
by hulver on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:38:38 AM EST



--
HuSi!
[ Parent ]
Sure. (none / 0) (#155)
by aphrael on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:55:40 PM EST

The constitution can then be amended to remove that amendment. But the politics behind that are difficult; there's a lot of "don't amend the constitution" inertia which would then rally behind keeping gay marriage banned.

[ Parent ]
re: What? (none / 0) (#176)
by interstel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:02:00 PM EST

It has been more than 24 years since I had civics class. I know you can amend the constitution and then repeal that amendment. But can you put in place an amendment that deprives you of rights already in place? The gay marriage amendment would seem to be a case of reducing rights to portion of the population.

Interstel

[ Parent ]
Yes, of course (none / 1) (#189)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:08:13 AM EST

That's how we got Prohibition - a complete ban on a previously legal substance.

Like Prohibition, a marriage ban could be repealed by a later amendment, but that also requires 2/3rds of the states to approve.

I never said that.
[ Parent ]

Funny (none / 0) (#262)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:04:59 AM EST

A majority of people in this country believe in angels. Do I want to be forced to accept their opinion via legal fiat? No.

The funny thing is that angels may or may not exist. But "same sex marriages" do not exist.

That's the difference. Using the force of law to force people to recognize something that may or may not exist versus using it to force people to recognize something that definately does not.

LK

[ Parent ]

Screw Congress... (none / 0) (#133)
by mikelieman on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:37:29 AM EST

The LAWS of the State of New York are VERY CLEAR.

The Domestic Relation's Law states that MARRIAGE is a CIVIL CONTRACT.

The UCC says a) The UCC is to be applied as liberally as possible and b) gender is irrelevent with respect to the signatories of a contract.

Suck it up and deal.

It's NOT just a good idea, In NEW YORK, IT'S THE LAW.
-- I Miss Jerry
[ Parent ]

huh... (none / 0) (#245)
by LilDebbie on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 12:35:25 AM EST

if that's the argument, then I should have every right to settle down with my harem of wives in upstate, yesh, as a civil contract can have as many signees as stipulated by the agreement.

now where's a mormon when you need one?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Wierd, Huh? (none / 0) (#287)
by mikelieman on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:47:40 AM EST

It's kinda strange, but Yeah, I agree with that. What you want to do ON, and WITH your private property is your business and no-one elses. That's FREEDOM that is...
-- I Miss Jerry
[ Parent ]
So what? (none / 1) (#171)
by jd on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:48:49 PM EST

I'm sure 80%+ of Americans are against being personally taxed (even if they're ok with taxes in general). Odds are, 90%+ of all kids are against going to school, when it's sunny outside.

Just because lots of people oppose something doesn't mean it's in the interests of the country, or even those people.

Besides, if there's no taxation without representation, then there's no representation without taxation. Churches aren't taxed, so have no entitlement to be heard in America.

[ Parent ]

Hello (none / 0) (#261)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 03:02:08 AM EST

Churches aren't taxed, so have no entitlement to be heard in America.

But all of their members are taxed. They DO have the right to have their views represented by the government.

LK

[ Parent ]

eh... (none / 0) (#290)
by admdrew on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 02:52:22 AM EST

I think the parent's argument stems from the fact that people are spouting their views in the name of religious organizations, and expecting clout because America has always been predominantly Christian. I (like the poster) would take issue with that.

[ Parent ]
Against (none / 0) (#175)
by Sloppy on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:56:17 PM EST

Is being against something, the same as being against allowing something?

I'm against drinking Diet Pepsi. I think the stuff is disgusting and vile. That doesn't mean I'd support outlawing Diet Pepsi.
"RSA, 2048, seeks sexy young entropic lover, for several clock cycles of prime passion..."
[ Parent ]

I'll be quick. (3.00 / 18) (#46)
by ill decide later on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:19:18 PM EST

Marriage violates separation of church and state. Legal construct should be a civil union to replace all marriages. Civil union should be orthogonal to sexual activity and to the genders involved. Don't need a fucking law to be psychologically married. I'm done.

How do you feel (none / 1) (#86)
by minerboy on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:57:52 PM EST

About government subsidies to support child rearing ? The vast majority of marriage benefits are aimed at this. Given artificial insemination, and, genomics, and cloning technologie I suppose sex won't matter much. then again, I doubt if the traditional male will still be around much longer.



[ Parent ]
Yeah, I thought about this after I posted. (2.50 / 2) (#93)
by ill decide later on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:29:59 PM EST

Sex already doesn't really matter that much. It just takes one time, and then bam. Parents don't need to keep having sex in order to raise a child, last I checked. Except maybe as a stress reliever. :)

If we make families a separate designation from marriage/civil-union, some interesting things could be done.

For example, you could demand that a child has both a male and female raising them, acting as "role models" in order to produce a well-balanced child. This is neither sexist (both sexes are included equally), nor is it sexual-orientationist.

This prevents a single parent from raising a child, or a gay couple from raising a child, UNLESS they find someone of the other sex to help out. Heck, even "dad's away for 11 months of the year" families would be in trouble.

A side note: I think it is imperative that the child be placed under custody of both parties, even when they're not married, regardless of who originally 'owned' the kid.

Of course, this change is too radical and would never be implemented. Still, the basic idea of separating out families is a help. I have the feeling that "married with children" is much closer to "single with children", than it is to "married".

[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#144)
by Eccles on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:40:15 PM EST

If my wife and I had divorced a few years back, we could have saved money -- hell, we probably still could.  If you've ever heard of dependent care reimbursement accounts, they're systems where you can set aside some amount of income pre-tax, which you can then spend on dependent care, including day care and summer programs.  The maximum amount you can set aside as an individual is $5,000, but the maximum a married couple can set aside is also $5,000.  So if we'd divorced or never been married and each individually funded a kid, we'd have had higher limits per kid.  And yes, we exceeded $5K, especially when they were younger.

Marriage is of economic benefit, really, only if one spouse does not have an outside job.

[ Parent ]

Certainly. (none / 0) (#253)
by cdguru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:38:53 PM EST

I know many women that believe strongly that the male sex is doomed. Men will avoid their superior female counterparts and turn to other men for companionship, thus relieving them of their role in procreation.

Now, all we need is a reliable way of producing female babies without any involvement from men and the men can go off to whereever.

At least that's what I've heard.

[ Parent ]

sorta (none / 0) (#132)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:10:54 AM EST

Marriage violates separation of church and state.

Nah, not with the existence of civil marriages as an option for anyone who wants the legal/financial/psychological commitment without the God part. But the Church exists for those people who view it as something holy and want it to be recognised as such.

Legal construct should be a civil union to replace all marriages.

Not all. Some people want a religious ceremony and recognition. But certainly the same statutory laws need to apply to both religious and civil marriages.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

I don't think you need the law for that. (none / 0) (#150)
by ill decide later on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:18:05 PM EST

Religious ceremony can be done by the church, sure.

What I'm proposing is that people who wish to have a traditional marriage really need two separate things: (1) A religious recognition and ceremony. (2) A legal recognition.

Not necessarily in that order. Mainline churches might require evidence of the commitment (2) before they perform a marriage (1). Or you could arrange it so they occur simultaneously.

If the same laws apply to both religious and civil marriages, we might as well make them the same thing.


[ Parent ]

Marriage as religious ceremony implies... (none / 0) (#161)
by smithmc on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:36:13 PM EST


Not all. Some people want a religious ceremony and recognition. But certainly the same statutory laws need to apply to both religious and civil marriages.

If marriage is a religious ceremony, then any law or amendment banning gay marriage is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

[ Parent ]

WTF are you talking about? (none / 0) (#252)
by cdguru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:36:22 PM EST

There is nothing that I am aware of that constitutes any sort of "religious marriage". Some churches might like there to be, but there isn't. Marriage is a civil cermony that can be performed by a number of different people. One class of such people are ministers of most, if not all, churches. Ship captains are also given this privilege. I don't see anything anywhere about "religion" in this.

On the other hand, the government grants married people specific benefits, without regard for how people got married. So as far as I can see, there is no third class - there is "not married" and "married". Only. There is no "religiously married" class.

[ Parent ]

You asshat. (none / 0) (#260)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:59:26 AM EST

Marriage violates separation of church and state.

Since you want to wave around non-existant Constitutional arguments, how about this one. Ex Post Facto, marriage has existed and been legally recognized since before the ratification of the Constitution.

Legal construct should be a civil union to replace all marriages.

So punish everyone else because a few sexual deviants finally got some political clout?

LK

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#269)
by igor on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:03:20 PM EST

Slavery existed and was legally recognized since before the consititution was ratified. Does that mean it should still be around? Are you "punished" by the state not recognising & documenting the fact that the union between you and your wife/husband is blessed by God? Why does the state care? Why do you care what the state thinks? Your relationship to your spouse and God be between you, your spouse, your church and God. If you really need a piece of paper from the State to validate your union, then maybe you shouldn't have been married in the first place.

[ Parent ]
Funny (none / 0) (#275)
by The Real Lord Kano on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 05:00:06 PM EST

Slavery existed and was legally recognized since before the consititution was ratified.

It took a constitutional amendment to eliminate slavery.

Are you "punished" by the state not recognising & documenting the fact that the union between you and your wife/husband is blessed by God?

If the government removes everyone's ability to get married, then yes that would be punishing everyone.

Why does the state care?

Because the family is the foundation of society.

Why do you care what the state thinks?

I AM the state. I'm a citizen, a voter and a taxpayer.

If you really need a piece of paper from the State to validate your union, then maybe you shouldn't have been married in the first place.

Why aren't you saying this to the people who want the government to recognize "Gay Marriage"?

LK

[ Parent ]

Being "morally responsible" (none / 0) (#81)
by canned soma on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:19:22 AM EST

-own property by the entireties; -file joint state income tax returns; -obtain health insurance through a partner's coverage; -obtain joint liability or homeowner's insurance; -collect from a partner's pension benefits; -have one partner of the two-women couples be the legal parent of the other partner's artificially inseminated child, without the expense of an adoption proceeding; -invoke the spousal evidentiary privilige; -recover damages for an injury to, or the wrongful death of, a partner; -have the right to make important medical decisions for a partner in emergencies; -inherit from a deceased partner's intestate estate; -or determine a partner's funeral and burial arrangements.

These problems evidence two solutions to the same problem. One is bottom up: private organizations (insurance, real estate, hospitals) change their policies. The other is top down: The government overrides the argument of private entities to decide the wellbeing of individuals. That would be the "morally" responsible thing to do, but then again the government tends to have its head so far up its "moral" ass it can't see the light of day.

Well written, +1

I'd like to know (none / 0) (#84)
by aphrael on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 11:48:48 AM EST

how private arrangements can grant the spousal evidentiary privilige or allow the recovery at law of damages for the wrongful death of a partner. Or, for that matter, allow inheritance from an intestate estate (eg, an estate when there is no will).

The myth that all of the benefits of marriage are available privately remains a myth.

[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0) (#100)
by Herring on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:52:12 PM EST

On most grounds, my employers are a total bunch of bastards. Benefits (insurance, healthcare etc.) are explicitly stated as to "partners whether married or not and whether of the same sex or not".

Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
[ Parent ]
It's all a game. (2.00 / 4) (#85)
by Sen on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:57:35 PM EST

For instance, I may be getting married partly so she can have citizenship. If she was a he, that option wouldn't even be open. In the anarchic posthuman future, we'll all look back on this and laugh.

Heh (2.33 / 3) (#106)
by ill decide later on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:33:57 PM EST

You bought one of them russian brides?

[ Parent ]
Not only gay marriage (1.75 / 4) (#90)
by Roman on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:12:57 PM EST

I personally don't really care about gay marriage, but I would like to marry more than one woman at a time, so I think that this will be next - polygamy.

As for gay marriage - good, the more of the old attitudes broken, the better.

and why not? (none / 0) (#284)
by Rande on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:55:25 PM EST

Polygamy and Polyandry were legal well before and a lot longer than they have been illegal.
Personally, I don't care if a person gets civilly united with his dog so long as he doesn't try to have sex with it.

[ Parent ]
I dont have a fully-formed attitude on this but .. (1.00 / 7) (#105)
by tilly on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:51:13 PM EST

What about the argument that may be given against homosexuality that says that the parts dont fit?

... that the transmission of HIV virus and other pathogens is facilitated by the fact that the parts dont fit?

If the brain, thru an accident of genetics or development, wants one thing and the body is not designed for it, what to do?

I think the understanding of the cause of homosexual desire will be the key to a huge advance in general human self-understanding. Because the explanation science gives for our desires and preferences in one specific human situation will generalize and give insight to the most basic factors that make each of us what we individually are. This may be the key that opens the door to the mysteries of personality and character.



transmission probabilities, etc... (none / 1) (#108)
by MTremodian on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:01:53 AM EST

If I remember correctly, the transmission probabilities for HIV during sex are (roughly):

male -> male: ~85%
male -> female: ~65%
female -> male: ~45%
female -> female: ~15%

These are consequences of the mechanics of the thing. But anyway, this assumes that one of the partners has HIV, and if marraige cuts down on "sleeping around" then shouldn't we require gay men to marry to cut down on HIV transmission? Remember: this is about gay marraige, not only gay sex. But all of that is quite beside the point...we supposedly live in a free society, and these kinds of arbitrary restrictions are somewhat incompatible with such a notion...

As to whether science will be able to allow us to understand "the cause of homosexual desire" (as though it could possibly be as simple as "the cause"), I'm ambivalent as to whether this would even be a good thing...after all, logically, it is just such "an accident of genetics or development" that makes me (a male) attracted to females, and if science someday gives us the power to "reprogram" such things, it certainly won't tell us which way we should choose to be...


...speed overcomes the fear of death.
[ Parent ]

anal (none / 0) (#116)
by Cackmobile on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:52:21 AM EST

THe why male to male is so high. apparently the anus is very absorbant. thats why you sometimes put medicine up there. BUt if you just had sx with a woman up the bum it would be the smae transmission rate.

[ Parent ]
anal (none / 0) (#188)
by MTremodian on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:39:29 AM EST

Also, the anus is a sphincter, so it only opens a certain amount before it tears easily (unless you spend a lot of time and effort stretching like the goatse.cx guy). Plus the end of the large intestine is not nearly as naturally lubricated as the vaginal cavity. But you're right...it really should have been:

person w/ penis -> other person (anal): ~85%

I actually don't think I've ever read what the probability is the other way, but I suspect it would be about the same ~45% as the female -> male case. Also, all of this assumes that we're talking about unprotected sex.


...speed overcomes the fear of death.
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#190)
by tilly on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:13:52 AM EST

Thx for the data.

I agree that the increased risk associated with anal intercourse makes monogamy an even more favorable lifestyle choice (from health/safety viewpoint) for gays than it is for heteros. Thus, it is actually an argument for recognition of gay marriage.

Proscription OTOH makes the whole thing volatile and uncontrollable. One simply cannot suppress a natural sexual urge. And it is natural if it is coming from the organism.

To take a bit of a detour here, I've heard that the Prohibition was a success from a public-health standpoint even though it failed as a social policy. The success was in that the occurrence of alcohol-related diseases and deaths dropped significantly during the Prohibition. Probly, more lives were saved due to people drinking less alcohol then were lost in gangster-wars though the latter take their toll on the society in more ways than just in the loss of lives.

The difference there however is that the body does not need alcohol. This is true even for people who are genetically preinclined towards alcoholism. The trouble starts if and only if the person is introduced to alcohol. Not so for sex ...

As for this "cause" thing, from what I have read, I would speculate that we will eventually find it to be more of a history or a scenario than a simple anatomical or physiological feature you can point to and say "that's the cause". I envision something like the following as the kind of explanation that might eventually be offered

1) We all start out female and half of us are later transformed to males by the action of hormones. An allele in the genes or a condition existing in the womb might interfere with this transformation and prevent it from going the distance. There might be more than one mechanism in which this can happen. For example, it has been suggested that this might be caused by an allergic reaction by the mother to the male fetus, in which case, it may be the mother's genes that is starting the whole process.

2) In any case, the condition of the female->male transformation not going all the way to its completion may bring about a potential or a predisposition that is the physiological germ on which the process is based.

3) Then, during early childhood, an opportunity arises during a certain window of time which allows this germ to develop into a sexual orientation. Neural pathways may be laid down by experiences during this period which may define the nature of sexual attraction for the individual. Do we not all remember events in our childhood which were turning points in our lives in terms of defining our sexual desires and fantasies?

4) Finally, sexual rituals and habits are formed via participation in social environments, exposure to popular culture and literature.

Now, the above is probably inaccurate. I offer it to illustrate the point that the whole thing is more likely to be a process or a history of development than just an anatomical feature or a physiological condition. But I believe there are physiological germs which by happenstance develop into behaviour patterns in some individuals and not in others.



[ Parent ]

transformation (none / 0) (#216)
by katie on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:31:14 AM EST

"the condition of the female->male transformation not going all the way to its completion"

This would be the postulated cause of "transsexualism" or "gender identity disorder".

It's almost certainly not the same mechanism that results in homosexuality, for a number of complicated reasons. Not least of which is that gay men LIKE being men. They don't want to be women. And if transsexuals could be happy being gay men, they would do that rather than having to undergo re-assignment.

Gay men don't (in general) have a problem with who they are, just how they get treated by other people. Very few of them want to be cured, because they don't feel ill. Transsexuals DO want to be "fixed", because they do feel something is wrong with them.[1]

Alan Turing, for example, allegedly committed suicide because the oestrogen therapy then used to control homosexual men caused him to start growing breasts. He didn't want to turn into a woman -- he was quite happy being a man who loved other men.

[1] Basing this on the members of the two groups that I know.


[ Parent ]

You show me the part that won't fit.. (1.00 / 2) (#109)
by Kwil on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:05:45 AM EST

..in this.

On second thought.
Don't.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
That's not an argument (none / 0) (#129)
by DodgyGeezer on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:33:30 AM EST

Playing devil's advocate a little (because this argument could taken too far):

Who cares whether the parts fit on not.  Who cares whether two adults of the same sex want to be together?  That's their choice.  It doesn't affect us.  Who are we to impose restrictions on their lives?  They're not hurting each other, and nor are they hurting us.  They're not damaging society and causing us in-direct harm by making it more dangerous out there, etc.

I believe in liberty and freedom.  With that comes the mantra: "do as you do, but harm none".  The antithesis of this position are social conservatives who would impose their small-minded bigotry on people who aren't affecting them.  And for those who appreciate irony: the one thing I'm really intolerant about are bigots!

[ Parent ]

No, it is not that simple ... (none / 1) (#191)
by tilly on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:32:04 AM EST

There is a whole continent out there which has lost the opportunity to climb out of poverty because it is hobbled by the AIDS epidemic. I am talking about Africa, of course.

Public health is far too important a matter for its discussion to be suppressed by political considerations.

AIDS has taken a huge toll here in the US too. And not just in terms of the lives lost. I believe, the resurgence of the right wing and the irrational rise of religious fervor despite all scientific evidence and yes the election of W itself are results largely of (i) AIDS epidemic (ii) religious crazies in the Middle East.

[ Parent ]

What's AIDS got to do with same sex marriage? (none / 0) (#194)
by DodgyGeezer on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:55:57 AM EST

I don't understand where you're coming from.  What has AIDS got to do with same sex marriage?

I hold the Pope personally responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa.  Education is one of the major problems there.  And common myths like having sex with virgins has just made it worse.  But that's got nothing to do with same sex marriage.  Also, AIDS is just one of Africa's problems, many of the other factors leading to poverty are caused directly by Western policies (yes, we need to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions), but talking about that is unpopular.

I don't even see how same sex marriage is going to increase levels of AIDS in western countries.  AIDS is most commonly spread through risky behaviour.  Marriage is generally the opposite of that, and people entering in to it tend to be more monogamous or make fewer risky encounters.

[ Parent ]

To clarify: (none / 0) (#195)
by tilly on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:16:41 AM EST

I am not conflating AIDS with same-sex marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage may help abate STDs, if anything.

I am connecting AIDS with the question of whether "the parts fit" or not. Since you said: "Who cares whether the parts fit or not?"

[ Parent ]

Does it matter? (none / 0) (#246)
by DodgyGeezer on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:32:40 AM EST

As far as I'm concerned, Marmite is delicious (yes, I know that's a vegemite link).  Marmite and cheese sandwiches are the bees knees.  If you didn't grow up English (and in many cases even if you did), you will think that Marmite is vile and not understand how anybody could eat it.

If you're heterosexual, perhaps it's something similar.  I don't understand it, but if I were gay then I'm sure that your issue with the parts not fitting wouldn't even be in the picture.  Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it should be rejected.

[ Parent ]

Aids in Africa (none / 1) (#214)
by katie on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 11:23:50 AM EST

Of course, that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is running wild though the HETROSEXUAL population is never an argument for that being also unnatural...

[ Parent ]
In Africa, there are a combination of factors ... (none / 0) (#241)
by tilly on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 10:35:31 PM EST

I've read that it may be the widespread presence of untreated VD that accounts for the spread of the virus via heterosexual relations. Plus lack of education ... Plus lack of decent public medical care ...

Poorer countries are always more vulnerable to disasters. whether natural or man-made. They are paying the price for our sins and excesses.

[ Parent ]

Too true (none / 0) (#285)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 07:55:50 AM EST

In Africa, all the emphasis is on using condoms, although there's precious little information available about how to use one (even here in the West, I'm astonished by the number of people who complain that the sheath "came off" as the man withdrew. How on earth do they not know you're supposed to hold it as you withdraw for just that reason?).

But there's no campaign of awareness about the other ways HIV can be transmitted, namely needle-sharing and the like.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

A chemical makes one have homo thoughts (none / 0) (#200)
by k24anson on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST

Think of the names of the chemicals that starts trickling into the bloodstream of the young human female at puberty. For the next ten, twenty years the hallucinogenic quality of these trickling chemicals builds the sexual identity of this female by developing the idea for this person to like and enjoy the idea of something being put into, and then have this "thing" squirt some stuff into her body. This is the way many little girls grow up to actually like the idea of making babies ..., the reader of this is asked to try to realize the powerful influence an hallucinogenic chemical has to practically force, coerce the female to like and want to act as she does ... to be sexual ... to think it's normal to want to become pregnant as she grows to adulthood.

These same molecules of puberic chemicals that force and coerce the minds of little girls to have thoughts to want to make babies also is found trickling in the bloodstream of many human males. If the guy doesn't understand the hallucinogenic quality of these trickling chemicals at puberty, if this said guy starts playing around in his mind with the attributes of these hallucinogenic chemicals as he goes through his daily walk in life, it shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that this guy now sometimes thinks his anus is a vagina; to sometimes hear the person talk like he thinks he has a woman trapped inside his body. Duh.

Don't anyone reading this think to start talking too loud and in public about any type of hallucinogenic qualities of drugs though. Or if you do think to talk like this expect big time problems from the people who protect our communities. The proliferation of homosexuality in society today is much better than any person's quest for understanding and some meaning of life. I'm trying to say here the average person really doesn't understand in these regards the implications and effects of a drug that's called hallucinogenic. Think about it though. These trickling chemicals ( excuse me here for a second) WERE DESIGNED for the female to "make" them want to do the things, and they now WANT and encourage the things done to them by guys (to propogate the species.) These same chemicals in a guy though, over time ...? some guys do wicked things because of these trickling hallucinogenic chemicals. I mean, ten years from now there will be another report of a little girl sexually mutilated on the side of the road, found strangled in a ditch. Some people already know why these things happen, the vast majority of the populace do not. And why not? Becuase of that word hallucinogenic. The powers that be are mucho scared of what the populace will do should the word hallucinogenic be bantered about. Damned if they do, damned if they don't type of thing.

I gotta go do something else now, I can't talk on this anymore.
KLH
NYC

Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.
[ Parent ]

I really only see one solution to this (3.00 / 7) (#127)
by inkieminstrel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:27:20 AM EST

I think the government's notion of marriage pretty much has to be done away with for everyone to be happy. The problem, really, is that we have this loaded word, "marriage," based in religious traditions that affords people secular rights. I think the government shouldn't have the ability to marry people, but rather simply to recognize people as civilly united. If you want to get married, join a church. If you want someone to share your healthcare with, get civilly united. I'm sure the number of laws that would have to be changed would be insurmountably huge though.

"Civilly united" (none / 0) (#131)
by HollyHopDrive on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:02:37 AM EST

That would basically mean a civil wedding. Marriage doesn't have to be a religious affair if you don't want it to be, and as such, even if someone has religious objections to gay relationships, this can't prevent gay people from marrying in a civil sense.

You can view a marriage as a holy union with God's presence in it if you're religious and you want to. Or you can view it simply as a strong commitment within a recognised legal framework. I think your "civilly united" is just another term for a civil marriage.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

Correct, but... (none / 0) (#167)
by inkieminstrel on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:33:49 PM EST

to some, allowing homosexuals to marry is making a mockery of the term marriage, because for them marriage is a religious institution put forth by God on man. As such, they won't ever be tolerant or accept gay marriages.

Use a different word, and you might stand a chance. However, by using a different word you're ticking off another set of people.

Solution: use a different word for all marriage. Leave marriage for religion, and allow the state to unite anyone on a secular basis without using loaded religious words.

[ Parent ]
And I don't understand... (none / 0) (#277)
by DavidTC on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 02:24:12 AM EST

...why black folk want to legally be 'people'. Surely we can just grant them the rights people have without actually declaring them as such.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Person is not a religiously loaded word (none / 0) (#280)
by inkieminstrel on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 03:13:40 PM EST

Marriage is a loaded word in a religious sense.

I don't think we should let gays have civil unions and deny them marriages, I think the state should get out of the business of marriages altogether. Everyone should be entitled to a civil union in the eyes of the state and nothing more.

If you want to call yourself "married" go join a church or whatever, but that word should carry no legal weight.

I think the argument is in the wrong place. It shouldn't be whether or not a certain class of people should be married by the state, but rather whether the state should be marrying people to begin with.

Please don't paint my argument as if it is somehow against civil rights, as it is certainly the opposite.

[ Parent ]
No, I see what you mean. (none / 0) (#281)
by DavidTC on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 01:37:18 PM EST

And I used to think that way. But the state will never get out of the marriage business.

So proposing that it does so, and only have 'civil unions', is basically going to lead to it having marriages for straights and civil unions for gays, or possibly straights can have civil unions also.

Even in an ideal world, where said 'marriages' and 'civil unions' were legally identical, the government would still only call straight unions 'marriages'.

It's a great idea, but it's a 'you can't get there from here' idea. And talking about 'civil unions' is driving everyone down the wrong road, because 'marriage' isn't going anywhere.

The only way I can see toward true equality is that gays push to get 'married'. It doesn't matter if 'civil unions' looks more winnable. If they go down that road, we will be talking about 'people and Negros', or 'people and women' for decades to come.

It's not entirely a legal issue, and many in the gay rights community doesn't seem to be catching that. Win the battle by getting civil unions and you've lost any reason to fight the war for being treated equally. You'll forvever be those people who can't get married.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

It's a fundamental flaw in the system (none / 0) (#283)
by inkieminstrel on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 03:23:47 PM EST

The state is currently deeply entrenched in marriage. Just about every law on the books from the federal to local level refers to it using that word. My point is that they really shouldn't have used that word to begin with for anyone, and it would be nice if they stopped. It may not be the pragmatic solution, but I think it is the right one.

Contrary to what you are saying, I think gay marriage would actually be a side effect of the state getting out of the business of marriage, because if the state had no say in it, then as soon as Bob's House of Homosexual Spiritualism got accredited as a religion, Bob himself could declare a couple married and his words would have just as much weight in society's eyes as those of a Catholic priest.

[ Parent ]
While you are reserving terms (none / 0) (#146)
by hatshepsut on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:45:02 PM EST

how about reserving the terms "husband" and "wife"?

If, by your thinking, a "marriage" only occurs in a church, then surely you want to dedicate the terms "husband" and "wife" for those who get "married".

Give me a break! Since when is a couple (whether hetero or gay, married in a civil ceremony) going to refer to each other as their "civilly united spouse". And why should their union have to be a "civil union" rather than a marriage?

I don't see the big "marriage is for a man and a woman, and civil union is for everyone else". Who cares? (For the record, I was married in a civil ceremony. Church wasn't for us, but having the ceremony for us, and for our families and friends, was something we wanted to do.)

[ Parent ]

His Point (none / 0) (#153)
by virg on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:43:04 PM EST

> Since when is a couple (whether hetero or gay, married in a civil ceremony) going to refer to each other as their "civilly united spouse". And why should their union have to be a "civil union" rather than a marriage?

His point is that the word "marriage" needs to be divested of its legal ramifications, not that it needs to be eliminated. There's nothing preventing two gay people from calling themselves married in his ideal, just that the state doesn't attach legal consequences to the term.

> I don't see the big "marriage is for a man and a woman, and civil union is for everyone else". Who cares?

Currently, insurance companies and the U.S. military "care". That's his point. When the word "married" doesn't carry any legal weight, then everyone will be equal. But right now, there is no civil union one can enter in any state that allows one to be considered a spouse for military benefits (for example). So, if people want to maintain the terms, that's fine, but it's the fact that "married" means something legally that "civilly united" doesn't that drives the debate.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
agreed (none / 0) (#203)
by projectpaperclip on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:56:20 PM EST

my wife and I are "married", but neither of us being religious, we don't particularly care about any of the spiritual or social implications of marriage.

we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together, wanted to make this a legal union, and enjoy all the benefits, rights and obligations as such... whether you call that marriage or civil union is not important, and if same sex couples right to do the same is protected it threatens our relationship in no way whatsover.

leave marriages up to churches, and get the state out of the business altogether.

[ Parent ]

Maybe we need to stop (none / 1) (#207)
by eclectro on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:39:15 AM EST


I think the government's notion of marriage pretty much has to be done away with for everyone to be happy.

Maybe we need to stop trying to "make everyone happy" and come to the realization that "whatever floats your boat is fine" is in fact a very flawed idea of how society should work.

Maybe there needs to be a responsibly to the common good and decide to protect the traditional family structure from which our next generation comes from.

A very unpopular idea on the internet, I know. But it got a buffoon elected as president.

Constitutional amendment for marriage between a man and a woman is the way to go.

Come to the truth that going through life means toes are going to be stepped on. But it's better for the children, which is our next generation.

[ Parent ]

Family structure isn't going anywhere (3.00 / 2) (#212)
by inkieminstrel on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 10:11:29 AM EST

This seems to be a common argument on these types of debates, and I just don't buy it.

If you let gays have a civil union in the way other people do (we'll call that union marriage for brevity), you're not discouraging traditional families from existing, you're not discouraging people from having kids and raising them in a loving environment, and you're not tearing apart existing families.

Simply put, allowing gay marriage is granting rights, not taking them away. Denying gay marriage is restricting rights for the cursory purpose of promoting traditional family structure.

What ticks me off about this whole argument is that people are denying loving couples from committing their lives to each other while accepting farsical marriages elsewhere.

I could hop on a plane to Vegas right now, grab any woman off the street, and get married within an hour of meeting. We would then have all the rights and privileges under the law of a married couple, including sharing benefits. I could then turn around the next day and get it annulled, and those benefits would go away. This happens all the time, and I've never heard of a movement to stop it. In fact, there is no penalty I'm aware of for doing it. In my mind such of a thing does more to destroy the notion of a traditional marriage than a man marrying another man.

What about the case of a couple who wants to marry but never have kids? It's quite common these days. How is that destroy the traditional family structure less than a couple incapable of having kids? Heck, there are gay couples that would adopt, and at least raise a member of the next generation in a loving home, and have something which better resembles the traditional family structure, all the while saving a child from being bounced around foster homes, which can often be abusive or neglectful.

What about a girl who gets knocked up, doesn't marry the father, and has to raise the kid as a single parent? Does that somehow better promote traditional family structure than two gay people committing themselves to each other for life?

In this society, we tolerate and even legally accept divorce, remarriage (multiple times), single parents, and children who live in day care or are bounced between foster homes. In my mind each of these things is far more destructive to the traditional family than gay marriage, so to make a constitutional ban on gay marriage before taking care of these problems is, in my mind, hypocritical.

[ Parent ]
Excellent points (none / 0) (#221)
by generaltao on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:31:04 PM EST

It's hard to argue the validity of what you are saying.

But we mourn the current state of affairs with regard to broken homes, single-parent homes, sham marriages etc.

Can we be blamed for trying to prevent further erosion?

You're right that gay marriage doesn't prevent hetero-marriage.  But that's not the concern. The concern is the broad-spectrum redefinition of social norms.  Social norms are important.

As proof of their importance, you only have to look at how hard certain people are working to change them.


[ Parent ]

Fix the erosion (none / 0) (#224)
by inkieminstrel on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:17:19 PM EST

There are so many things out there that, if you think about it, are far worse for both society and morality than gay marriage.

You don't hear people out there seeking to reform divorce law, or to ban remarriages, or to push us back to a society that can live off of one parent's income so that if you choose, it would actually be financially viable to let one parent stay home and raise a child. All of these things would presumably do way more for preserving the traditional family than banning gay marriages would, yet which one gets a constitutional amendment? Over half of all marriages end in divorce. That's a much bigger and more worthy problem to tackle.

I still think that the absolute best thing that could happen would be for the state to just give up on marriage. Give it back to the church and let them make sure people are doing it for the right reasons. A marriage should never be about tax breaks and benefits anyhow.

[ Parent ]
Right again (none / 0) (#227)
by generaltao on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:41:30 PM EST

You're making sense.  I agree.

But it still doesn't change the fact that social norms (at least as they pertain to relationships) are under attack by the gay movement (among others).

If you think social norms deserve it, then you're on the side of the attackers.  If you don't, then you're not.

Many of the things to which you point reached their current state of affairs slowly.  Shame on social conservatives for not having been more vigilant.

This current thing, however, is more on the order of a revolution.  It's easy to see why there is a reactionary movement.

[ Parent ]

In what way is it revolutionary (none / 0) (#230)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:49:35 PM EST

To say that my relationship, which is every bit as emotionally binding as the relationship of most straight couples I know, ought to be treated the same?

[ Parent ]
Revolutionary (none / 0) (#235)
by generaltao on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:40:00 PM EST

It's revolutionary in that it requires society to separate the concepts of "relationship" from the individuals who make up said relationship.  It forces people to think of relationships in total abstract terms instead of tangible ones.

Once this happens, there is no basis on which to say someone can't have a "fulfilling relationship" with a coffee table.

[ Parent ]

sure there is. (none / 0) (#237)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:53:40 PM EST

Relationships require multiple individuals. :)

[ Parent ]
mmmhhmmm :) (none / 0) (#239)
by generaltao on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 10:08:11 PM EST

I take it you added the smiley because you know your requirement is arbitrary. ;)  What if I said "computer" instead of table?  One day, mark my words. :)


[ Parent ]
I think u've got it dead wrong there ... (none / 0) (#247)
by tilly on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:01 AM EST

Nobody is attacking social norms in this context. If anything, they are embracing the social norms by wishing to be included therein.

I find gay couples who wanna marry a lot more traditional than I am. I am an inveterate bachelor who thinks it may be a good thing to establish a family and live in a family - for somebody else!

All that is being asked for here is an adjustment that recognizes an already-existing situation. Surely not a revolution.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#251)
by cdguru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:29:20 PM EST

What "gay marriage" is asking is not just for homosexual people to be "included in the big family" but for the state to sanction homosexuality. Actually, beyond sanctioning - to go as far as promoting it as a valid lifestyle. This goes against taboos against this that go back to the beginning of the human race.

You see, you don't get "gay marriage" unless you also have the courts, the police, the church and the schools out there defending it and embracing it. For every pro-marriage, pro-family thing that is done today in order for "gay marriage" to be real, it must be embraced in the same way.

Today, it is technically not permitted to discriminate against homosexuals in some contexts. This would need to be extended to all contexts, with the courts as vigorously defending victims of such discrimination as were blacks in the 1970's. The alternative is that "gay marriage" is just a sham without any substance and something that leads to even greater discrimination.

[ Parent ]

Homesexuality is not a religion ... (none / 1) (#265)
by tilly on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:10:57 AM EST

or a cult.

You are not proselytized, recruited or converted into it. Your concerns are overblown and paranoid.

I dont know if anybody else have noted this or not but I think what is really at the bottom of this dispute is the question of whether this is a secular or religious society. I thought that question was settled a long time ago but we have a president now who says one of the qualifications of his position should be the possession of a "special relationship with the Lord". Maybe that is why he is so comfortable sending people to their deaths. They are not really dying; their souls are immortal; why, they are going to heaven!

Hmm, I think I drifted off topic there a bit :)

[ Parent ]

Secular, sure. But... (none / 0) (#279)
by generaltao on Tue Feb 15, 2005 at 12:42:15 PM EST

I think if you asked most people if they thought a secular society was a good idea, they'd say yes.  If you asked them whether America was founded on secular principles, most would say yes.

If you asked people whether they thought that living in a secular society meant they had to abandon the concepts of right and wrong, they would overwhelmingly say NO.

The reason the homosexual thing is such a big deal is that it is a concentrated effort to do one of two things (depending on who you ask).

It is either:

a) Trying to redefine something which has historically been considered "wrong" as something which should be considered "right" (or at least "not wrong")

or

b) Trying to reposition homosexual conduct such that a discussion on whether or not it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Right and wrong, in this secular society, may not be a big deal to everyone, but it's a big deal to alot of people.  And while almost everyone is guilty of doing "wrong" things, most are ashamed of it.  Most don't go around trying to redesign society such that their wrongful acts won't be frowned on anymore.

Shame and scorn have a place in society.


[ Parent ]

Sources? (none / 0) (#282)
by Altus on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 02:53:46 PM EST


"This goes against taboos against this that go back to the beginning of the human race."

would you care to back that up?  there was a time when homosexuality was so common that there wasnt a special name for it... it was simply the way things were.

 

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Social norms (none / 0) (#294)
by Witchey on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 08:44:14 PM EST

But didn't the civil rights movement attack social norms, as well? Just because something is a social norm doesn't make it right. That is hiw we progess as a society: by modifying social norms.

[ Parent ]
Yes. (2.00 / 2) (#229)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:48:45 PM EST

Social norms are important. Right now, the social norm in the gay community is - unfortunately - lack of commitment and promiscuity.

Wouldn't it be good for everyone if that could be changed? Most gay men are never going to be interested in a relationship with a woman. But many of us *are* interested in long-term committed relationships with other men ... you'd think that would be better for society than what we have right now.

[ Parent ]

not among Gays that actually commit... (none / 0) (#232)
by Wain on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:26:18 PM EST

Gays that actually want to commit to one another (via civil union, marriage, or simply having a ceremony where they exchange vows) currently tend to exhibit a higher degree of faithfulness and commitment then the average married straight couple.

Yes if you go the gay clubs you'll run into a lot of promiscuity...so will you if you go to a decent straight club too.


[ Parent ]

Interesting Points (none / 0) (#293)
by dcm266 on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 01:35:58 PM EST

I have to say that I do agree with a lot of what you say. I think the 14th Amendment serves to prevent discrimination on the basis of the conditions of one's birth, and this extends beyond things like race to sexual orientation. From that perspective, I don't think you can deny homosexual couples the right to marry if you believe that the right to marry is indeed a right.

The problem is the Constitution doesn't really mention marriage, so we might have to ask if this qualifies as something the Constitution would protect. Considering the importance of marriage at the time, while it isn't in the Bill of Rights, I think we can reasonably confident that it's something that was meant to be protected.

This having been said, there are things that make this different from other issues that people have brought up on this topic, such as interracial marriage. First of all, if marriage is supposed to be an institution to preserve the stability of the family, we have to accept that obvious reality that homosexual people cannot have children. This is one possible problem. Second, a traditional household has a mother and father, which serve to help and counterbalance each other. It is highly questionable if a homosexual couple would be capable of doing this as well. After all, let's be realistic. They weren't designed to procreate and have children in the same way. Where this comes in is adoption, which is how a homosexual couple could hope to raise a family for the most part. Will the kids be as well off as they would in a more traditional household? That is another issue to consider.

I also think there's a difference between legally recognized unions and marriage. Many of the traditionalists are going to get married in a church anyway most likely, and if their church does not accept homosexual couples of being married, then that is their decision. I think there are valid reasons for this, and religions should be entitled to recognize marriage according to their beliefs, but this doesn't mean that the government has a right to impose religious values on a nation. An attempt to do that would be dangerous, and would only satisfy those of the dominant religion as long as their religion was dominant.

-dcm266

[ Parent ]

How is it better for our children? (none / 0) (#228)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:47:24 PM EST

I am a gay man. I have a long-term partner to whom I am engaged, and with whom I intend to spend the rest of my life. You postulate that it is better for the children of society if I am not allowed to make decisions regarding his medical treatment if he is incapacitated in the hospital.

Please connect the dots for me: how is that better for "the children"?

[ Parent ]

How it is better (none / 0) (#250)
by cdguru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:21:08 PM EST

Well, if you persist in thinking the good of society is encompassed by your views and nothing else, then there is no point in going any further.

Beyond that, society - and yes, "the children" - are going to have some pretty hard decisions to make if we give you "marriage". What this means is that anywhere the government provides any rights or privileges for "married" people, it must provide them for a new class - gays. Many of these are rather controversial, to say the least. Perhaps it will be clearer to enumerate them:

  1. Military service and military housing. You get special treatment if you are married, especially married officers.
  2. Conjugal visits in prisons. Do I really have to get into it?
  3. Spousal support. If you have marriage, you will certainly need divorce, and all of the enforcement that goes with it.
  4. Child custody. It is assumed that when two people are married that they have equal custody of the children. There are special cases where this is not so, but it is rare. It is not going to be treated as a given for gay marriage without some serious litigation.
  5. Adoption. Right now, married people get preferred selection over unmarried people. Gay partners are near the end of the list, below single hetrosexual people.
None of these things are going to be granted without a fight.

The requirements of this will certainly take a Constitutional amendment - otherwise it will be possible for individuals to evade their required duties to provide such services by simply switching states. Imagine if New York didn't enforce child support orders - anyone that got divorced would just move to New York and never have to pay child support. Same thing will be with states that do not recognize gay marriage - spousal support means nothing if the state doesn't recognize the marriage as being legal. Without such an amendment, New York's law is meaningless in Nebraska or Alabama - because we already passed the 1996 Defense of Marriage act.

So how is this bad? Because until there is such a Constitutional amendment that basically says homosexuality is a good thing and the courts are there to punish people for clinging to the old ways, gay marriage will just be a sham. And the amount of change to society to make this happen is incredible - and, in many people's view, very bad.

[ Parent ]

Another thought (none / 0) (#208)
by eclectro on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:45:23 AM EST

Do away with marriage so "everyone is happy." Riiiight. Everyone is happy but social conservatives.

Smart thinking.


[ Parent ]

Legal and social definitions of marriage (none / 0) (#209)
by zakalwe on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:04:23 AM EST

Theres no reason (or possibility) to get rid of marriage. All that needs to be done is to get the govenrment out of the business of recognising marriage, and only be concerned with "civil unions." If marriage is just a social term, Churches can still perform them - it just doesn't affect their legal standing unless they also sign a civil union contract.

Similarly, if someone wants to start a church or other organisation that performs marriages between anyone, they can, and the law doesn't care, because that "marriage" is just a social term. A gay couple can pronounce themselves married with no difference legally to some couple with a church ceremony.

What people recognise such marriages as meaning is a different matter, but that's purely a social matter, not a legal one.

[ Parent ]

Not a good idea (none / 0) (#210)
by eclectro on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:32:06 AM EST

The problem is that gays will still try to get their marriages recognized/performed by the church of their choice, or it's "discrimination" and the church would then lose it's tax-exempt status.

Don't tell me that this won't happen, because there will always be a gay couple ready with a lawsuit who feels that it's their "right" for one reason or another.

But forget that. The legal implications of not recognizing marriage are huge - esp. when it comes to income taxes and children.

Even not considering this, social conservatives would not accept doing away with the formal marriage contract. And remember, there's enough of them to elect an idiot for president.

Really, what it is is a stupid arrogant idea that libertarian netizens fantisize over.


[ Parent ]

Won't happen (none / 0) (#211)
by inkieminstrel on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:31:43 AM EST

Go reread your Bill of Rights and tell me where it says the courts can require a chruch to perform certain ceremonies. There's not a court in the US that would give more than 2 seconds listen to such a case... well, maybe in California. I think you're missing the point, though. The state would still recognize civil unions, it just wouldn't call those unions marriages. The state would be free to give the same benefits as it does now to civil unions. Will the social conservatives go for it? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not the best compromise, it just means that the current majority doesn't want to compromise.

[ Parent ]
Interference or enforcement (none / 0) (#266)
by zakalwe on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 06:55:06 AM EST

The problem is that gays will still try to get their marriages recognized/performed by the church of their choice, or it's "discrimination" and the church would then lose it's tax-exempt status.
But thats a matter between the church and the couple (and one where they don't have anything resembling a case) If marriage is legally meaningless, there's no conflict between church and state in a church using the term or performing those ceremonies.
The legal implications of not recognizing marriage are huge - esp. when it comes to income taxes and children.
Note - I'm proposing that its only the name and associated baggage we're getting rid of. "Legal union" still covers the same various rights etc conferred. The only thing that changes is that it is divorced from the religious and social connotations and restrictions that it carries.
Even not considering this, social conservatives would not accept doing away with the formal marriage contract.
It could go either way depending on how it is perceived - is it removing government endorsement of their religion, or removing government interference?

[ Parent ]
While there at it (1.20 / 5) (#197)
by The Real Lord Kano on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:37:25 AM EST

They mas as well legally mandate that we recognize the existence of Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny.

They're both just as fictitious as a "sam sex marriage". The simple fact is that there is no such thing.

LK

Interesting. (3.00 / 3) (#201)
by aphrael on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:05:49 PM EST

So if I live with a man I'm in love with, and we share finances and have a mutual commitment to stay with each other, and work through whatever problems arise in our relationship, until we die, it's not a marriage. What is it, then? Marriage is the word we'd use if you did it with a woman.

[ Parent ]
Indeed, (none / 0) (#204)
by Unquestionably Irreverent on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:34:16 PM EST

the first thing that I think of when I hear or see the word "marriage", it involves thick goateed faces and ejaculate getting spewed all over the bear-like whiskers.

[ Parent ]
what do you think of? (none / 0) (#206)
by aphrael on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:28:00 AM EST

i usually think of two people who are in love and have committed to sharing their life together.

[ Parent ]
I just told you the first thing I think of. (none / 0) (#233)
by Unquestionably Irreverent on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:32:28 PM EST

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[ Parent ]
Words have meaning (none / 0) (#259)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:55:03 AM EST

So if I live with a man I'm in love with, and we share finances and have a mutual commitment to stay with each other, and work through whatever problems arise in our relationship, until we die, it's not a marriage. What is it, then?

A relationship. A home. A household.

Marriage is the word we'd use if you did it with a woman.

Well, marriage is what it would be if I did that with a woman.

LK

[ Parent ]

Words DO have meaning (none / 0) (#291)
by admdrew on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 03:04:26 AM EST

Marriage is (at its base) is "a close and intimate union," a unification, if you will. What basis do you have for making it specifically between a man and a woman?

Biologically? Conservatives label homosexuality as 'unnatural,' so basing a union such as this on our biological make-up would seem logical. Laws (in the legal sense), however, are not biological; this is why there are different types of laws (physical laws, etc).

Traditionally? Slavery, lynchings, cannibalism, murder, extortion, domestic violence, and a multitude of other less than savory things have been 'traditional' at some point in time in various cultures; attempting to base something legally on a tradition is sophomoric at best, delusional at worst.

At least you'd agree that a household/home/relationship can be between two people of the same sex. :)



[ Parent ]
So, the LAWS of New York are fictious? (none / 0) (#213)
by mikelieman on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 10:25:45 AM EST

The LAWS of the State of New York are VERY CLEAR. The Domestic Relation's Law states that MARRIAGE is a CIVIL CONTRACT. The UCC says a) The UCC is to be applied as liberally as possible and b) gender is irrelevent with respect to the signatories of a contract. Suck it up and deal. It's NOT just a good idea, In NEW YORK, IT'S THE LAW. Are you some sort of ENEMY of America, that you advocate disrecpect of The LAW of New York?
-- I Miss Jerry
[ Parent ]
Enemy? (none / 0) (#258)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 02:52:12 AM EST

Are you some sort of ENEMY of America, that you advocate disrecpect of The LAW of New York?

If you'd like, you can think of me as an enemy of New York State.

LK

[ Parent ]

Enjoy your daze. (1.10 / 10) (#202)
by k24anson on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:13:56 PM EST

Think of the names of the chemicals that starts trickling into the bloodstream of the young human female at puberty. For the next ten, twenty years the hallucinogenic quality of these trickling chemicals builds the sexual identity of this female by developing the idea for this person to like and enjoy the idea of something being put into, and then have this "thing" squirt some stuff into her body. This is the way many little girls grow up to actually like the idea of making babies ..., the reader of this is asked to try to realize the powerful influence an hallucinogenic chemical has to practically force, coerce the female to like and want to act as she does ... to be sexual ... to think it's normal to want to become pregnant as she grows to adulthood.

These same molecules of puberic chemicals that force and coerce the minds of little girls to have thoughts to want to make babies also is found trickling in the bloodstream of many human males. If the guy doesn't understand the hallucinogenic quality of these trickling chemicals at puberty, if this said guy starts playing around in his mind with the attributes of these hallucinogenic chemicals as he goes through his daily walk in life, it shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that this guy now sometimes thinks his anus is a vagina; to sometimes hear the person talk like he thinks he has a woman trapped inside his body. Duh.

Don't anyone reading this think to start talking too loud and in public about any type of hallucinogenic qualities of drugs though. Or if you do think to talk like this expect big time problems from the people who protect our communities. The proliferation of homosexuality in society today is much better than any person's quest for understanding and some meaning of life. I'm trying to say here the average person really doesn't understand in these regards the implications and effects of a drug that's called hallucinogenic. Think about it though. These trickling chemicals ( excuse me here for a second) WERE DESIGNED for the female to "make" them want to do the things, and they now WANT and encourage the things done to them by guys (to propogate the species.) These same chemicals in a guy though, over time ...? some guys do wicked things because of these trickling hallucinogenic chemicals. I mean, ten years from now there will be another report of a little girl sexually mutilated on the side of the road, found strangled in a ditch. Some people already know why these things happen, the vast majority of the populace do not. And why not? Becuase of that word hallucinogenic. The powers that be are mucho scared of what the populace will do should the word hallucinogenic be bantered about. Damned if they do, damned if they don't type of thing.

I gotta go do something else now, I can't talk on this anymore.
KLH
NYC

Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.

Intelligence Quotient (none / 1) (#268)
by atp on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 01:18:20 PM EST

It seems to me that this issue is really just a quick and dirty intelligence test for humans.

P.S. 80% of Americans fail.

Think back a few dozen years.............. (none / 0) (#292)
by Pudgy223 on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 02:40:36 AM EST

Anyone remember inter-racial marriages? These were illegal(and still are in some states)for a great deal of time. We as a society and as a nation had really just begun to accept them into our homes, even though it was deemed unconstitutional to deny an inter-racial couple to marry. It was just something that could not be accepted by some people. Same-sex marriage is the same. I just tell them to wait it out, they will be able to marry someday.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin
Yep, five Amish kids shot to death because ... (none / 0) (#296)
by k24anson on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 09:56:56 PM EST

the guy is sick and tired of the thoughts from these hallucinogenic chemicals. He couldn't think to feel proud being a practicing faggot. So ... one day it is time to see God, and then to ask It what the fuck is going on ...

'Tis life.

And five, ten years from now there will be another kid, or kids done in, and then another, and than others. Cop types know: there are no answers, there are just a few sick people in the world ... every now and then.

But certain types in law enforcement are aware of the cause. No cop who has any balls though cares about someone with a faggot minded mentality, and then to address it correctly by employing the word hallucinogenic in conversation. Hey, most social services in local government are staffed with goofball (Godless) Democratic sissies, so expecting that crowd for serious conversation is not going to happen. For years, decades, both Oprah and Katie Couric types have oh? more titilating politically insightful comments, about Republicans like George W., basically about how incompetent he and his administration are ..., and always are, ... and so it goes. For various reasons, those of prominence and in a position to say and do something, do not. Religous leaders today are clueless, totally irrelevant to rectify anything detrimental in society.

Anyway, law enforcement knows what to do ... after the body is cold. Don't ever forget this: they are heroes ...!

Think about it happening every year, for the rest of your life: the loss of five or ten kids every few months is probably better than having public discussion where the word hallucinogenic is bantered about in conversation, and the psychtropic qualities of certain drugs, chemicals are discussed. Expecially if this type of conversation is taking place around the likes of a crowd with the low IQ mentality of regular Kuro5hin.org forum members. Talking about drugs in a public platform such as Kuro5hin.org only encourages tempting this crowd towards illicit drug use, and then the felonies follow. So if you don't want your tires slashed, or any type of criminal act perpetrated on you by the people who protect your community, keep your mouth shut about anything to do with drug affects. If you don't understand shut up, you will soon. Keep in mind our law enforcement agencies know what is best.

(I gotta laugh here for a moment as I write this ...)

Instead, help keep current the politically correct: keep saying to any male faggot you may know and love that no one knows for sure why they act like a girl sexually, and just be happy putting things in your mouth and butt, and be "proud" when you allow others to do this to you too. Uhm ...? everybody likes watching lesbos right? Ok, so there's no problem with that side of the human ...

Land of the free: so many hapless types; many, many more are the spineless, gutless types.

Those faggot thoughts that are the basis of those wicked acts are because of a natural psychotropic chemical, a drug. And the future villians who should know this fact (probably) never will. Thank the government administrator, the judicial and legislative intellectual bums that this is so.
KLH
NYC

Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.

Gay marriage legal under NY constitution | 296 comments (273 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!